Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's meeting of 05/01/2009 or 2025 open session. First, secretary Huddl Cox, can you please take the role?

Yes. Commissioner Cozart? Here. Commissioner McMahon? Commissioner Stidham? Commissioner Argo? I'm here. Vice chair Hewlett? Here. Chair Goodman? Here. Commissioner Green?

Here.

Commissioner Tunstall Williams? Here. Commissioner Dixon?

Here.

Commissioner Cash?

Present.

If there's no objection, the agenda as posted is adopted as the order of business. And can we please now stand and say the pledge of allegiance? I pledge of allegiance to the flag of The United States Of

America and

to the republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Agenda item number two is report of the chair. And today, I have the pleasure of announcing Julia Coster's retirement. Sorry. I know.

I I felt like I should say the lament of Julia Coster's retirement. She has been an instrumental part of the National Capital Planning Commission for the last twenty two years. After beginning as an assistant to the executive director, she became the director of policy and research from 02/2009, where she tackled several initiatives, including capital space, workforce housing, federal triangle flooding, the mall levy projects and updates to the comprehensive plan. Julia worked excuse me. Julia then spent two years as the director of intergovernmental affairs and worked on St.

Elizabeth's economic development opportunities with the district and other federal agencies. She has also been detailed to HUD for planning work and the DC council to assist with the adoption of the comprehensive plan. Julia is best known, however, for her twelve years as NCPC's director of public engagement, where she led a team that flawlessly handled all of NCPC's outreach, including our beautiful website materials and reports, public meetings and media inquiries. She set a high bar for all of the work that bears our commission's name, and we are grateful to her attention to detail and her planning expertise. During seven of these years as director of public engagement, Julia also served as the commission secretary.

And this is how I and how many of us came to know Julia and to appreciate her and her skills so much. In addition, I just wanna say that as chair of NCPC and on behalf of my fellow commissioners, I wanna recognize your exemplary career in public service and your role in service to our nation. And to everyone at this table and to those who came before us and those who all are grateful for your work. So thank you, Julia. You've served the community, the district, and our country with distinctions.

You've also exemplified exceptional leadership, exceptional proficiency in public engagement and collaboration, and you are valued as a colleague by your peers and a mentor by this commission. By other local and federal partners, you have been called a leader and by NCPC staff and the members of the wider DC community. I'm very grateful that I have been able to work with you, grateful for your patience and guidance, and grateful for the orientation you provided me as I assumed this role. But mostly, I'm grateful to call you friend. I just wanna say as the wonderful Fred Rogers said, we live in a world in which we need to share responsibility.

It's easy to say, this is not my child. This is not my community. This is not my world. This is not my problem. And then there are those who see the need, who see their role, and they respond with service. I consider these people my heroes. Julia, you're one of my heroes. Thank you, and stay in touch, please. And I'd also like to pass, the gavel and the floor to Evan who also worked with Julia.

Yeah. I just wanna thank Julia so much. Some of you might not remember, but we actually shared Julia for, I think, over three years, right before the pandemic and then into the pandemic. Julia was single handedly responsible for wrangling all 13 council members to unanimously adopt the comprehensive plan that had been sent over to us by commissioner Cozard and and Hershop. I mean, I I can't even imagine how we would have done that without you, especially running into the pandemic. It everything took longer than we thought it would, but you did a a masterful job in making sure that the DC government has its own comprehensive plan. I don't know what we're gonna do now that we're starting the the new phase, but I hope that you will at least pay attention, stay involved, and and give any comments you might have and if and and pick up the phone if we ever have a question. But, I can't thank you enough from the council's profess perspective. So thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Cash. And we wanna just say thank you and best

of luck in your next adventure, but do do stay in touch. Thank you. Item agenda item number three, Marcel report from the executive director, Marcel. Acosta.

Thank you, chair Goodman, and I'm gonna report on here. On behalf of the NCPC staff, I'd also like to express our gratitude and best wishes to Julie Coster on her well deserved retirement. Julia, as the chair mentioned, has dedicated, over two decades to this commission. And as she as the chair has rightly pointed out, her accomplishments reflect her commitment and her expertise and service to our nation and our city. And I know that many of you have worked with Julia as secretary in her position as secretary, but a lot of Select take this opportunity to, kind of point out her, career as an exceptional urban planner.

Mhmm.

And her final project on flooding and its impact on the federal footprint showcases her ability to manage complex issues and also collaborate with a variety of stakeholders out there. And I I've told her this, but she's one of the best, planners out there, and we were very lucky to have her here, working at NCPC. So while we certainly miss Julia, we wish her all the best. And that concludes my report today, and I'd like to just, let you know that my full report's in your packet.

Thank you, Marcel. And I do have a comment. No. I think this most recent, task that Julia, took an assignment from you on flooding in

the

district is going to prove to be very helpful sometime in the future. But I do wanna recognize the complex nature of the tasks she's willing to take on, and I'm grateful for your leadership and Julius in that in that regard. So thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? Hearing none, agenda item number four is the legislative update from Megan Fox.

I don't have any legislation to report on this month, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Megan. Do commissioners online have any questions or comments? Commissioners in the chambers? Hearing none, agenda item number five, as we have a quorum. I'll call a little meeting to order. Is, the consent calendar. There's one item on this month's consent calendar that that is to approve the final master plan for the joint base Anacostia Bowling Honor Guard campus area development plan. Are there any questions or discussions on the consent calendar from commissioners online or in the chambers? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I'm Second. Been moved, by commissioner Dixon and seconded by vice chair, Hewlett. Thank you. Now can the secretary please confirm the motion? And the second will take the vote.

Yes. The motion was made by commissioner Dixon and seconded by vice chair Hewlett. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Yes. We didn't. Vice chair Hewlett? Yes. Chair Goodman? Yes. Commissioner Green?

Yes.

Commissioner Tunstall Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes. Motion has carried. Agenda item number six a is a request to approve comments on concept plans for Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway multi modal safety and operational improvements plan. And Michael Weil is giving the presentation today. Michael?

Good afternoon, chair Goodman and members of the commission. The National Park Service plans on permanently eliminating the reversible lanes along the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, and this change will require the applicant to make physical improvements to five different sites in Rock Creek Park as reflected in the plan before us here today. As this is a concept review, we are commenting on issues like plan consistency, any unique or complex issues, alternative concepts, and this is generally an opportunity for our commission to comment early in the planning process similar to other recent concept reviews by our commission involving the Poplar Point master plan and the Tidal Basin development concept plan. Today, the Rock Creek And Potomac Parkway operates with peak period reversible lanes, allowing traffic to travel southbound into the city using all four lanes between seven and 9AM in the morning and with all four lanes used for northbound traffic between four and 6PM in the afternoon. And the parkway operates with two way traffic during all other nonpeak weekday and weekend times and on holidays.

The purpose of the project is to improve visitor and park police safety, to minimize vehicle congestion, streamline operating costs, and to extend the useful life of the Parkway Corridor, which includes the adjacent Rock Creek Trail, and to do this in a manner that is sympathetic to the scenic and historic character of the park. For context, the parkway runs roughly north south through Rock Creek Park, which was created by an act of congress in 1890. Rock Creek Park encompasses over 1,700 acres, and the park is visited by over 2,000,000 people annually for its natural setting and to enjoy the park's many recreational amenities such as its golf course, equestrian trails, tennis center, hiking trails, and multiple playground and picnic areas. The Park Service originally opened the parkway in 1936 as a recreational corridor to connect Washington DC's Monumental Core, the National Zoo, and land within the park itself. The parkway was designed to surround motorists in a secluded forest setting with views of the valley's natural landscape.

The Park Service is currently conducting an environmental assessment for their multimodal safety and operational improvements plan, which currently is in its scoping period, and this period lasts through May 17. In advance of the EA, the Park Service developed the plan's proposed improvements based on a preliminary traffic study, which was completed by the US Department of Transportation's Volpe Center back in January 2024. And before I walk you through the Park Service plan, I would like to note that NCPC is participating in the EA study as a cooperating agency since our commission would have an approval authority and NEPA responsibility for all future projects that come out of this plan. And, also, I would like to note here that our review role focuses on the plans, proposed physical improvements to the Parkway, Park, and Rock Creek Trail rather than on any future operational traffic changes, and we note these points in our executive director's comments. So here's a map of the plan's five improvement sites.

Three of these areas involve intersection improvements, and the other improvement areas are linear, consisting of a new raised 0.8 mile median section along the parkway, and the other site is a 0.8 mile section of Rock Creek Trail located adjacent to the parkway, and the plan shows a proposal to repave and widen this section of trail. Starting with the northernmost site, Shoreham Drive and Cathedral Avenue merge with Beach Drive to form the Parkway near the Woodley Park and Cat Kalorama neighborhoods. This area currently consists of multiple ramps and a t intersection and several yield and stop signs for traffic control. Today, the Park Service must physically install and remove temporary traffic barriers here 10 times each week, Monday through Friday, as they transition this area between the peak period, reversible lanes and off peak lane operations. And this diagram shows the Rock Creek Trail crossing over Shoreham Drive, and the trail here is heavily utilized by bicyclists, pedestrians and joggers and other park users.

And at this point, the park service anticipates no changes to the trail network through here. In the future, the park service would install a new roundabout with the intent of creating a safer environment for motorists by minimizing high impact crashes, slowing vehicular speeds and by reducing turn conflicts. And this improvement would help enable the Parkway conversion to permanent two way traffic flow through the area. However, Park Service submission clarifies ultimate size of the new roundabout may change depending on the results of additional traffic modeling, and the roundabout could impact nearby historic and cultural park resources. So for this area, we note the possibility of using the new roundabout for future commemoration and also as a useful visual cue for Rock Creek Park users, and we recommend careful study of the roundabout operation since these can still be challenging for trail user street crossings.

And sometimes roundabouts can require additional traffic control measures, and we want to make sure that any additional flex posts, signage or traffic signals associated with the new roundabout are appropriately accounted for in the environmental assessment and Section 106 reviews, and we reflect these points in our comments. Here's the second improvement area, a 0.8 mile section of Parkway as it passes under the P Street Bridge. And here, the Park Service proposes to replace the double yellow painted median line with a new raised median barrier. While the painted median is necessary for our re reversible lane operations, the proposed raised median would create a safer environment for motorists by reducing the risk of head on and sideswipe crashes along this section of the parkway, which can be challenging to drive through with its access ramps and limited sight distance issues. The Park Service submission clarifies that the new median may require a slightly wider parkway, and the new barrier could impact nearby historic and cultural resources as well.

We recommend a future median that is based on a balance of functionality and aesthetic considerations, and the Park Service should use quality materials and model the new median on other successful applications in the city, such as existing, the existing stone median along Military Road in Northwest Washington, DC. The third improvement site is a 0.8 mile section of Rock Creek Trail situated adjacent to the parkway. And here, the trail is currently only about five feet wide. And as shown in the photos, the trail's pavement is uneven and cracked in areas. The plan shows a wider trail section up to a maximum of 12 feet so as to create a safer travel environment for its users.

And the wider cross section would match other existing Rock Creek Trail sections in the area. However, ultimately, the final trail width will be determined based on additional design work and informed through the EA and Section 106 study processes. Specific specifically, the Park Service describes a number of benefits to a wider trail, such as reducing trail user conflicts, reducing the risk of users entering the parkway and the park user experience benefits. However, the wider trail may impact nearby historic resources, cultural landscapes, vegetation, soils and utilities. In our comments, we note the trail improvement is consistent with a number of our comprehensive plan policies related to multimodal travel, access and promoting recreational opportunities on federal parkland.

However, we also caution that additional information is still needed so that the final trail width will balance the needs of its users with minimizing its impact to park to the park resources and natural environment. Moving further to the south, the parkway's intersection with Virginia Avenue is the plan's fourth improvement site. This intersection currently operates as a four way signal controlled intersection with DDOT control over the Virginia Avenue approach and Park Service control over the Parkway approaches. And so the Park Service and DDOT will need to work together to implement any future potential intersection improvements here. This diagram shows how the intersection currently operates during peak and off peak periods with temporary barriers installed in different locations by the US Park Police.

The Rock Creek Trail currently runs along the west side of the intersection between the Parkway and the Thompson Boat Center parking lot. And here, the Park Service Plan shows two different intersection improvement concepts, concept A and concept B, and both of these would add capacity to the parkway's southbound lanes in order to better accommodate left turning traffic through here. Concept a would add one new southbound lane to the parkway to enable a dedicated left turn lane at the intersection. And then concept b would add two new lanes for even more left turning traffic capacity here. Concept a would not require any changes to the Rock Creek Trail alignment through here, whereas concept b would require the trail to be relocated to the west in order to make room for the additional parkway lanes, and this would likely impact existing vegetation along the trail.

And we reflect this key difference between the two concepts in our comments. In addition, we note that intersection is located near a potential future commemoration site as identified in our memorials and museums master plan, and therefore, we recommend that the applicant work to minimize any potential conflicts to this potential two ms site through the ongoing environmental assessment process. So here's the fifth and final improvement site, an area that consists of a series of merging ramps that weave together, Ohio Avenue, the E Street extension and the Rock Creek And Potomac Parkway near the Lincoln Memorial. This area is currently controlled through a series of yield and stop signs with no today. There are currently no formalized trail connections across Ohio Drive for safe access between the National Mall and Potomac Riverfront areas and the Rock Creek Trail to the South.

As shown in these peak and off peak traffic flow diagrams, this area can be

a The

impact pandemic and all of these would add a new trail connection across Ohio The Drive. Concept A does not include any noticeable changes to the existing roadway network. However, the Park Service would install two new traffic signals along with the new Ohio Drive trail connection. Concepts B and C include new T intersection configurations with an east west alignment in concept B and a north south oriented alignment shown in concept c. Both of these reconfigurations would have new traffic signals and the new trail connection.

And then here's the fourth concept, a new roundabout with new signage, and this concept may also have new signalization as well based upon the results of the environmental assessments traffic study. All these concepts would be compatible with ending reversible lane operations along the parkway, and all of the concepts are intended to create safer travel environments through this area. Concepts B, C and D would involve intersection reconfigurations, resulting in new green space in the area. However, these concepts may also impact nearby historic and cultural resources in the park. As part of our comments, we do include a finding that the Park Service Plan is consistent with several goals from the 2009 Monumental Core Framework Plan and also the Foggy Bottom area study related to improving multimodal accessibility.

And none of the Park Service plan concepts would preclude a larger scale effort to remit the city here in the future and to better connect the National Mall and Potomac Riverfront areas. Since this is still very early in the Park Service's EA process, we encourage the Park Service to consider best management practices and to look at other successful examples of traffic calming elsewhere in the region. And we also support additional traffic analysis in order to assess each of the plan concepts in coordination with DDOT and other interested agency and public stakeholders. And we recommend additional coordination through the NEPA and Section 106 study processes as well as additional coordination with the district's Department of Energy and Environment to ensure that these plan improvements would comply with district stormwater regulations and that any potential impacts to nearby water resources are successfully mitigated. So with that, that concludes my presentation.

All of these comments are included in our staff report to the commission, and many of these comments have also been incorporated into today's presentation. And with that, I would like to note that we do have three Park Service representatives here with us today virtually. First, we have Brian Joyner, who is the superintendent for Rock Creek Park, and he would, now like to, make a statement on behalf of the project. And then we also have two other, Park Service staff members who are also available for questions and comments by the commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. Superintendent Joyner, would you like to say a few words?

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. Again, I'm Brian Joyner, superintendent of Rock Creek Park. I'm also here, representing the National Park National Mall And Memorial Parks, which also manages portions of the Rock Creek And Potomac Parkway. I thank you for allowing me some time to address you today about the parkway's multimodal safety operational improvement plan.

As we discuss the improvements to the Rock Creek And Potomac Parkway, it's important to highlight how this project aligns with the National Park Service's mission to provide safe and accessible experiences for all visitors while preserving our natural and cultural resources. These enhancements not only promotes visitor safety, but also support our national transportation strategy goals by ensuring that our infrastructure remains in a state of good repair. This project is a great example of partnership between Rock Creek Park and the National Mall in carrying out a mission and achieving our shared goals. By eliminating the reversible operations and improving access for pedestrians and cyclists, we are reinforcing our commitment to enhancing the overall visitor experience while doing so in a manner that is sensitive to the scenic historical character of Rock Creek Park Corridor. Ensuring that the integrity of the park's natural and cultural resources are maintained.

We understand that this is of great importance to the commission and to planning efforts around the city, and we have extended the public comment period through May 17, allowing for ample time to review a comment for all. Thank you so much for the opportunity for me to speak today. And with that, I turn it back to you.

Thank you very much, superintendent Joyner, and thank you, Michael Weil. And before we move to commission commissioner comments, we have some special guests here today. But do the commissioners have any specific questions for Michael or superintendent Joyner before we move on to our guests? Alright. No questions. So could we now have public testimony? And we have three people signed up. We have Edward Comer. You're testifying on behalf of the advisory neighborhood commission two a, and you will have five minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready. Oh, he's online. I see. Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. Mister Komer.

Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. Thank you. Advisory commission, thank you for inviting me to this. ANC two a is responsible for two major elements of Rock Creek Parkway. The intersection with Virginia Avenue and the proposed changes with Ohio Drive closer to the Lincoln Memorial.

My statement today will focus almost exclusively on the Virginia Avenue Intersection and neighboring roads. But first, I wanna clarify our our our position on the overall proposal. We we are not taking a position on the proposal to end one way rush hour traffic. We're assuming it may happen, but that's not our not our position. We support the addition of a median and we support the trail improvements between K And P Streets.

Our biggest concern is the Virginia Avenue Intersection. Whether or not one way rush hour traffic is eliminated, it is a very dangerous intersection, both for car vehicles and for pedestrians. It probably almost certainly needs one or two more lanes going south and additional left turn lanes. But what's important is those lanes feed into Virginia Avenue and then into a complex series of intersections involving the access to the Potomac Freeway, 20 Seventh Street, I Street, and K Street. Those interceptions were shown on slide 21 of the excellent presentation that you just saw.

Those intersections I'm talking about 20 Seventh Street, I Street, K Street, and the Potomac Freeway were all identified in the Volpe study, which was again mentioned earlier in the presentation as intersections of great concern. Our worry is they are already highly congested. They lack adequate safety signs. They lack adequate lane measurements, lane lane identification. We had a sign that got knocked down a year ago that has not yet been replaced.

And we're worried that if we get more traffic turning on to Virginia Avenue from Rock Creek Parkway, we're just gonna move the congestion and the safety concerns from the parkway to that what I'll call the Square 1 area. Because, ironically, this area all surrounds Square 1 in the district. The first square identified by Pierre L'Enfant when he designed the district. These intersections begin less than seven car lengths from the one that you're talking about Rock Creek Parkway. But they're not identified or studied in the scoping study.

I attended a session about a year ago with the park service and I I never heard interest, and they said they were gonna coordinate with DDOT. I have talked to DDOT. They have said, well, maybe there's you know, they've given some comments, but there's no material now in the public record that identifies, one, what the implications are for this nearby area. And probably what's more important is how do we resolve any problems before they occur. Okay.

I'm not asking your organization to resolve those problems. And I'm glad to see in the presentation that the suggestion is that the park service needs to work together with DDOT. That's what I think is important. And I would like to urge your commission to urge that not only that occur, but that the scoping materials and studying materials that are made available to the public include not just the materials and impacts on Rock Creek Parkway, which is NPS jurisdiction, but on these other streets that are DDOT jurisdiction. Traffic doesn't understand the jurisdictional barriers.

People walking across streets, 20 Seventh Street is a street that you cannot safely walk down as a pedestrian right now. None of those things identify jurisdictional boundaries that that are important to agencies. And we need a analysis document that covers both issues. With that, I'll set. Open to any questions, please.

Thank you very much, mister Comer. Yeah. It's very, solid, input. We appreciate it. Are there any questions? Hearing none. Our second speaker today is mister Dale Barnard. And is it Barnard or Barnard? Close enough. Okay. Barnard. You, are testifying on behalf of the Foggy Bottom Future Incorporated, and you'll have five minutes to provide your testimony. Thank you for coming. Welcome, and, please feel free to proceed to the podium.

How do do? We put together Foggy Bottom Future as a vehicle for supporting the development of this area that is pretty much in the middle of where the section that Ed Comer identified. And so I have a a brief statement about it that from from the perspective of of our group, which is meant to support the development of that area is is is what our goal is, and that's why we're here today. So I'll read this because it's it's fairly brief. Foggy Bottom Futures, an organization set up to support the much needed makeover of the southern portion of the area that NPS Transportation Impact Statement completed by USDOT's Volpe Center seeks to address.

While the impact statement addresses many concerns, it does not adequately address how to rebalance private auto use with pedestrian micro transit, public transit modalities, and reconnecting the grid in future development of the area. The reconnection of the city grid with the Potomac Waterfront, including Kennedy Center, the Northwestern edge of Foggy Bottom, the expansion of the National Mall, and reconfiguration of the Roosevelt Bridge access as contemplated in the recent NCPC and ULI studies in 2024 need to be addressed in anything that the NPS does regarding this area. Foggy Bottom Future has applied for a planning grant for this area through USDOT's Reconnecting Neighborhoods program, which will be awarded this year. So the our our application is still in process along with others that you know, and it's a competitive competitive process. To this end, we we propose the following.

Convert the parkway back to two way operations as soon as possible. So we support what the NPS wants to do with that. De minimis changes for the time being to allow the reversion to two way operation. So in other words, all of the various improvements that they have, although we appreciate their spirit, they are completely insufficient in as far as addressing the kinds of traffic issues and ingress and egress from the area as commissioner Comer pointed out. And then the third being put together a public private partnership to work with the federal government to support the makeover of this area.

We have provided a preliminary sketch on a possible traffic solution for the Northwest section that would eliminate the problematic intersection of Virginia Avenue Northeast, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, 20 Seventh Street Northwest, I Street Northwest, and K Street Northwest. This would allow for the future demolition of the two down ramps that will allow for the cap over the Potomac River Freeway and the reconnection of Foggy Bottom with the waterfront. The problem of balance is lacking in mid twentieth century freeway design and must be addressed. What's been created is a DMZ down there that is safe neither pedestrians, bicyclists, or automobiles. And as such, there's also we've created a transit desert down there.

So that that doesn't that doesn't work very well. The third point is the restoration of the L'Enfant plan Vista Street that would allow a direct sight line from where the Thompson Boathouse parking lot terminus is with the Washington Monument. And so in order to do that, you're gonna have to do a lot more than adding a couple of lanes there to accommodate traffic flow. And so that's pretty much it. That's that's where we stand.

My my brother has some other testimony that includes some illustrations that we were talking about, and that's where we stay. We we back up, for the most part, commissioner Comer's comments. We wanna see it two way again, but we don't wanna see the kinds of improvements they've suggested until we've gotten a much better look at this because there's some profound things that need to be done there. And just a few lanes on the parkway ain't it.

Done. Thank

thank you thank you very much, mister Barnhart. Appreciate your comments today. Questions? We'll move on to the next speaker, and that is Gary Barnhart. And you are testifying on behalf of the Barnhart Family LLC, and you will have five minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed when you are ready, mister Gary Barnhart. Thank you for coming, and welcome.

Wanna thank the NCPS chair and commissioners for this opportunity to testify in support of the project six a action item with the caveat that the project scope needs to be rethought? While I have specific suggestions regarding this matter that I will address, some context is necessary. My name is Gary Pierce Barnhart. I'm the youngest of three sons to Mary Ruby Barnhart, born at doctor's Hospital on I Street of all things, fourth generation Washingtonian. I'm the managing member of the Barnhart Family LLC, which owns the only private property on Square 5 of the city.

My connection to complex infrastructure planning is significant. As a robotic space systems engineer, I had the honor and privilege of helping to build the most expensive and complex piece of real estate infrastructure our species has ever constructed, the International Space Station. My concerns about the proposed Project 6a scope are that the planning process needs to focus on fostering and managing outcomes rather than being misdirected by ill considered half measures or being subsumed by interminable processes. This concern can likely be best expressed through an example. A long time ago, in a great city that some believe is in a galaxy far, far away, some of the most desirable land for development was offered to the gods of freeway development with a fervent hope that traffic would flow and a plethora of benefits would befall the inhabitants.

Alas, what reality and passage of time have wrought has proven far less sanguine. What is known as Square 5 has, for over fifty years, languished as a set of three nondescript townhouses stranded in a sea of failed traffic intersections bisected by a collection of freeway ramps, leaving effectively all the remaining ground unusable and inaccessible. The magnitude of the lost opportunity to the city comes into focus with the fate of Square 5 is considered in the context of the available property in the adjacent squares. The 19 parcels combined totable development of a land area is approximately 500,000 square feet. To put this in perspective, the potential aggregation of parcels is larger than the entire Watergate Complex coming in at approximately 40 435,000 square feet.

This situation is presented not as a personal lament for resources wasted over many real estate cycles, but as an example of process failure and the need to fix how the respective planning bodies, the federal government and the city orchestrate fine grained development opportunities, particularly those at larger scale. To date, no reliable mechanism has been established that allows large scale development projects in the city to progress along a deterministic timeline. Even the most well coordinated planned urban development seem to be resolved through court action rather than a negotiated confluence of interests that ensures the best out possible outcomes for the city and its inhabitants. The failure to achieve these objectives will result in ad hoc development, which is far less optimal for all stakeholders. So returning to our opening example, should we wait for the future of whatever comes or should we lend our efforts to architecting the future we wish to see come to pass?

I recommend the latter and request that the NCPC support the approval of Project 6A rescope to be part of a coordinated and collaborative fine grained planning effort aimed at achieving the best outcome for the impacted area. As promised, we have specific suggestions that outline the proposed rescoping of the planning area for Project 6a, the key areas of focus, the general considerations, and the broader context of the original plan for Washington DC. You know, the partial perspective is shown in figure one, you know, covering the proposed planning envelope, and it attempts to illustrate the potential site envelope in a nonprescriptive manner. The figure shows both the extents of the proposed planning area and draws out the key focus points that we feel that need to be addressed in the 6A rescoped plan. We lay out the following focal points.

The each of the Potomac River Freeway interchange ramps should be included in the effort. There are five of them. Secondly, the planning effort should include the road beds for 20 Seventh Street and between L and Virginia and the 2600 Block Of I Street. The planning effort should include the following structures, which include our properties, the campus living boathouse, the, you know, the gas stations, and the, metro, substation. The planning effort should also create a new intersection between K And 26 and that there are various Rock Creek Parkway routing adjustments that could make a material difference in the flow of the traffic and address all of the intersections, which will show up in the, you know, second diagram that's made available.

And in terms of general considerations, the rework may consist of moving, decking, widening, and intersection functionality. Cost and functionality must be explicitly traded to allow for comparison of the options. Thank you very much, you know, for the opportunity, to speak, and we're happy to, provide additional details, and we encourage the commissioners to visit the foggybottomfuture.org website. Thank you all very much.

Thank you very much, mister Barnhart. We appreciate you coming. And are there any questions, at this time from the commission? If not, we'll move to our, comments from the commission. Thank you. Thank you all. And thank you very much for coming. Alright. This concludes public testimony. And I wanna thank them thank all of our guests today for speaking both online and in person. Is there a motion to approve comments on concept plans for the Rock Creek And Potomac Parkway multimodal safety and operational improvement plan? So moved. Thank you. It's been moved. Second.

But thank you very much. It's been moved by 10 commissioner Stidham, and it's been seconded by vice chair Hewlett. I'm now going to open up the floor for discussion. And is is, with if everyone's ready, I'm gonna start with comments from commissioner Stidham.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation, and thank you to those who came to speak about the project. You know, I think that, it's often forgotten why Red Creek and Potomac Parkway came to be. There was a concern about protection of the creek when sewage was being dumped raw sewage was being dumped into it. So the commission decided that there needed to be protection of the creek, and not only protection of the creek, but also a means by which to get from the zoo, downtown.

And this pleasure drive, which was created at that had ample room on either side to provide a a proper setting for what is to be a parkway and a grand entrance into the city. And over the years, it has become quite the commuter route, I think, as everyone has agreed.

Yeah.

But it's not safe. It's extremely expensive operationally, to have park police out there twice a day, every day to make these changes. It's not safe for them either. It doesn't function well traffic wise, and there needs to be some changes. And we are not jumping into this, without proper research and modeling and coordination with the DC Department of Transportation.

We have spent a considerable amount of time coordinating with them to ensure the changes that we're proposing don't affect neighborhoods, don't snarl traffic, and that this continues to be an entrance to the city that protect the resources of the park, both cultural and natural, but also, provide a means to get in and out of the city in a wonderful way and for citizens to move through the city. If you were ever caught in Georgetown when the traffic was going opposite the way you really needed to be, then you were narrowing your way through those tiny little streets where, you know, traffic doesn't need to be. So this will help resolve that. And so that's we're we will continue to work with DDOT, on these intersections, to help them alleviate with small changes to ensure that we're not chart causing any impacts, and, just to be sure that our design, is the best that it can be, for everyone involved.

Thank you very much, commissioner Stinem. Commissioner Argo.

I don't have, any additional comments. It's an interesting I appreciate particularly commissioner, comments. I was gonna say something else, and now I don't remember what it was. But I think we need to move on. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Argo, vice chair Hewlett.

Yes. First of all, thank you, mister Weil, for your presentation and superintendent Joyner. Also, for the folks who've the Barnhart's who've attended today and mister Comer who attended virtually. I'd like thank you for bringing the comments and concerns about the transportation and and traffic concerns to our attention because this the whole purpose of this is to improve transportation safety for vehicles, for cyclists, and for pedestrians while still preserving the historic aspect. And so and and particularly for the park police as well.

That is dangerous. And thank you, commissioner Steadman, for your comments. I'm glad to hear. I know when we read everything, I know there was a emphasis on consultation with the US Department of Transportation, but I also hear that you're we are working with the District Of Columbia, DDAT. So that's important.

And I think it's imperative to recognize that this is just the concept plan. And so all of these things will be fine tuned further as commissioner Stidman in indicated. And so I think, it will come together, basically, with with all the concerns that are in the report today, the concerns that we are raising today, the concerns that we've heard today, and then it will be fine tuned further. So that those are my only comments because I too am concerned about the any other transportation issues that we may be causing while trying to fix some. Thank you.

Thank you very much, vice chair Hewitt. Commissioner Green. I think you're on mute, commissioner Green.

There we go. How about that?

Yeah. It works. Thank

you. No. I I appreciate the presentation, and and I especially appreciate the comments of the three citizens who spoke today and just hope that they're brought in as part of this process. They may already have been. But I hope that those those perspectives become part of the planning process as it moves forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you, commissioner Green. Commissioner Tunstall Williams?

Yes. Thank you for the presentation, and thank you, the Park Service, for looking at this issue. I am a resident that lives up near there, and it is a pain in the neck, both from the remembering what what time does it start?

When do I have

to go? But also just the bottleneck, particularly at at both the big intersections at either end are really a challenge for people that live along there and wanna get in and out or move through the city. So I think hugely important, but I do agree with mister Comer and their brothers Barnhart about the importance of what happens once you get off. And and I know it's outside the scope of your project, but to the extent that you can deal with DDOT, I think. And some of it is you, like, going north onto Beach Drive, going from two lanes into one.

That's that massive bottleneck that you can spend twenty minutes sitting in or be a jerk and go all the way up the top and cut over. So things that you can do for that as well as the sort of mixing bowl that is there, by the gas stations, I I would support, whatever the Park Service can do to connect with DDOT to sort of further the scope of the project. But, otherwise, I think it's a great effort and and a much needed one.

Thank you very much, commissioner Tunstall Williams. Commissioner Dixon.

First of all, as always, we appreciate the fine work of the staff and the great presentation. I always do. Well, I made that comment. Also, I think this is a real complex situation here. Like many of us here, I've used it one way, the two ways, and all the wrong way when you need to go someplace. But, so I think it's complicated, and it's being looked at very thoroughly. I think all the right eyes are on it. And I think the Barnhart's need to definitely be brought into play because they they've made a family investment in this. I only regret that the space the station, you had a lot of space to work with. We don't have a lot of space to work with here, so we have to do our best.

So keep up the good work. I'm happy to see it go forward, and, it's great. I'll I would like to be sure, though, that the transportation beyond these spaces, the lights and all, when you get up around, further up, up park, that the flood of traffic that we'll now feel will be accommodated with lights that may be timed differently. I'm always impressed when I just go down to my home in Virginia and come back some nights. The lights don't stop you if nobody's coming the other way. They freeze. They just keep going green. And I'm not sure we can go that far, but timing of the lights would be very useful, I think, in this. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, commissioner Dixon. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cash?

No. Thanks so much for the presentation. I mean, my primary concern is that there's a lot of good work between DDOT and Park Service and making sure that that this doesn't have any negative impact on on the rest of the transportation system. And it sounds like that's the case. So I look forward to to the project moving forward and with that in mind.

Thank you very much, commissioner Cash. Commissioner Cozart.

Wanna thank staff for the great presentation and the work on this project, and appreciate how, National Park Service is working with Department of Transportation about this. I don't have any further comments.

Thank you, commissioner Cozar. And and I hear one more thing over here from

One thing I Williams. I forgot to mention, and, I I believe I heard, but I wanna confirm. The traffic study was done in January 2024. Are you looking at redoing that based on the return to office and all of that that's going on? The traffic on the Parkway is markedly different, I think, than it was in January 2024.

We've already done that. We are sure that we've incorporated any and all return to office into our traffic modeling to ensure that we are, properly characterizing the traffic. Great. Thank you. And I hope you're not one of those zipper folks.

I am not. I I go the other way.

I watch them, then I get angry at them.

Thank you, commissioner Stidham and commissioner Tunstall Williams. And unless there are any further comments from the commission, I will close by just saying, again, thank you to staff, and thank you. We always appreciate input from residents and citizens of of the area. We appreciate your coming here both online and in person and and commenting today. We do wanna thank the National Park Service for submitting these concept plans for review.

The Rock Creek Park is a jewel in the park service system and in Washington DC. It serves many masters from open recreation open and recreational space to wildlife habitat, and it is a multimodal corridor. The goals of the project are laudable particularly to improve access to all users. As the planning advances, it's gonna be very important as many have stated that MPS continues to coordinate with stakeholders, residents, as well as DDOT. And I certainly, you know, want to encourage that that work to continue.

And I look forward to seeing how the plans develop, as this engagement continues over the next several months. I don't live here. I don't drive here. But I know that it doesn't matter where you are in this country that old older transportation systems come into conflict as as time passes with new uses and multimodal transportation users and also with the limited space that they were originally built in. So I do encourage you to, you know, continue to work together because it's probably more difficult than a space station is my mind and my mind. So but thank you. Thanks to everyone. Are there any further comments or questions? Hearing none, can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second take the roll call?

The motion was made by commissioner Stidham and seconded by vice chair Hewlett. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice chair Hewlett? Yes. Chair Goodman? Yes. Commissioner Green?

Yes.

Commissioner Tunstall Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes. Thank you very much, Megan. The rule or the motion has carried. Agenda item 6B is a request to approve comments on concept plans for Capital 1 Arena improvements. Jamie Her is making the presentation today. Welcome, Jamie.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Alright. Thanks for calling. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Goodman and commissioners. The District Of Columbia deputy mayor for planning and economic development, along with Monumental Sports and Entertainment and their design team, have submitted concept plans for review and comment by the commission. Overall, staff recommends the commission approve the comments in the executive director's report that I will also review in this presentation. The applicant initiated a consultation with staff in December and then gave an information presentation to the commission at the February commission meeting. NCPC staff and the applicant initiated the section one zero six process in February and held consultation meetings in March and April.

Today, the commission is reviewing the concept level design and providing comments. The applicant will come back at a future date for the preliminary and final reviews. As I noted, today we are looking at the concept plan where the commission should be focused on issues such as consistency with NCPC's comprehensive plan and other policies, appropriateness of the concept for the site, and are there any particularly unique and or complex issues. Today, I will cover the following topics in review of this concept, the location and existing context, the existing conditions of the site, the project's goals, the updated building design, access and site design, signage and lighting, and the recommendations. Capital One Arena is located on the block bounded by Sixth Street on the East, Seventh Street on the West, and F Street on the South.

Gallery Place Way is on the North. The arena is located in the middle of downtown surrounded by significant national historic landmarks or NHLs, including the Patton Office, now the Donald w Reynolds Center, for American Art and Portraiture, also known as the Reynolds Center, the General Post Office, now called Hotel Monaco, and the Pension Building, which is now the National Building Museum. Capital 1 Arena is in the central location of the historic Lanfont city plan and is surrounded by Lanfont Streets, including Seventh, F, And Sixth Streets. The arena is adjacent to the Pennsylvania Avenue Historic District, the Downtown Historic District, and two NHLs. The National Historic Preservation Act section one zero six process for this project was initiated in February as noted earlier, and staff has hosted two consulting parties meetings thus far.

The meetings were to evaluate the historic context and potential adverse effects of the updated design. This process is ongoing and staff requests the applicant continue to coordinate with consulting parties in preparation of the memorandum of agreement or the project as part of the one zero six process. The Reynolds Center, as noted, originally the Patent Office, is considered one of the most significant buildings in Washington with its porticos modeled after the Pantheon the Parthenon in Athens. It sits prominently within the Eighth Street axis anchored by the Carnegie Library to the North and the National Archives and National Gallery Sculpture Garden to the South. I'd like to note the setting of the Reynolds Center is unique and that the block in which it sits extends beyond adjacent blocks and allows for more public space, elevating the building's significance, especially on F And G Streets.

This allows for more expansive views of the building in this setting. Next, I will review the existing conditions of the building and the site. The existing building, which opened in 1997, was designed to appear as a series of separate facades to break up the building massing. The primary corner at Seventh And F Street includes a large corner digital display. The main entry on Seventh Street or on F Street is demarcated by the large awning.

These images show several views of the existing building, including the entry areas, pedestrian views, and existing examples of transparency. The existing arena has a main entry point on F Street noted here. There are two secondary entry points on Seventh And Gallery Place. There is an existing retail space at the Southeast corner of the building, and the metro entrance is at the Southwest corner. These images show the existing conditions inside the arena, specifically the entry experience and circulation.

Next are the applicant's project goals. The applicant has indicated that their goals and objectives for the project are to transform the arena with a unified identity to extend the functional life. They intend to improve access and circulation, improve building materials, transparency, and activation with the goal of being a catalyst for area renewal. Staff supports the project objectives to extend this functional life of the arena and reinforce its urban presence within Downtown Washington by improving access, enhancing wayfinding, and the arrival experience, enlivening the arena exterior to make it a must see building for residents and visitors, and activating the arena as an entertainment venue in the heart of the city. Next, we will go into the updated design of the building.

Since the information presentation in February, the applicant has updated several elements of the design noted here. These updates include new areas of wall transparency, removal of one of the wall signs, updated materials including more transparency in the veil material, new street level elements such as artwork, a team history wall, and an information sign, and an updated metro entrance. In this section, I will be comparing the new design to the previous design when available. To start, this is a reminder of the current building at the corner Of Seventh And F Streets. This was the rendering of the same corner presented to the commission at the February meeting.

This view introduced the concept of the veil, wrapping the building and moving the main entry west closer to the metro entrance. The updated rendering shows that additional glazing has been added to the facade on Seventh Street. The transparency of the veil has increased. The main building materials have changed with limestone at the street level and metal panels above. The reflective tile has been removed from the metro station as well.

In this additional updated view, you can see the transparency of the veil and the addition of elements to activate the street level, including artwork on Seventh Street and the team history wall on F Street. There's also a new digital wall informations board on F Street. This updated view shows the new wall of glazing that denotes the relocated main entry. The entry was moved west to provide better flow for patrons entering the building. The updated design also widened the entry to the metro from the previous iteration and added the digital information sign at the street level.

As noted, the applicant has updated the materials to include ETFE as the veil, which stands for ethylene tetrafluoroethylene. I'm only gonna say that once. And as a semitransparent lightweight polymer as the veil material, sculpted metal panels, glazing, and limestone at the street level to coordinate with the existing buildings in the area. This view shows the main entry and team history wall. The shape of the veil was also modified to lift at the corner in deference to the Reynolds Center Corner.

As noted, the applicant is proposing a new street level activation, including a team history wall on F Street, just east of the relocated entry as noted here. The corner of Sixth And F Street, the previous design, increased the glazing at the corner with the veil lifting up and around the side to end on Sixth Street. There was also a new digital sign included on this facade. The applicant has modified the design by eliminating the digital signboard and replacing it with additional glazing and softening the outer edge of the veil. Moving further north on Sixth Street, the applicant previously showed an improved accessible entrance on this location.

The updated facade on Sixth includes improved transparency at the accessible entry in addition to the new glazing that replaced the removed digital signage. As noted, the applicant has updated the materials and their locations on the building as noted here. Moving back over to Seventh Street, just north of the metro entrance, the applicant is proposing integrated artwork on the walls and improved transparency. There is another view of the same area on Seventh Street with the integrated artwork panels and the improved transparency. This new area of glazing creates the opportunity to experience the veil element from the interior of the building as shown here.

This rendering shows the interior view through the new glazing and the veil looking toward the Reynolds Center to the west. At the northwest corner on Seventh Street and the terminus of G Street, the applicant included an updated digital signboard intentionally located to allow for G Street to be used as a viewing area for the screen. The veil in this previous iteration sweeps out over the sidewalk on Gallery Place Way as it curves around the corner. The updated design of this corner of the building maintains the large digital signboard, but pulls the edge of the veil into the building at the corner. The updated materials include the expanded glazing at Seventh Street as noted here.

The previous design included an expanded entry of Gallery Place Way where the veil terminates. This entry included the integration of a wood material on the facade. The updated design tucks the veil closer to the building and removes the digital sign band to address adjacent condominium owner concerns and improve weather protection. The Gallery Place entry includes all the updated materials previously noted as well as the composite wood material. As part of the updated design process and the section one zero six process, the applicant has done a series of view shed diagrams for analysis.

These views show the existing conditions and then on the left, and then on the right, the proposed condition with the updated building. This first view is looking Northeast toward the corner towards the corner of Seventh And F Streets. The Reynolds Center is in the foreground on the left. Staff finds that while there is ample opportunity for a modern approach that unifies and elevates the design of the arena, it must also be complementary of both the Reynolds Center and Hotel Monaco and be deferential, a queue viewpoints to preserve the settings of these important NHLs. Shifting to the other end of F Street, this view looks west with the existing on the left and the proposed on the right.

This view is on Seventh Street looking north toward the arena. The Hotel Monaco is on the left in the foreground. The final viewshed diagram we've included is of G Street looking at the terminus at Seventh. The proposed proposed design, as noted earlier, shifts the digital sign to be more centered on G Street as a viewing stage for large events. In summary on the building design changes, staff supports the design changes made to date, especially the increased glazing, improved streetscape engagement elements, updated materials, and the additional view shed studies.

However, the redesigned arena will appear prominently in this setting, and it is an opportunity to help improve the setting and enhance the public space. To do so, we recommend the applicant continue to refine and unify the composition of all elements, building, display screens, and veil, to better respect the setting of the National Historic Landmark buildings. In particular, the overall composition of the design, including the building, LED display boards, newly introduced LED band, and veil could be further integrated, elevating the overall design and reflecting the arena's importance within downtown and its prominent location adjacent to two NHLs. Next, I will walk through the proposed site design changes with a focus on pedestrian access and ground floor activation. The applicant has updated the street level activation to the extent practical given the internal constraints of the building.

The current building has only has one corner of street facing retail noted here on the left. The updated design on the right includes the same retail section, but adds in the team history wall and artwork pictured earlier. While the new design is an is an improvement, staff encourages the applicant to continue to explore opportunities for additional street facing uses, including retail, to help activate the pedestrian realm, particularly when the arena is not in use. One of the key aspects of the design is that entries will be provided from all sides so that visitors can access the arena from each frontage. Some existing entries are not accessible or have the or have the appropriate equipment for screening.

These will all be upgraded. A new accessible entrance will be added on Sixth Street, and the entry from F Street will be shifted west. This is important for several reasons. As part of process, the applicant determined the existing entry was not ideal as it opened onto the elevator bank as noted on the left. As the elevators are too complicated to relocate, the applicant is proposing to relocate the main entry further west to allow better movement into the building.

The applicant plans to implement frictionless security screening that can process up to 3,600 guests per lane per hour, pilot facial recognition ticketing, and vastly improved distribution of entries into the arena and vertical circulation within the building With clearly defined zones for security, ticketing, concourse access, guests will move through each stage seamlessly, making the overall arrival experience faster, safer, and more comfortable. Having accessible entrances on all frontages is important because visitors can arrive at four different metro exits as shown here. This includes Chinatown, Gallery Place, and the Portrait Gallery. The intent will be to better balance pedestrian pedestrian access so that not everyone is entering from just F Street. While the physical improvements will help, it is important to also change people's behaviors, particularly for regular patrons.

As such, as part of the next review, staff requests additional details on how the new building design combined with pedestrian management will improve pedestrian safety and and the user experience at the entry points. Basically, how will the applicant work to direct people to these new or expanded entrances? The existing streetscape of the building has limited greenery as noted on the left. The updated plan removes existing trees and fails to utilize space for new landscaping that could soften the streetscape. Staff finds the existing streetscape blacks, tree canopy, and greenery, and the proposed plan further reduces vegetation that could impact pedestrian comfort and request the applicant submit as part of the next review, a plan that shows additional landscaping on F Street where there currently appears to be none.

Next, I will go through the proposed lighting and signage. Here, you can see the existing conditions. The existing building includes a variety of building signage as well as LED screens. As shown here, these screens can show both event related advertising as well as commercial advertising not related to events. I'll note the proposed design reduces the number of LED screens but consolidates square footage into larger LED displays, specifically at the corner of Seventh And F Streets, which reflect upon the National Historic Landmark buildings.

As part of the section one zero six process, the applicant has prepared nighttime lighting studies to show how the signage and lighting might impact the setting of the arena, in particularly the NHLs. On the next few slides, I'll show you some of those studies. Here's a view looking east along F Street with the existing and proposed buildings. You can see the new larger consolidated LED screen at the corner and then the new LED band underneath. The veil is illuminated across the top of the building.

The Reynolds Center is located in the foreground on the left. In general, staff is concerned about any increased intensity of light cumulatively from the new LED displays, lighting, and the veil. Here's a view looking west along F Street. Again, the Reynolds Building is in the foreground. In this view, the veil is the most evident illuminated element.

Overall, staff is appreciative staff is appreciative of the additional design development that has occurred as well as the additional study of the lighting effects. As we noted previously, the redesigned arena will appear prominently in this setting, and it is a great opportunity to help improve the setting and enhance the public space. To do this, we again recommend the applicant continue to refine and unify the composition of all elements of the building to better respect the setting of the National Star landmarks. In particular, the overall composition of the design, including the building, large LED display boards, newly introduced LED band, and the veil could be further integrated, elevating the overall design and reflecting the area's importance within downtown and its prominent location adjacent to two NHLs. We also accept suggest eliminating or reducing the proposed LED band, particularly at the corner of Seventh And F Streets to minimize visual and lighting impacts on the setting of the NHLs.

And as the design is further improved, staff request the applicant submit as part of the next review a complete lighting plan with the location and specification of building lighting, including foot candles, lumens, color temperature, and hours of operation for all elements that create exterior light, including but not limited to the digital boards and bands, the information board, the veil, and interior lighting inside large glazing walls, pedestrian level lighting, and any exterior uplighting, a daytime and a daytime street view from the area around F And Ninth Street Northwest to better understand the impact of the veil in the surrounding area. This information, along with the other other requests I have previously mentioned, will help clarify aspects of the proposal and ensure the design is both meeting the applicant's goals while complementing this important setting within Downtown Washington DC. Again, we wanna recognize the applicant team for their work thus far. As this is a concept review, the comments and recommendations of the commission will help guide the design development prior to returning for additional review. This concludes my presentation.

I have incorporated the recommendations into my presentation, but I have them here for your reference.

Thank you. Wait. I'm not done.

Okay. Sorry. The applicant and their design team are here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Jamie. We appreciate the presentation, and we do welcome our guests from the design team when we recognize that you're here. And if you have any comments here okay. Well, we're gonna move on then. Do any of the commissioners online or in person have any questions for Jamie? Any questions? Oh, yes.

Hi. Jamie, thank you for the presentation. I'm wondering if you could say just a little bit more about the recommendation of the integration of the veil and the LED display. And there was and and a third part that you mentioned. Yes. So,

obviously, this is a topic that has come up constantly within the design review, and I think it's really up to the applicant's design team to take all the comments that they've received, not just from us, but from others. And I think those comments have ranged anywhere from eliminating the veil entirely, to basically better integrating it with the building and the street level and all of the different elements that they've added to the building to make it a unified cohesive design as opposed to a disparate set of elements.

Thank you. That answers your question. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, commissioner Dixon?

I

think it's a fascinating slide. That's why I'm I call for it. And I wonder if mister Bonnets could come back in and talk to us about the, space station coming to DC. It's a very, very futuristic looking building site. But what I like about this, if you notice the modern image we have of the of the building and then look to the right, there's an analog clock, which I think is interesting. It's like an analog clock in an image with a building that looks like it's very futuristic.

Very observant, commissioner. Yes. Because Dixon's

very observant.

Not say a lot? Yeah. I don't know if y'all picked that slide, but

that's really

cool. Okay.

So Thank back to the future. We are any other comments on here? No? Okay. Any other commissioners? And do commissioners have any additional questions, Brian or our got our commissioners online? No? Okay. Mm-mm. Well, hearing no more questions, then, we are looking for a motion to

to match here.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that we, approve the comments for the concept plans for the Capital 1 Arena improvements. So commissioner Dixon made the motion, Megan, and and vice chair Hewlett seconded it. So now we're open for discussion. And I'm going to start with commissioner Kozart.

Well, thanks again to the staff for their work on this really important project. And, obviously, it's very important to the district and appreciate the way the project team has really responded to a lot of the comments. I really, in particular, like that the improved transparency of the materials, of the building itself, you know, kind of night and day certainly of of the existing condition. I also like the inclusion of the limestone as a way to really connect with the kind of surrounding character and also appreciate kind of the art panels that just it it to it it really, I think, creates kind of an at a at a street level, kind of an art district feel to it, so I appreciate that. And, I was particularly compelled.

I was at the, arena stage yesterday, and just the view that you have from inside the arena stage to looking at the buildings around the wharf, it really reminded me of this idea of when you're inside one building and being able to see the others through that transparency and experience that you're not in one place, you're in a neighborhood, that that really matters. So appreciate, you know, kind of the attention to that and and how the result of this these revisions kind of speak to that. And that was in one of the, slides from the presentation today. So, encourage, continued, work to that end and really, helping to, I guess, tell the story of how all of these pieces fit together, I think that's, gonna be important as we go forward as well. But really excited, about the project overall, excited about, where we are in terms of the design and and, very, excited to move forward.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner Cozart. Next, we have commissioner Stidham.

Thank you for the presentation. I think the timing is a little interesting with the capitals and the Stanley Cup. Go cats. Don't worry. I I appreciate the facade changes. I think they do a better job of integrating well, first of all, you know, it it took the plainness out of the facade and took in more of, an interesting material to give it a little bit more significance and to tie it a little bit more into the community. So I think those changes are great. They they made, along with the changes in the inter entrances. You know, the veil seems like an add on. It doesn't feel like it is part of the overall design.

It feels like it was just plopped on top. So I think that there needs to be some additional work in making the entire design more cohesive so that all of the pieces are working together and feel like they are integrated and not just stuck on the top. I mean, it's a complicated project because you're trying. You're in a a historic area, so you want to be sensitive to the setting, but yet you wanna create a unique urban experience. So you're gonna have to find that balance between integration into this setting and making yourself stand out, in a way.

I'd you're not there yet, so I'm really glad that it's in for comments on concept because I think you have some work to do. But you're move you're at least moving in the right direction. So thank you for the changes.

Thank you very much, commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Argo.

I agree with the comments that we've already heard. I I appreciated the emphasis on the fact that I don't if there was much emphasis, but that the visitors are arriving from four different metro stops, which, you don't necessarily appreciate until you think about it. And so how that visitor experience is experienced from so many different angles and perceptions, and that's something to keep, I think, to keep in mind in the front front of our minds as as we continue this experience. The in in reviewing this plan, I think I'm looking at my notes. Other than that, I think we're moving in the, in the right direction and to continue to hope we continue to see in the design the kind of activation, that we're seeing here, and it has been, and it has been emphasized by by several, commenters and commissioners.

Appreciate the work. This is it it's exciting.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner Argo. Vice chair Hewlett.

I like it. I really, really, really like it. I like the increased transparency. I like the street level artwork and the the team history. I think that's a nice thing to incorporate. I love the modified veil on the updated materials, and I respectfully disagree with my colleague. I love the veil right now. It might be because I'm a hat person. I put that hat on, and I and I wear it with attitude. And I think that just it's just beautiful.

It sets it up. It's it's a major, major arena, and it and it should stand out. At the same time, I do think a little bit more refinement is is great, you know, in terms of the historic sites to make sure we respect those historic sites. I come there a lot, and I always take the metro. So I like that moving the entrance right there a little bit closer and wider, and so you're not standing in line forever and ever when as they search your purse and whatnot.

But it's I just think it's really, really nice and exciting and vibrant. And I think I do like a little bit more landscaping there, though. That would be good too. But that's all I had to say on it. I thank you so much for working with us, and I thank you, Desert, for your presentation.

Thank you, vice chair Hewlett. Commissioner Greene.

Thank you very much. I just wanna start by saying I appreciate the efforts of the applicant. The design has moved, you know, since the last time it was here. And certain elements, I I, you know, particularly appreciate, like, the addition of street level artwork in the team history. But there still are some overall larger concerns that I I still have.

You know, as as we talked about previously, the the design intent of the original building was to make a vast arena appear to be a series of small structures. Of course, it couldn't achieve that. And rightfully, the current rehabilitation is prioritizing making the building appear as a coherent whole. And the trick is to really make it one coherent whole, not repeating the f repeating the error or the original error of making it appear to be a bunch of different parts. They're each responding to their own sort of their own micro own micro environment.

And so I think and this one's got a this has the added challenge of being in a very special location and needing to respect the two NHLs in the area while necessarily asserting its presence. It's a large building and it should be a large building. So a couple specific things. I still think the lower 20 to 30 feet of the building are really important in the pedestrian experience. And I'm concerned that the the changes since the last time, removing some of the exterior facing retail spaces to improve access and amenities for scheduled, arena events could unfortunately undermine the, urban vitality of the area.

I'm not sure that that's exactly achieving what it's setting out to do. And when we move to the veil, the veil still appears to be disjointed, and it doesn't have the cohesion needed to hold the building together and really contribute meaningfully to the urban environment. And additionally, some of the relationships between this new design element, the veil, and the large rectangular video screens is not yet well integrated. They're they're working against each other. The extensive lighting plan is exciting, but that alone will not achieve the goal of activating the neighborhood if the broader architectural and urban planning issues remain unresolved.

And and to to sort of to conclude, you know, to better serve both its operational and business objectives, I think this design would benefit from a balancing slight rebalancing of priorities. This would ensure that the facility continues to contribute to the vibrancy and character of this city's one of its most important civic spaces. The building really needs to become a single building. And and even with the proposed revisions, which moved it closer in that direction, it's still not there. And this this is both in the overall massing, which again, largely with the deployment of the veil, which is not yet coherent.

And in details and in the current revision, it's the addition of even more new materials, which in in some ways is working against that integration into a single building. I just think it needs to become one single urban building. And once that happens, there's a part of that, then I think paying attention to exciting and the views of it from other buildings, especially the National Portrait Gallery can really be resolved at that point. But I do appreciate the efforts. I can see the movement. I just believe a bit more is necessary to really make this building both do its job as an arena and be a good neighbor to the buildings around it. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Green. Commissioner Tunstall Williams. Mister Green always steals my thunder. No. I wholeheartedly agree, with his comments, and, yeah, I wrote miss Her politely said refine and unify. Yes. I wrote my words hodgepodge of good ideas with no one having a primacy. And so I think the intent I 100% agree with the intent. Like, this should be a marquee building. I I my preservation peers are gonna be like, what?

I'm I'm less concerned about the NHLs. I think that those buildings are very strong, and they can stand on their own. But your building needs to stand on its own, and right now, it doesn't. Right? You're you've got a bunch of different things going on that do not sort of it's not a cohesive whole. I I personally I I do like that you the the the glazing and the material the material changes, I think they help, but I'm not sure they do what you want it to do. Right? Then it starts to feel more like the the theater across the street and some of those, which is just more, kind of pedantic. We've got those everywhere. And if you're trying to really go, well, I don't think the veil works as it is, it needs to go further.

You either need to take it off and kind of tone down the building or just, like, go for it. Like, I'll, like, the Vegas spear spear kind of thing where you're integrating the digital and the the roof. Like because all these diff different parts, I just it's not something's not working. Data lines aren't lining up, things like that. So I encourage you to go back and look at it, and I think you can you either need to be timid or you need to be bolder. And and Okay. You're kind of in the in the middle right now, and I don't think you've quite hit the right note. So, again, you're a concept, so it's all is not lost, but I encourage you to just kind of keep pushing and thinking about how this can be. As commissioner Green says, it's a big building. It's gonna be a big building.

The way it is now kinda I used to have a very fat cat who would hide behind very skinny things, and he wasn't hiding. And that's kinda what the building is. So it's like, hey. Let's let's celebrate what it is and and and allow it to be its own marquee building. That's my goal.

Thank you, commissioner Dunstall Williams. Commissioner Dixon.

Well, I like this fat cat idea. And also, you know, I'm not a hat I'm not a hat person, but I like I think this is like a crown. Crown on winning teams, on a winning city. So I don't know how you get integrated, and I like the idea of going further. I like to go further stuff. So maybe maybe a bigger hat. But I also have a question. The the all the screens are are used can be used as also television screens. So if we have a New Year's, we can also have a default that image on it. And there's a image screen, not just digital with the alpha with the with that character.

It's gonna be okay. And it's I mean, I'm assuming it's like like like like Square in that that context. I also wanted wanted to say I just well, I I kinda like the the the the the newness of it. And commissioner Green is a is a is an academician and a recognized knowledgeable person and stuff. But I I think we're going beyond historical building structures here.

We're making a new statement for an a city that's moving forward and upward and to the space station concept. So I think I'm I'm I'm very I'm encouraged. I certainly would like you to incorporate the thoughts of my colleagues, but I'm liking the idea. Also, I would like to suggest that you when you get this done, I'm not trying to promote your work, but that you talk to the people at the stadium. You might need a crown on that one too. So we have two buildings that have similar kind of a new new new genre kind of a a pitch. So keep up the good what we're doing. I'm encouraged. Excited. Isn't that so I said excited. I'm excited. Go ahead. I'm sorry, mister Cash. Yo.

Thank you, commissioner. Excited Dixon. Appreciate everything. That really love your How much exciting is that

you see? Can take it. Mister Cash.

Well, I'm gonna associate myself with vice chair Hewlett. I really think that the design is great. I think that it's come a long way from even what this commission saw. I I saw it maybe a few months before, and the veil was not necessarily clicking with me. But I think that a lot of the improvements on the veil, making it more transparent, making it instead of swoop like swooping out, it's now kind of staying closer to the building. I think a lot of that has really gotten me comfortable with the veil. And I'm actually gonna ask you to go back to a slide too, you can go back to slide 29. I I think one of the underrated stories about what's going on with this and remember, this is it's not a new building. We're talking about, like, we're we're rehabbing a very old building, trying to fix a lot of what's wrong. Right.

But I don't know how many people have gone down Sixth Street, what it looks like right now. But this is what Sixth Street will look like now. I mean, if you go down there right now, on the left, that was the Jackson Graham Building, which is the old metro headquarters, which is a horrible, brutalist, concrete thing. And it was fine because the what's at Cap 1 right now essentially looks like a giant loading dock. But, I mean, I think that the improvements to Sixth Street by expanding the sidewalk and making this entrance where it's at ground level because, like, right now, if you wanna use that entrance back there, I mean, it looks like a loading dock.

You have to go, like, upper ramp to keep all the, like, headphones or something out there where you have to like, the purses where you have to put your phones. So I think that kind of the untold story about reactivating Sixth Street here is a really big deal because I don't if you've ever been in the arena and, like, try to just make your way out. I always seem to somehow end up on Sixth Street right there where the cars are coming out. And I'm just looking around not sure where I'm at in this tiny little sidewalk. So I think it's really exciting.

If you're not a fan of the veil, got sixth Street here, which doesn't have as much veil. So but but I think that the reactivation of Sixth Street along with the rehabilitation's going on with the the Jackson Graham Building and all that stuff, I think it is it's really just making one of these streets that feels like an alley right now kinda come back to life. And I think it offers a lot of opportunity with stuff going on on the other side of the street to actually kind of activate stuff here rather than just having some loading dock. So I'm really excited about this side of the building. I'm excited about what's gonna come eventually when we see the stuff that's gonna talk more about the what's going on in the streets around the actual arena instead of the arena itself. But I really thank the team for the improvements they've made. I'm sure there will be more improvements, but I'm I'm very happy with where this has come to. So thanks.

Thank you very much, commissioner Cash. And I'd just like to, again, thank the applicants for listening to the commission the last time and making improvements, I believe, in the design. And I'd like to associate myself with all the comments of all the commissioners because I too am somewhere in the middle. I do think that, I I lean toward the fact that you've made great improvements in the veil. Think it's much improved, over the last, visit.

I'm not sure it's finished yet, but I congratulate you on that. And I live in an old town where we have to retrofit 200 year old buildings, her oldest town West Of The Mississippi, and it's much smaller than DC. But retrofitting old buildings into new venues and even building new buildings between historic buildings. We're on a street full of historic buildings. It's very challenging. So I do wanna recognize the challenge that you're confronted with here. And while I don't live in DC, I do stay at the Monaco almost every month when I come here, so I feel like that's my neighborhood. Okay. And I love it. And I do feel like those streets are screaming to be closed in many respects around that site in some ways.

I'm just saying, the Christmas Christmas shopping was great in front of the hotel there. The portrait gallery, these are incredible historic assets in the in in Washington DC. And so the challenge I'm just acknowledging that your your challenge is great, but I think that you're working toward a better product that I think is is going to work. So I think, limestone is nice because it calls out to the to the surrounding neighborhoods. I do love the art because it also speaks to the art in the portrait gallery, but also just the great art and and and and and, the artistic nature of what often happens in the building, not last night, but most often frequently.

Right? So I just think that we wanna continue to support you in your efforts to create this signature landmark in DC and celebrate it when it opens. I think there's more work, and I I feel like you're listening. So I just wanna say, again, thank you, and, continue to be respectful of the setting. And, and thanks for your good work.

Can the secretary please confirm the motion and call the roll?

Yes. The motion was made by commissioner Dixon and seconded by vice chair Hewlett. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice chair Hewlett? Yes. Chair Goodman? Yes. Commissioner Green?

Yes.

Commissioner Tunstall Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. The motion has carried. Agenda item six c is a request to approve comments on the concept master plan for the civil war Defenses Of Washington plan amendment. And Laura Shipman is going to be making the presentation. Thank you, Laura.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Goodman and commissioners. The National Park Service submitted concepts for an updated management plan for the Civil War Defenses Of Washington, also known as the Fort Circle Parks. Today we are looking at concept master plan level review where the Commission should be focused on issues such as consistency with a comprehensive plan and other policies, historic preservation and environmental considerations, any particularly unique and or complex issues and meaningful differences between alternatives if applicable. The Civil War Defenses of Washington Management Plan will amend the 2,004 Fort Circle Parks General Management Plan and will evaluate and update management zones park wide to meet current and future needs.

Management Plans typically cover a broad area providing high level guidance on land management and park uses. Later stages in park development include Development Concept Plans, which develop major park elements, the Reimagine Anacostia Park Development Concept Plan is an example. Then there is the Project Design which advances design for specific elements such as the Parkland Rehabilitation Design the Commission recently reviewed. And finally Construction and Implementation. As background, the Civil War defenses of Washington were built as a circle of fortifications on high ground to protect Washington DC during the Civil War.

The nineteen o two Macmillan Plan sought to revitalize these neglected areas by connecting the forts with a parkway. While never fully realized, this initiative spurred preservation efforts and public investment. By the mid twentieth century, these battleground remnants were turned into federal parks. Today, the parks form a historic greenbelt with prominent views to and from the city. This is an overall map of the Civil War defenses of Washington.

The majority of the parks are located in the district, with one located in Maryland, Fort Foote, and one in Virginia, Fort Marcy. Along the left you can also see the seven Management Zone categories from the 2,000 and The four General Management proposed concepts retain the existing Management Zone categories and revise the existing zoning definitions to adjust vegetation management descriptions and accessibility features. Two new zones are also introduced, including the Site Sensitive Recreation Zone and the Community Garden Zone. The Site Sensitive Recreation Zones are intended to allow use for recreation that is not ground disturbing in areas with archaeological resources, and the Community Garden Zones have been applied to the locations of existing community gardens. Staff finds the two new management zones will complement the existing zone categories and enhance the visitor experience by formalizing community uses within the parks and by protecting cultural resources without prohibiting recreational use altogether.

NPS noted the existing GMP does not adequately accommodate future planning and changes that have occurred since its adoption. To ensure more frequent adjustments to changing conditions, staff recommends NPS consider developing and incorporating a process for periodic amendments to the management zones to address emerging needs and any significant archaeological and natural resource discoveries. Access to and connections between the Civil War defenses of Washington are limited, and in some cases steep paths and unsafe conditions make it hard for pedestrians and cyclists to enter the parks. Staff recommends the Management Plan Amendment identify existing streets, sidewalks and trails where it's possible to improve access and connections between the Civil War defenses of Washington, historic fort sites and surrounding communities. Future trail planning should aim to create a continuous, accessible and well maintained trail network linking all the Civil War defenses of Washington Parks.

NPS notes that many residents and visitors feel that there aren't enough recreation options in the Civil War defenses parks because so much of the land is reserved for cultural and natural resources. People often propose uses and improvements for these areas that are inconsistent with the preservation requirements because the park's significance is not readily apparent to the public. With this plan update, the aim is to balance the management of federal parkland with local community needs. Staff recommends continued engagement with adjacent communities to understand and incorporate their recreation and facility needs into the planning process and to discuss the land management constraints and opportunities. Additionally, improved visitor amenities and signage are needed to guide visitors and increase awareness of the historic importance of the park's cultural resources.

Community groups have voiced interest in a continued volunteering and stewardship role in the Civil War defenses of Washington Parks. Therefore, staff recommends NPS continue to actively partner with public and nonprofit entities on programs which can enrich the visitor experience and provide educational services. Significant archaeological and natural resources have been identified since the adoption of the existing GMP. As a result, some archaeological resources are outside of the current plan's cultural and natural resource zoning designations. Staff supports efforts to protect these recently discovered resources through revisions to the management zone designations.

In terms of view sheds, historically the views from the forts were critical in the site selection and design process to ensure that the Army had clear line of sight for enemy troops approaching the city. However, many of the vistas from the forts are overgrown with vegetation and blocked by development over time. Staff supports the aim to protect or restore significant view sheds and recommends continued evaluation of additional vistas that could be maintained or reestablished throughout the Civil War Defense's parks. Additionally, NPS notes that uncontrolled growth of invasive plants limits access to trails, recreation areas, and important cultural or natural resources. Staff recommends the amendment include an invasive species management plan to prevent overgrowth in the future.

The Plan Update separates the parks into four focus areas that geographically encircle the capital from west to east and include George Washington Memorial Parkway and Rock Creek Park West, labeled one through three Rock Creek Park East, labeled four through eight and National Capital Parks East North, labeled nine through 11 and finally National Capital Parks East South, labeled twelve and thirteen. The proposed updates to the Focus Area Management Zones are based on consideration of present and future desired conditions, consistent application across parks and expansion of compatible public use. First, we'll take a look at the George Washington Memorial Parkway and Rock Creek Park West focus area. This area includes Fort Marcy, Battery Kemble and Palisades Park and Fort Reno. No management zone changes are proposed for Fort Marcy, Battery Kemble and Palisades Park.

Proposed management zone changes to Fort Reno include a new site sensitive recreation zone, as well as community and visitor use zones. Significant archaeological resources connected to the former Reno community were identified at Fort Reno. Therefore, staff recommends careful consideration of impacts to cultural resources at Fort Reno with any future planning. Next is the Rock Creek Park East focused area, which includes the Missouri Avenue Corridor, Fort Slocum, Fort Totten, the Barnard Hill and Fort Totten Corridors, and Barnard Hill. Most of this area is designated currently as connecting corridors and cultural resource zones.

The proposed changes include providing opportunities for recreation, formalizing community uses, and adding natural resource zoning. The northeast quadrant of the district is identified as an area with less dense tree canopy cover. Therefore, staff supports management zone changes to protect the character of wooded and densely vegetated areas in Rock Creek Park East. Additionally, staff recommends the amendment identify strategies in areas within the Rock Creek Park East focus area to increase tree canopy cover while preserving any significant views and limiting impacts to archaeological resources. The next focus area is National Capital Parks East North, which includes Fort Mahan, Fort DuPont and Fort Stanton.

This focus area currently includes primarily natural and cultural resource management zones. The proposed concepts expand recreation and community use areas to the extent possible and improve connectivity. The Fort DuPont concept includes two options for proposed zoning. The zoning options are the same except Option two adds a connecting corridor zone along Missouri Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, Ridge Road, Fort DuPont Drive, and Fort Davis Drive. Staff supports the proposed connecting corridor zone in Option two for Fort DuPont as the addition of this management zone will allow opportunities to increase multimodal connectivity and safety around and through the park, provided that adverse impacts to natural areas are avoided or minimized.

And finally, the National Capital Parks East South focus area includes Shepherd Parkway and Fort Foote. Currently, this area is primarily zoned for the protection of natural resources due to the dense vegetation and steep slopes. Proposed changes encourage opportunities for site sensitive recreation and enhance connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. The Commission approved site development plans in June 2024 for the Shepherd Parkway Parkland Rehabilitation Project, which will improve the existing park site and offer residents of all ages a variety of amenities and recreational opportunities. Therefore, staff supports the change from natural zone to recreation zone proposed for Parkland to align with the approved recreational improvements to the park.

The Civil War Defenses of Washington sites touch all four quadrants of the district, as well as part of Maryland and Virginia. Continued coordination with state and local agencies is crucial for future planning to ensure appropriate updates to land management and zoning. NPS also notes that limited staff and resources compromise overall management of the Civil War Defenses Of Washington, and that administrative tools to enhance park management are needed. Staff encourages the use of a variety of management and maintenance strategies, including partnerships, cooperative management agreements, or when appropriate, transfer of administrative jurisdiction to improve these parks and create a unified open space network. The National Park Service initiated public scoping for the Management Plan Amendment's environmental assessment in March with the public comment period open until May 9.

This concept review is early in the management planning process, and there will be additional opportunities for the public to provide input on the amendment. The applicant anticipates releasing a draft environmental assessment for public review and comment in the fall of this year. With that, staff supports the National Park Service goal to balance the protection of cultural and natural resources within the Civil War defenses of Washington with a provision of expanded community uses and improvements to the visitor experience, and recommends the Commission approve the comments on the proposed concepts for amendments to the Management Plan that are listed on the following pages and that I touched on throughout the presentation. And that concludes my presentation. I would like to introduce National Park Service Superintendent Brian Joyner, who will make a few remarks about this planning effort.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. Mr. Joyner?

And we're back.

Okay. Good

afternoon, I'm Brian Joyner, superintendent of Rock Creek Park, and I represent all three of the superintendents and the park units involved in this award of his of Washington DC this afternoon. And I'm joined by my colleague my colleague, Christine Bruins, the planning portfolio manager for National Capital Region. In 02/2004, the National Park Service completed a management plan for the Civil Civil War War Defenses Defense of Washington, formerly known as 4 Circle Parks. The plan established management zones and allowed uses for the 19 forts and green spaces in between. In the twenty years plus, following the plan's completion, we've heard from local residents a desire for better utilization of the spaces and for additional recreational amenities.

The National Park Service has recognized that mainly the fort sites and open spaces are isolated and lack connectivity with each other and to the other parks and other community networks. In addition, significant archaeological and natural resources have been identified since 02/2004. As a result, some archaeological resources are located outside of the cultural and natural resource zoning designations. Updating the Civil War Defenses of Washington management plan provides an opportunity for the NPS to, with community input, revisit zoning and allowable uses park wide to protect the resources for future generations while considering more flexible zoning to meet community recreation needs. I'll report from here to hearing from the commissioners and any public public comments that are to come by.

Thank you.

Thank you. Miss Bruins, did you have a comment you wanted to share? Okay. No. Thank okay. Great. Well, Laura, thank you. And superintendent Joyner, thank you very much. We appreciate the presentation. Do the commissioners have any questions? Commissioners online or in person for our, speakers today? Yes, sir. Commissioner Dixon.

Fort Staunton. I didn't pick up what changes or what in dealing with Fort Staunton, what was recommended in the report. I'm not asking for you to go through the whole thing. I'm just curious. I didn't We can pull up

the slide and and superintendent Joyner or Christine, if you wanna go through the changes to Fort Stanton.

Let me tell you one let me tell you of focuses. The connectivity between Howard Road and Marion Barry Avenue now. Is that is that been is that still there or is it there because it it gives access to Fort Staunton to people who are on Marion Barry Avenue now and and the folks in Fort Staunton itself? That's one of my that's my one of my real focuses. Talk about connectivity.

So the proposed changes at Fort Stanton are, right now, it's zoned almost entirely as a natural resource management zone. We're establishing a view shed management area in the area shown in orange by the red dotted line. That's an area where the community watches fireworks and has a great view of downtown. So we're proposing to manage that view shed for the community. We're rezoning the areas near the Smithsonian Institute that's been transferred for their use.

We're also looking at managing views near Our Lady Of Perpetual Help, and there's a site sensitive recreation zone proposed in that area, in that in that field, which would allow for recreation so long as there's no ground disturbing structures like concrete footings. And then the area that you're talking about, by Mary and Barry, we're proposing a new walking biking connection there. I believe there's, like, basketball courts or a

Yes. A

trail. So if you see in yellow, we're rezoning from a natural to a recreation zone to formalize those uses and provide a better pathway between those local streets and the fort sites themselves.

Right. That's why so there is gonna be, some attention given to that connection between Howlett Road and through to bypass the basketball courts over to Marion Barry Avenue. Is that correct?

Correct.

Very good. Very good. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Jones. Thank you, commissioner Dixon. Any other questions for Laura and team? Hearing no no questions. We're gonna move on then. Was there any was there any testimony that you've had for okay. Thank you. Then is there a motion to approve com So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded that we would approve comments on the concept master plan for the Civil War Defenses of Washington Management Plan amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Dixon for that motion. And for the second, you too to Commissioner Stinnon. Now we'll open for discussion. And the first speaker will be commissioner Green, please.

Thank you. No. I I just really wanna applaud the the the park service for this plan. This is this is really important. And and I just wanted to reinforce one of the the I mean, there are many important components to this. But I just wanted to draw attention to one that I just wanted to reinforce the importance of an invasive species management plan and just the conscious management of these view sheds. I mean, this is such an essential part of the original design of these forts. And there's nothing we can do about the new development that blocks and impedes and changes some of these things. But we can address the invasive species, which really just, just, in many cases, block these views. And just this would do so much to address the visitor experience.

And just want to shout out for that part and hope that it remains an important part of the plan. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Greene. Commissioner Tunstall Williams?

Now I will align myself with Commissioner Greene's eloquent comments as usual, and I don't have anything else to add.

Thank you, Commissioner Tunstall Williams. Commissioner Dixon?

Yeah. I support what's been presented. I'm also excited. I I spent a lot of time in Fort Staunton. I used to make that hike up Howard Road from my departments we lived in on Shannon Place just off of MLK and played basketball on those courts after that hike up the hill and used to use that field to play football. Thanksgiving, we had a big big big football game there on Thanksgiving. The guys and the the guys who thought they were professional football players showed up for that event. And after having a few after having a few sips, they were pretty good. So it's a it means a lot to me. So I'm I'm pleased to see the connection. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cash?

Thanks so much for the presentation. No additional comments.

Thank you, commissioner Cash. Commissioner Kozart. Really appreciate the work on this and the presentation, and kudos to the PERC service. I know this is a tough project. You all have sets of resources that are not infinite to be able to make this happen, you have aspirations. Yeah. I was just looking at that partnerships piece and all the neighborhoods that are touched by this and how much people feel, connection to, dare I say, ownership over some of the parks. So just really wanna, applaud you for the work on this and, look forward to seeing it going forward.

Thank you very much, commissioner Kozart. Commissioner of Stidham.

First of all, thank you for the presentation. You know, a general management plan is probably the least glamorous thing

that we do.

And talking about zoning and rezoning is something you see people's eyes as they go through. So thank you for that. I have to say this was one of the first plans I did when I came for the park service. You can see it come back around. It is both heartening, but then I feel like I've been here

a long time.

But it it is it is vitally important. Over the years, we have heard that our original zoning was inconsistent with the communities as they were changing. And, you know, it takes us a while to be able to respond to this, but we are, and we're trying to find ways, to integrate those resources, but also to protect the resources at the same time. So while this is not glamorous, it does set a strong foundation, for moving forward on other projects and continued community involvement and engagement and our integration. So it is vitally important. So thank you, all for everybody's work.

Thank you very much, commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Argo.

No additional comments. This is exciting, and it's it's just great to see this kind of work, happening, not glamorous, but so important. Appreciate the work. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much, commissioner Argo and vice chair Hewlett.

I too applaud the National Park Service, for this important work, and I echo the sentiments of my colleagues. No additional comments.

Thank you. Vice chair Hewlett.

Madam chair. Yes. I wanna make one point. You know, we face a real challenge here in the district with our parks. In most other jurisdictions, big companies are very happy to put money in to help develop parks and because they got they get contact with the political leadership, and they get the extra support when they come to congress to get things because they helped put a park in Chicago or in someplace else.

We don't have that that extra that juice. So it's really hard for us to get folks to find money other than our own money to do it. So it's a real it's a real problem. And I just I just want that's a challenge that we're trying it's gonna it's even more, I guess, people even more now with some of the stuff that's going on for us to worry about the funding for our community. So I just wanna make that thank the park service for the struggle with it, and I understand that we that's that's an issue.

Thank you very much for highlighting that, commissioner Dixon. And I just wanna say too that, you know, this as we say in Dubuque, Iowa, may lack some of the sex and sizzle of other projects. It is an important project. It's a very important project because these parts are to are what touches people. Yeah.

And it also, is it's it's just so important to not to maintain what we already have, and maintenance isn't exciting sometimes. But I think there is, as some have mentioned, some of the commissioners' excitement in being able to work with the communities within these, within these boundaries because, it's, as we said, an opportunity for engagement. I think that, you know, this public feedback has you've been listening to it already, and I think that you'll continue to to listen to that. And we'll be balancing the protection of the natural resource with the, desires of for for further development and and and learning to how to incorporate these. So I'm I think that this is a great project, and I think it is exciting.

Contrary to what we say in Dubuque, I think it does have a lot of sizzle. So we're very grateful today for the presentations. And are there any further comments from the commissioners? Hearing none, can the secretary please confirm the motion and take the role?

Yes. The motion was made by commissioner Dixon and seconded by commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice chair Fuelett? Yes. Chair Goodman? Yes. Commissioner Green?

Yes.

Commissioner Tunstall Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash? Yes.

Again, thanking the Park Service for their good work. They have a full plate, and we appreciate the great public service you provide. So thank you for being here today. Thank you to Tammy. Are there any further questions or comments? Hearing none, this concludes our open session meeting for today, and our next regular meeting will be on Thursday, June 5 at 1PM. If there's no further business, the meeting is adjourned.