Executive Director’s Recommendation · 2018. 7. 6. · Executive Director’s Recommendation Page...

Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: July 12, 2018

PROJECT National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC

SUBMITTED BYSmithsonian Institution

REVIEW AUTHORITYFederal Projects in the District per 40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) and (d)

NCPC FILE NUMBER 7986

NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER2.00(38.40)44775

APPLICANT’S REQUESTApproval of preliminary and final site development plans

PROPOSED ACTIONApprove preliminary and final site development plans

ACTION ITEM TYPE Staff Presentation

PROJECT SUMMARY The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has submitted for Commission review site development plans for supplemental perimeter fencing at the National Zoological Park (NZP) in Washington, DC. The Commission reviewed a concept plan of the perimeter fencing in June 2018, and the applicant has responded to the Commission’s comments with this submission. The NZP currently has three public vehicular entrances and thirteen pedestrian points of entry—most of which are informal. Nine of the points of entry are clustered at the top of North Road towards Connecticut Avenue, with another near the Amazonia exhibit and Research Hill. In an effort to improve overall security and visitor safety, the SI is seeking to consolidate the pedestrian entrances to: 1) Connecticut Ave, 2) the Bus Lot Drop-off, and 3) the Lower Zoo. In the future, an entry would also be provided atthe proposed central parking facility. Work began on this effort in 2012, when perimeter fencingwas reviewed and approved by NCPC for much of the site (NCPC File # 7039). The currentsubmission replaces some of the existing fencing with vehicular-rated fencing and adds segmentsof fencing to previously unfilled gaps. The SI plans to submit a proposal for security checkpointsand associated fencing in future phases of the Visitor Control and Security Checkpoint project.

The current phase of the project includes supplemental security fencing around the facility perimeter. Three types of fencing are proposed: 1) eight-foot black ornamental pedestrian metal fencing, 2) eight-foot black ornamental vehicular-rated metal fencing, and 3) 12-foot, wire-topped, black vinyl-coated chain-link fencing. The pedestrian ornamental fencing is currently used in visible locations throughout the zoo, and is considered the campus standard. The vehicular-rated fence type is new. It is similar in design to the pedestrian ornamental fencing, with increased post sizes and horizontal reinforcing channels and cables to meet crash rating standards. The applicant has indicated that ornamental fencing will be used in any area that can be observed by or comes into contact with zoo visitors, and that chain-link fencing will be used in heavily wooded areas or

Executive Director’s Recommendation NCPC File No. 7986

areas hidden from view. The fencing is not anticipated to impact archeological resources, and an engineering field study will be conducted prior to final design, ensuring that the fencing can be installed with minimal impact to existing mature trees or important vegetation.

KEY INFORMATION • The NZP currently has 13 pedestrian access points, and is planning to consolidate and

formalize access to four entrances: 1) Connecticut Ave, 2) the Bus Lot Drop-off, 3) the Lower Zoo, and 4) the future central parking facility.

• This perimeter security fencing is the first phase of a larger Visitor Control and Security Checkpoint project. The Smithsonian will submit visitor screening checkpoints and associated fencing at zoo entrances to the Commission as a separate project in the future.

• The current project proposes ornamental pedestrian fencing, ornamental vehicular-rated fencing, and chain-link fencing. Overall, 4,347 linear feet of fencing is proposed.

• In general, ornamental fencing is being used in any area that can be seen by the public, and chain-link fencing is being used in areas hidden from view.

• The Smithsonian has replaced ornamental fencing with chain-link fencing in more visible areas with dense vegetation, since it has a lighter profile than the ornamental fencing.

• The applicant has aligned the new perimeter fencing to have minimal impacts on the natural environment, and to avoid impacts to historic resources. Existing perimeter fencing is not historic.

• Six new pedestrian and nine new vehicle entry gates are proposed along the perimeter fencing, which will primarily allow staff access for maintenance and operations.

RECOMMENDATION The Commission: Approves preliminary and final site development plans for supplemental perimeter fencing at the National Zoological Park, which will serve to enhance security and streamline visitor access points. Notes the purpose of this project is to replace some areas of existing fencing with vehicular rated fencing, add segments of fencing to eliminate gaps, and consolidate pedestrian access points to four entrances at the following locations: 1) Connecticut Ave, 2) the Bus Lot Drop-off, 3) the Lower Zoo, and 4) the future central parking facility. Notes that these four locations are the primary entrances to the zoo today, and that the only area where pedestrian access will be closed is intended for staff use only near the Amazonia exhibit and Research Hill..


Notes the applicant has changed two segments of ornamental fencing proposed in vegetated areas to chain-link fencing since the last submission, which would be less visually prominent in these locations. It is also consistent with existing chain-link fencing. Notes that in response to Commission comments, the applicant has moved the segment of chain-link fencing that would be visible along North Road back into the existing vegetation, which will reduce visibility from public areas. Notes that the Smithsonian will submit a proposal for visitor checkpoint screening facilities in the future. Requires any submission for visitor checkpoint screening facilities to include supporting documentation explaining the need for and benefits of such facilities.

PROJECT REVIEW TIMELINE

Previous actions

June 2018 – Concept review of supplemental perimeter fencing July 2012 – Preliminary and final approval of containment fencing, which included a master plan amendment that analyzed the route of the proposed fence February 2010 – Concept review of containment fencing November 2008 – Approval of the National Zoological Park Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan

Remaining actions (anticipated)

– Approval of future phases of the Visitor Control and Security Checkpoint project, including security checkpoints and associated fencing

PROJECT ANALYSIS Executive Summary Staff has evaluated the submitted preliminary and final site development plans and finds that the proposed perimeter security fencing would help improve visitor safety and clarify points of entry and exit. Improvements would also help the National Zoo meet the goals of its master plan, which include streamlining visitor entries to better control access, and is consistent with a master plan amendment that was approved in July 2012 to guide perimeter security improvements. The refined submission also responds to Commission comments on concept review from June 2018, which will be described further in the analysis. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Commission approves preliminary and final site development plans for supplemental perimeter fencing


at the National Zoological Park, which will serve to enhance security and streamline visitor access points. Analysis The supplemental perimeter fencing project at the NZP proposes the construction of 4,347 linear feet of fencing that will consolidate and formalize the number of access points to the zoo and improve visitor security by closing gaps in existing perimeter fencing and replacing vulnerable areas of existing fencing with vehicle rated fencing. The current fencing project will add to several other fencing projects implemented at the zoo. The first layer of fencing at the NZP is a chain-link fence that runs along its outer perimeter, with gaps at Rock Creek and Harvard Street. During a reaccreditation process required by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, this fence was found deficient because it was not continuous, and therefore not able to contain zoo animals in the event of an escape, or to fully protect the zoo animals from surrounding wildlife. To address these concerns, the Smithsonian Institution (SI) proposed a secondary containment fence, which the Commission reviewed and approved in July 2012. The current proposal would close the gaps from previous fencing projects to secure the inner perimeter. This will allow the zoo to streamline visitor access to the three main entrances—Connecticut Ave, the Bus Lot Drop-off, and the Lower Zoo. In the future there will be another entrance at the location of the central parking facility. These four locations are the main points of entry to the zoo today. The only area where pedestrian access would be closed is intended for staff use only near the Amazonia exhibit and Research Hill. The current perimeter fencing project is the first phase of a larger Visitor Control and Security Checkpoint project the Smithsonian hopes to implement, which calls for security checkpoints at each of the main zoo entrances as part of Phase 2. The Smithsonian will submit the security checkpoints and associated fencing for Commission review and approval as a separate project in future phases. Staff notes that to-date, the Commission has received many comments in opposition to visitor screening facilities. Staff recommends that the Commission requires any submission for visitor checkpoint screening facilities to include supporting documentation explaining the need for and benefits of such facilities. As part of the current project, three fence types will be constructed—eight-foot black metal ornamental pedestrian fencing, eight-foot black metal ornamental vehicle-rated fencing, and twelve-foot black vinyl-coated chain-link fencing. The ornamental pedestrian and chain-link fencing are consistent with existing fence types at the zoo, and the vehicular-rated fence, though a new fence type, is similar in style to the ornamental pedestrian fencing. The applicant has indicated that ornamental fencing is proposed in any area that can be observed by or comes into contact with zoo visitors, and that chain-link fencing is proposed in heavily wooded areas or areas hidden from view. Areas with proposed chain-link fencing include the segment of fence line along North Road across from Parking Lot C—the location of a proposed future Central Parking Facility that has received early concept approval from the Commission. A short segment of temporary chain-link fencing is also proposed along the inside of existing Parking Lot B. The Smithsonian Institution will eventually convert this parking lot to exhibit space, and the temporary fencing will be removed.


In its review of the concept plans for the supplemental perimeter fencing project, staff noted that a portion of chain-link fencing near the future Central Park Facility would be visible from public areas along North Road. The Commission requested that the applicant consider moving this portion of fencing further back into the vegetation to reduce visibility, or use ornamental fencing. In the current submission, the applicant has chosen to retain chain-link fencing in this location, but has realigned the segment further back into dense vegetation in this area, which is shown in an updated rendering. The new alignment also pulls this portion of fencing away from North Road, and allows open pedestrian access to the sidewalk along North Road. Staff notes that the chain-link fencing has a lighter, more porous profile than the ornamental fencing, which is ultimately less visible in vegetated areas such as this, and feels that this solution adequately addresses Commission comments on the concept design. Similarly, in its review of the supplemental perimeter fencing project, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) expressed concerns with the use of ornamental fencing in certain visible areas that have significant vegetation and landscaping. In particular, CFA noted that the segment of ornamental fencing proposed for the area adjacent to Connecticut Avenue along North Road would be less visible if it were replaced with chain-link fencing. This segment of fencing would sit at the crest of a ridge that is densely vegetated with several mature trees and other landscaping. CFA also noted a couple additional locations where chain-link may be less visible, including the flood walls along the power plant. The applicant has modified this submission to address these concerns, and is now proposing chain-link fencing in these locations. Staff has studied these locations in further detail, and believes that the use of chain-link fencing is appropriate in these areas. The applicant has noted that the alignment of the new perimeter fencing would be designed to have minimal impacts on the natural environment, and would be placed to avoid impacts to historic resources. It is not anticipated to impact any archeology, and an engineering field study will be conducted prior to final design, ensuring that the fencing can be installed with minimal impact to existing mature trees or important vegetation. Further, existing planter areas near zoo entrances, though designed with stone to look historic, are not listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The DC State Historic Preservation Office has indicated that the project would have no adverse effect on adjacent historic properties, such as the zoo’s Olmsted Walk or Beach Drive. Staff is satisfied that the fencing will not impact historic properties, and has received more information regarding the proposed alignment and anticipated impacts to existing trees and vegetation. In general, NZP staff has noted that the alignment will avoid any desirable native tree species such as oak, beech, and hickory, and that any undesirable, non-native, or invasive species may be removed as part of the effort. The NZP tree replacement policy dictates that any trees would be replaced with a mix of species at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio to maintain the tree canopy, which is generally consistent with the net tree loss replacement policies in the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital. NZP staff has also indicated that the project is not anticipated to impact any important vegetation. Staff believes that the robust landscape at the zoo today supports the zoo’s commitment to maintaining a verdant tree canopy and vegetation.


In addition to fencing, the applicant is proposing six new pedestrian and nine new vehicle entry gates, which will allow staff access for maintenance and operations. In review of the concept design, the Commission requested additional information regarding the placement and types of gates that would be installed at each location. The applicant has provided a site plan that delineates the types of gates, and renderings that better show the placement. The proposed gate types are consistent with others used throughout the zoo, and the locations align well with existing service entries throughout the zoo property. In response to Commission comments, the applicant also provided a more comprehensive overview of existing fencing, and how this project relates to previous fencing projects. Staff believes that these new site plans provide sufficient information for a comprehensive understanding of the project, and that all Commission comments have been addressed.

CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING PLANS, POLICIES AND RELATED GUIDANCE Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital As noted in the analysis above, NCPC staff has reviewed this proposal for compliance with relevant guidance and has determined that it is not inconsistent with the policies established in the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital. In particular, the project is supported by policies in the Federal Environment, Historic Preservation, and Urban Design Elements. National Historic Preservation Act The Smithsonian Institution has included documentation from the DC SHPO that indicates that the supplemental perimeter fencing project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. Because it has approval authority in review of this project, NCPC has its own responsibility to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. NCPC is designating the Smithsonian Institution the lead agency for compliance with NHPA. National Environmental Policy Act The Smithsonian Institution does not have an independent responsibility to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); however, because the Commission is approval in review of this project, NEPA compliance is required. To meet its NEPA responsibility, NCPC is able to apply a categorical exclusion for the proposed fencing project (§601.12 [2]), which allows for “approval of the installation or restoration of minor site elements, such as but not limited to…fences.”

CONSULTATION Coordinating Committee


Without objection, the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary and final site development plans to the Commission with the statement that the proposal has been coordinated with all participating agencies. DDOT and NPS requested additional follow-up to see if the new checkpoints and fencing would enable the Research Hill bicycle/pedestrian trail section to remain open past normal visitor hours. Staff followed-up with the Smithsonian Institution on this request, which indicated that secure, unobstructed access is still required from the hospital at Research Hill to the animal collection at the park, so the nighttime closures are still required. U.S. Commission of Fine Arts The supplemental perimeter fencing project was reviewed and approved at the June 2018 meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Relevant outcomes of that review were discussed in the analysis above, and the CFA review letter is attached. ONLINE REFERENCE The following supporting documents for this project are available online:

• Project Synopsis • Submission Materials

Prepared by John Gerbich 06/21/2018

ATTACHMENTS

• PowerPoint • U.S. Commission of Fine Arts Letter • Public Comments

Smithsonian Institution

Site Development Plans

NCPC File #: 7986National Zoological Park

Supplemental Perimeter Fencing3001 Connecticut Ave, NW

Washington, DC_______________

2

Project Information

Project summary:The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has submitted for Commission review site development plans for supplemental perimeter fencing at theNational Zoological Park in Washington, DC. The National Zoo currently has three public vehicular entrances, and 13 pedestrian entrances. In aneffort to improve overall security and visitor safety, the SI is seeking to reduce the number of pedestrian entrances to three: 1) Connecticut Ave,2) the Bus Lot Drop-off, and 3) the Lower Zoo. In the future, an entry would also be provided at the Central Parking Facility. Work began on thiseffort in 2012, when perimeter fencing was reviewed and approved by NCPC for much of the site (NCPC File #: 7039). The current Visitor Controland Security Checkpoint project seeks to expand this work—including the expansion of perimeter security and the construction of which will besubmitted in multiple phases.

The current phase of the project includes supplemental security fencing. Three types of fencing are proposed: 1) eight-foot black ornamentalpedestrian metal fencing, 2) eight-foot black ornamental vehicular-rated metal fencing, and 3) 12-foot, wire-topped, black vinyl-coated chain linkfencing. The pedestrian metal fencing is used throughout the zoo, and are considered the campus standard. The vehicular-rated fence type isnew. It is largely similar to the pedestrian ornamental fencing, with increased post sizes and horizontal reinforcing channels and cables to meetcrash rating standards. Overall, ornamental fencing is being used in any area that can be observed by or comes into contact with zoo visitors.Chain link fencing is being used in heavily wooded areas or areas hidden from view. The fencing is not anticipated to impact archeologicalresources, and an engineering field study will be conducted prior to final design, ensuring that the fencing can be installed with minimal impactto existing mature trees or important vegetation. The Commission provided comments on the concept design for the project in June 2018, whichhave largely been addressed in the current submission.

The SI plans to submit the security checkpoints and associated fencing in a future phase of the Visitor Control and Security Checkpoint project.

Commission meeting date: July 12, 2018

NCPC review authority: 40 U.S.C. 8722(b)(1) and (d)

Applicant request: Preliminary and final approval of site development plans

Delegated / consent / open / executive session: Consent calendar

NCPC review officer: Gerbich

NCPC File number: 7986

3

Project Location

4

Pedestrian and Vehicular Entrances

Existing Future

5

Existing Fencing – Overview

6

Existing Fencing – Detail

7

Fencing Infill Plan

8

Proposed Ornamental Fencing

9

Example Fencing

Pedestrian Fence Vehicular-Rated Fence

10

Pedestrian/Vehicular Gate Plan

11

Example Gates

Swing Gate

Pedestrian Gate

Slide Gate

12

Segment 1 – Connecticut Avenue to Visitor Center

13

Segment 2 – Visitor Center to Bus Drop-Off

14

Segment 3 – Panda Plaza

15

Segment 4 – Parking Lot B

16

Segment 5 – Animal Exhibits to Lot C

17

Segment 6 – Power Plant

18

Segment 7 – Existing Fence Opposite Harvard Street Bridge

19

Segment 8 – Mane Service Yard to Amazonia

1

Flis, Matthew

To: [email protected]: RE: NCPC Website Email

From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:49 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing to express concern on: Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Please do not put up this unnecessary security apparatus. The zoo is a welcoming, happy place that my family and young children enjoy so much. Restricting access and putting up this security is a solution in search of a problem. Please reconsider this move.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:33 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution PLEASE DO NOT ADD GATES TO GET INTO THE ZOO. It will be a nightmare!

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:20 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Name: Matthew Dickens Address: 17 Adams St NW, Washington, DC Phone: 202‐834‐0828 Email: [email protected] Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Installation: National Zoological Park My comments: I am writing to express my opposition to new security checkpoints and security screening areas at the National Zoological Park. One of the most wonderful DC experiences is being able to visit or just walk through the zoo purely on a whim, without planning, payment, or any nonsense. This plan to close pedestrian entrances and introduce security screening plazas would ruin the lovely public space that is the National Zoo, and I find this plan by the Smithsonian to be unnecessary. The National Zoo is lovely specifically because it is one of the last great public spaces in this city where you are not subject to security screenings and checkpoints that are now present at destinations across DC. It is foolish to think these security checkpoints will be used only on certain days; after a few years, the security screenings will move from happening only on the highest‐volume days to being a daily feature of zoo attendance. Visitors will no longer be able to stroll right in; they will have to fumble through their bags and pockets, put their keys in a little tray, and wait in lines to pass through a magnetometer, all inconveniences that make the zoo a less inviting place to visit, especially for families with children. And what benefit will security screening provide to the public? The Smithsonian has failed to make the case that security screening will provide a benefit. More broadly, we have seen in DC (and elsewhere) a great loss of public access to spaces over the past two decades. More and more museums, buildings, and venues are now cordoned off, with access dependent on a security screening. While these security checkpoints have been installed in the name of security and safety, what they instead have accomplished is making a visit to these places an unpleasant ordeal. I don’t believe I have ever visited a zoo that required a security screening, so it’s unclear to me why the Smithsonian thinks the National Zoo or its visitors would benefit from such a process. The National Zoo has remained open and accessible to visitors since its founding, and it’s clear that the Smithsonian has failed to make the case as to why they should spoil the current wonderful experience of their facility by building permanent security screening plazas. Please reject their proposal.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:19 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing concerning today's announcement by the Smithsonian that they intend to limit the number of pedestrian entry points into the National Zoo and install permanent security checkpoints ta these entrances. As a District resident and frequent Zoo visitor who has long lamented the persistent encroachment of so‐called "security measures" into our public places, I find this action by the Smithsonian both unnecessary and alarming. One of the joys of visiting the Zoo is its approachability. There are no lines or checkpoints; visitors may simply stroll onto the grounds and enjoy their visit for as short or long as works for them and their family. For that reason alone, it is one of the most pleasurable visitor experiences in DC, and one which I recommend frequently to out‐of‐town visitors. Of course, this only adds to the joy of the superb collection of animals, excellent location, beautiful grounds, and invaluable sustainability efforts. Particularly with high visibility security measures being implemented in other Smithsonian and federal buildings and spaces across the city, the Zoo has stood out as a hassle‐free and enjoyable experience. The National Zoo is lovely specifically because it is one of the last great public spaces in this city where you are not subject to security screenings and checkpoints that are now present at destinations across DC. It is foolish to think these security checkpoints will be used only on certain days; after a few years, the security screenings will move from happening only on the highest‐volume days to being a daily feature of zoo attendance. Visitors will no longer be able to stroll right in; they will have to fumble through their bags and pockets, put their keys in a little tray, and wait in lines to pass through a magnetometer, all inconveniences that make the zoo a less inviting place to visit, especially for families with children. And what benefit will security screening provide to the public? The Smithsonian has failed to make the case that security screening will provide a benefit to justify the cost, both fiscal and in experience. More broadly, we have seen in DC (and elsewhere) a great loss of public access to spaces over the past two decades. More and more museums, buildings, and venues are now cordoned off, with access dependent on a security screening. While these security checkpoints have been installed in the name of security and safety, what they instead have accomplished is making a visit to these places an unpleasant ordeal. I don’t believe I have ever visited a zoo that required a security screening, so it’s unclear to me why the Smithsonian thinks the National Zoo would benefit from such a process. The National Zoo has remained open and accessible to visitors since its founding, and it’s clear that the Smithsonian has failed to make the case as to why they should spoil the current wonderful experience of their facility by building permanent security screening plazas. Please put these valuable taxpayer resources toward more accessible spaces and enhancing the Zoo experience, not adding barriers to entry.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:18 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Hello, The terrorists have won. We have completely lost our freedom. Please tell the person who came up with this proposal to apply for their certificate of recognition from Al‐Qaeda. Our country is a dumpster fire and you are piling on. May you live the rest of your days in shame.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:09 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing to express my opposition to any proposal that reduces pedestrian access to the National Zoo. The zoo's accessibility and integration with Rock Creek Park make it one of a diminishing number of welcoming and humane amenities in the city. Strolling with my family across Rock Creek and through the zoo, up into Woodley Park, is joyful. This ability to walk right in is perhaps a singular trait among all US zoos, and something that D.C. visitors regularly point out to me as a remarkable and lovely aspect of their visit. The course that NCPC seems to be proposing seems sure to lead one day to security screening, long lines, and perhaps even ticketed access. The slides reported by Washington Business Journal point toward a future in which the zoo has adopted some of the worst traits of amusement parks, and seemingly for no reason at all. While I acknowledge that some changes to fencing may be pragmatically necessary, NCPC should not undertake any such course of action without a clear expression of its intent to avoid the aforementioned future, and in particular to resist the temptation to drift toward "security theater" that many institutions succumb to in the absence of a balanced consideration of costs and benefits. Having reviewed the project proposal materials, I am dismayed by its lack of justification. "Improved security" is an insufficient rationale, particular when it is offered without a serious consideration of the costs, financial and otherwise, that are to be incurred. The specific shortcomings of the status quo are not discussed‐‐it is unclear whether the implicit security shortcomings are purely hypothetical or based on specific incidents. And while a specific concern related to ramming attacks is mentioned, there does not appear to have been consideration of other measures that might be taken that would not limit access (e.g. installation of bollards), nor of whether hardening against this type of attack carries meaningful benefits or would simply shift such an attack to one of the many thousands of unsecured places in D.C. where people congregate. The idea of future security screenings is particularly outrageous. There is no justification for searching Americans and guests to our country as a matter of course as they move about the city. The National Zoo should embrace freedom from such intrusions, particularly in the absence of a well‐defined threat. This is doubly true given the impracticality of this screening operating effectively. Unlike an airplane, where the actions of malefactors are potentially catastrophic and the post‐screening environment tightly controllable, there is no plausible way to keep contraband from being passed or thrown over the zoo's proposed fence perimeter without a truly massive and invasive expansion of the zoo's security apparatus. Nor is it plausible that personal effects are to be screened to ensure the animals' safety ‐‐ the list of items that visitors would have to be denied would be impossibly large. And unlike other Smithsonian institutions, physical separation between exhibitor and exhibit is a fundamental part of the institution's design, making irrelevant some of the theft or vandalism considerations that museums must face. So why bother? Why cage ourselves so pointlessly?

2

The National Zoo is a treasure. My wife and I are proud FONZ members. We will be terribly dismayed if the institution surrenders its character and accessibility for benefits as vague and questionable as the ones apparent in this proposal. NCPC should reject this and any other proposal to place zoo visitors into captivity.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:55 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I disagree with proposed plan for perimeter fencing.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:51 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Dear NCPC, I am writing to implore you not to improve the Smithsonian Institution's application to install fencing and access‐control stations for access to the National Zoo. The open and inviting atmosphere of the Zoo is essential to the character of the neighborhood and the city. The status of the Zoo as one of the few landmark public areas in the city that is accessible and walkable as part of the normal streetscape is a key part of its attraction to locals and tourists alike. Erecting security barriers across the entrance will serve no easily forseeable security goals while fatally damaging the Zoo's place in the fabric of the community and discouraging locals from experiencing it on a regular basis. Moreover, it is difficult to see what possible security needs these proposed eyesores would serve. In fact, they seem counterproductive. As it now stands, visitors enter the zoo unimpeded through pedestrian access points, while vehicles are kept out through concrete bollards. Accordingly, there is no congregation of visitors that might present a tempting target of opportunity for bad actors. Concentrating crowds into security lines, as opposed to maintaining the existing bollard system, will actually decrease the safety of visitors to the park for no conceivable benefit. I urge you to oppose the Smithsonian Institution's call to erect an eyesore which will damage the Zoo as a community amenity and worsen the security situation at this landmark. The project information: Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:51 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Hi, I live in Columbia Heights, DC, and regularly visit the Zoo by bicycle via the Harvard St entrance. I'm writing because I'm opposed to the security checkpoints the Zoo is planning to install at all entrances. The Zoo should remain open, free of any "security theater" checkpoints, and remain integrated with Rock Creek Park and surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you, Anthony Nigrelli, 1364 Monroe St NW, WDC

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:47 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Hello, I am writing regarding today's announcement of the plan to reduce the number of pedestrian entrances at the National Zoological Park from thirteen to three, as well as the plan to install security checkpoints. As the DC Planning Commission, your number one priority should be to foster spaces of community and public good, and this move is one that I find alarming and unnecessary. The National Zoological *Park* was designed as a public landscape, integrated seamlessly with Rock Creek Park, and is enjoyed in that fashion by countless DC residents every day. One of the true joys in life is being able to go for a run and enter the zoo without interruption, which I and several of my neighbors (among many others) do several times a week. This park is a staple of NW DC, and introducing policy that is hostile to pedestrians is nothing more than an act of ridiculous security theater. I encourage you to host a town hall on this issue in NW DC (perhaps the new Cleveland Park library, another gorgeous example of public space?) and really listen to the residents. There hasn't been a spike in crime at the Park, and I don't believe this measure will truly prevent anything sinister, but I'd love to hear you out. Please allow public comment at a town hall on this matter, because I know many of NW residents, and general DC residents, for that matter, who feel very strongly about this announcement. Thank you.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:45 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email This comment is in regard to the apparent plan to put in security checkpoints, metal detectors, and bag searches at the National Zoo. https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2018/07/05/smithsonian‐planning‐for‐permanent‐security.html This is a TERRIBLE IDEA. We live in this neighborhood and drop by the zoo regularly. There is NO REASON FOR THIS EXTRA SECURITY. This is absurd, expensive security theater that will turn a wonderful city institution into an airport terminal. I hate this idea in the strongest terms possible. Please stop making life in America worse by turning it into a police state. Stop it. We don't need this and you shouldn't do it. Peter Krupa

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:44 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Please do not build a security gate for access to the National Zoo. It is a beautiful park with ease of entry for all. Adding unneeded security is an unnecessary expense and a solution in search of a problem. Thanks, Chris Shue

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:38 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Hello ‐ I think this project is absurd and a complete waste of money. There is no data to suggest that we have a security issue at the Zoo. The Smithsonian Museum has said themselves that the crime rates in their museum and in their locations are so ridiculously low that when crime happens, it comes as a surprise. This project is so clearly security theater and we need to put a stop to it. It is a direct threat to our democracy. Thank you, Matthew Sampson, Ward 2 Resident

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:34 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing concerning today's announcement by the Smithsonian that they intend to limit the number of pedestrian entry points into the National Zoo and install permanent security checkpoints at these entrances. As a District resident who has long lamented the persistent encroachment of so‐called "security measures" into our public places, I find this move by the Smithsonian to be unnecessary and alarming. One of the joys of visiting the Zoo is its approachability. There are no lines or checkpoints; visitors may simply stroll onto the grounds and enjoy their visit. For that reason alone, it is one of the most pleasurable visitor experiences in D.C., to say nothing of the superb collection of animals, lovely grounds and beautiful location it offers. Particularly with highly visible security measures being implemented in other Smithsonian and federal buildings and spaces across the city, the Zoo has stood out as a hassle‐free and enjoyable experience. All of that now threatens to change. By severely limiting the number of pedestrian entrances, and subjecting all visitors to a security screening process, visiting the Zoo will become a significantly more frustrating and cumbersome process, with no demonstrable benefit to the public. No longer will visitors be able to walk right in; instead they will have to wait in line (creating an unnecessary concentration of people and‐‐if this is a concern‐‐an inviting target for terrorists), fumble for their personal belongings, be subjected to a magnetometer screening and potentially opening the door for the banishment of outside food or beverages, alongside other inconveniences. This will be a particularly taxing process for families with young children. And for nearby residents for whom the Zoo is an enjoyable recreation facility, this will create an unnecessary hindrance to their use and enjoyment of the park. There is also a broader consideration to take into account here. Over the last two decades, we have lost a great deal of access to previously public spaces, while many places that remain "open" to the public more closely resemble fortified garrisons than the museums, venues and federal buildings they are. It is done in the name of security and freedom, but paradoxically its signature achievement has been to limit the freedom of the public to visit the places. It all contributes to a persistent feeling of concern and vigilance that one can never be fully at ease while in public. I would argue that there could be no justifiable reason to force this burden onto Zoo visitors. I have never visited a zoo that required a security screening as part of its entry process. And, I arguably have more close encounters with other people every time I board a Metro train, dine at a popular restaurant, visit a shopping mall or spend time in one of D.C.'s many urban parks than I do at the Zoo, with its large, spacious grounds and broad distribution of people. The National Zoo has remained fully open and accessible to visitors since it's founding, and I'm unaware of any reason or explanation that justifies the sudden implementation of these draconian policies. I would thus strongly urge you to reject this proposal advocate for the National Zoo remaining freely open to all visitors and unencumbered by unneeded security processes and entrance restrictions. It saddens me to think of how much

2

public access throughout the District has been lost in the name of security and safety over the past two decades, and I strongly encourage you to use every tool available to you to prevent this fate from befalling the National Zoo.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:33 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing concerning today's announcement by the Smithsonian that they intend to limit the number of pedestrian entry points into the National Zoo and install permanent security checkpoints at these entrances. As a District resident who has long lamented the persistent encroachment of so‐called "security measures" into our public places, I find this move by the Smithsonian to be unnecessary and alarming. One of the joys of visiting the Zoo is its approachability. There are no lines or checkpoints; visitors may simply stroll onto the grounds and enjoy their visit. For that reason alone, it is one of the most pleasurable visitor experiences in D.C., to say nothing of the superb collection of animals, lovely grounds and beautiful location it offers. Particularly with highly visible security measures being implemented in other Smithsonian and federal buildings and spaces across the city, the Zoo has stood out as a hassle‐free and enjoyable experience. All of that now threatens to change. By severely limiting the number of pedestrian entrances, and subjecting all visitors to a security screening process, visiting the Zoo will become a significantly more frustrating and cumbersome process, with no demonstrable benefit to the public. No longer will visitors be able to walk right in; instead they will have to wait in line (creating an unnecessary concentration of people and‐‐if this is a concern‐‐an inviting target for terrorists), fumble for their personal belongings, be subjected to a magnetometer screening and potentially opening the door for the banishment of outside food or beverages, alongside other inconveniences. This will be a particularly taxing process for families with young children. And for nearby residents for whom the Zoo is an enjoyable recreation facility, this will create an unnecessary hindrance to their use and enjoyment of the park. There is also a broader consideration to take into account here. Over the last two decades, we have lost a great deal of access to previously public spaces, while many places that remain "open" to the public more closely resemble fortified garrisons than the museums, venues and federal buildings they are. It is done in the name of security and freedom, but paradoxically its signature achievement has been to limit the freedom of the public to visit the places. It all contributes to a persistent feeling of concern and vigilance that one can never be fully at ease while in public. I would argue that there could be no justifiable reason to force this burden onto Zoo visitors. I have never visited a zoo that required a security screening as part of its entry process. And, I arguably have more close encounters with other people every time I board a Metro train, dine at a popular restaurant, visit a shopping mall or spend time in one of D.C.'s many urban parks than I do at the Zoo, with its large, spacious grounds and broad distribution of people. The National Zoo has remained fully open and accessible to visitors since it's founding, and I'm unaware of any reason or explanation that justifies the sudden implementation of these draconian policies.

2

I would thus strongly urge you to reject this proposal advocate for the National Zoo remaining freely open to all visitors and unencumbered by unneeded security processes and entrance restrictions. It saddens me to think of how much public access throughout the District has been lost in the name of security and safety over the past two decades, and I strongly encourage you to use every tool available to you to prevent this fate from befalling the National Zoo.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:31 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I live in D.C., belong to the zoo and take both my kids there. Don't do this. Everywhere they go things are stressful. Closed. Bollarded. Scary. The zoo is relaxed, open, friendly, welcoming. I really want it to stay that way. There are bad people out there, but we are a brave people.More police, more invasion of privacy, more fear doesn't make us safer. it makes us cowed as individuals, more susceptible to the loss of other liberties. Perfect safety is impossible and running after it has a cost. Have we reached the limits? Are there any limits to what we won't give up trying to achieve the impossible? Keep the zoo open, part of the park, part of the life of the city.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:26 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Please do not added unneeded security booths to the gates of the National Zoo! It will ruin the wonderful experiences that so many families go there to have. The memories I have of the Zoo were not of long lines awaiting a security check. Please rethink this!!!

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:15 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing in opposition to adding security theater to the Smithsonian Zoological Park grounds. It is not needed, wasteful, and goes against the spirit of the zoo.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:06 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email This comment concerns the following project: Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution It's unfortunate that the Smithsonian Institution wishes to damage one of the great amenities open to all Americans ‐ the ability to pass through our National Zoo without planning, simply because we want to do so. The National Zoo has been a part of the District of Columbia's everyday life for decades, with residents using it for a run, a stroll, or just a surprising and welcome shortcut to and from Rock Creek Park. No payment is required and no alteration of the daily routine in any way. It is an egalitarian experience open to all residents. There's no question that increased armed law enforcement presence will weigh more heavily on some segments of the population than others, which could lead to some of our fellow citizens feeling like this is no longer a place where they are welcome. There has been no justification publicly provided for these significant changes other than a nebulous "increased security", and it would seem clear to an observer that the inevitable large queue assembled outside the Zoo waiting to enter these new checkpoints will be an obvious target for anyone with ill intent. I urge the NCPC to reject this plan within its ability to do so and the Smithsonian to reconsider the permanent damage to an irreplaceable national institution.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:02 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Ncpc 7986. National zoological Park Fencing The National Zoo is more of a public park than a private space to be enclosed. The zoo is a welcoming space. Putting security gates at the zoo will take away much of its character and value. I hope the NCPC will recognition the zoo as a park where fencing and security entrances are wholly inappropriate. Thank you Eric Siddle

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:06 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to install security gates and perimeters and limit the number of entrances and egresses to the Smithsonian National Zoological Park. The National Zoo is prized in Washington, and by visitors from around the country and around the world, largely because of its welcoming and inclusive design. Its integration and connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods, and of course its free admission, make it a true "park" in which joggers and mothers with infants and strollers can walk alongside dedicated zoogoers focused on the elephants or crocodiles. The zoo has existed and thrived for well over a century as an integrated whole through which visitors can engage the surrounding residential and commercial areas during their visit. By restricting the number of entrances, installing security gates and metal detectors, and otherwise turning the zoo into yet another secured facility in DC, the Smithsonian will deny the zoo's own history and substantially diminish its appeal, accessibility, and welcoming design. We would lose more "public" open spaces to securitized and militarized "managed access" ‐‐ access that of course can be taken away, and would at the very least make a visit to the zoo more stressful, more hassle, and less fun for the family audiences that patronize the zoo. In addition to the philosophical values, the security benefits would likely be minimal, since visitors would be bunched up at the entryways waiting to be screened, much as they are at airports or Nationals Park, making them easy targets for a hypoth! etical gunman or an enraged driver with a truck. The multiple entry and exit points to the current zoo are actually security benefits, in that they ensure no massive concentrations of visitors at a single space. There is no obvious benefits, and enormous likely harm, to an expensive, burdensome, security theater effort at the zoo, such as those at Nationals Park, the Smithsonian museums, and other recreational sites. The zoo is not a military or political target; there are no sensitive government agencies located there. There are some understandable risks to having the zoo open to the public right now, but those risks are preferable to the certainty of yet another beloved public space being turned into an armed camp. Michael Zwirn 1237 Perry Street NE, Washington DC 20017

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:03 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Please don't institute the fencing as proposed in the following WAMU article: https://wamu.org/story/18/07/05/smithsonian‐national‐zoo‐plans‐add‐checkpoints‐reduce‐entrances/

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:50 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing as a DC resident to express my concern about the proposed plan to fence off the National Zoo from the rest of the city. One of the joys of the park is its openness to the surrounding city, and it would lose this welcoming atmosphere if visitors were forced through a security checkpoint to enter it. In addition, the parking seems unnecessary, and intrusive, given the park's proximity to metro and bus routes.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:38 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing to express my objections to the plan to add perimeter fencing and secure checkpoints to the National Zoo. I live on Irving Street very close to the east entrance to the zoo. My back yard faces the back of the Harvard Towers apartment building that is directly across from the bridge that leads to the zoo entrance. We and our neighbors suffer in many ways from our proximity to the zoo. The most significant impact is that it's almost impossible to park on our own street on a busy day at the zoo because the zoo's $20 parking rates send people in search of free parking on residential streets. However, in the past we have benefited from being able to use the zoo as a recreational space. When my children were little, we would go over to use the pizza or prairie dog playground for a little while or to play on the grassy lawn. This is an important option for residents of Mt. Pleasant, who have small yards or no yards at all. Also, because the zoo blocks access to the other side of the park, one of the best ways to walk over to the other side of the park is through the zoo. What is the impetus for this decision? Is there a fear of a mass shooting? We have reason to fear that such shootings could happen anywhere, but we don't want TSA‐style inspections to diminish our quality of life. We must fight the laws that enable gun violence rather than succumbing to paranoia. Kelly Hand

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:50 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing as a DC resident to express my concern about the proposed plan to fence off the National Zoo from the rest of the city. One of the joys of the park is its openness to the surrounding city, and it would lose this welcoming atmosphere if visitors were forced through a security checkpoint to enter it. In addition, the parking seems unnecessary, and intrusive, given the park's proximity to metro and bus routes.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:03 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Please don't institute the fencing as proposed in the following WAMU article: https://wamu.org/story/18/07/05/smithsonian‐national‐zoo‐plans‐add‐checkpoints‐reduce‐entrances/

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:06 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to install security gates and perimeters and limit the number of entrances and egresses to the Smithsonian National Zoological Park. The National Zoo is prized in Washington, and by visitors from around the country and around the world, largely because of its welcoming and inclusive design. Its integration and connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods, and of course its free admission, make it a true "park" in which joggers and mothers with infants and strollers can walk alongside dedicated zoogoers focused on the elephants or crocodiles. The zoo has existed and thrived for well over a century as an integrated whole through which visitors can engage the surrounding residential and commercial areas during their visit. By restricting the number of entrances, installing security gates and metal detectors, and otherwise turning the zoo into yet another secured facility in DC, the Smithsonian will deny the zoo's own history and substantially diminish its appeal, accessibility, and welcoming design. We would lose more "public" open spaces to securitized and militarized "managed access" ‐‐ access that of course can be taken away, and would at the very least make a visit to the zoo more stressful, more hassle, and less fun for the family audiences that patronize the zoo. In addition to the philosophical values, the security benefits would likely be minimal, since visitors would be bunched up at the entryways waiting to be screened, much as they are at airports or Nationals Park, making them easy targets for a hypoth! etical gunman or an enraged driver with a truck. The multiple entry and exit points to the current zoo are actually security benefits, in that they ensure no massive concentrations of visitors at a single space. There is no obvious benefits, and enormous likely harm, to an expensive, burdensome, security theater effort at the zoo, such as those at Nationals Park, the Smithsonian museums, and other recreational sites. The zoo is not a military or political target; there are no sensitive government agencies located there. There are some understandable risks to having the zoo open to the public right now, but those risks are preferable to the certainty of yet another beloved public space being turned into an armed camp. Michael Zwirn 1237 Perry Street NE, Washington DC 20017

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:21 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I recently learned of the plan to introduce airport‐style security checks at the National Zoo. Unless there are specific threats you cannot disclose, please do not do this. It's an unnecessary cost and a significant impediment to access and enjoyment of the facility. It is not necessary to live in constant fear, or to train children to accept intrusive security measures as normal and expected. Just because additional security can be added does not mean it *should* be added. The current risk:benefit ratio of the current access situation is quite reasonable.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:37 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email The zoo security proposal is an insult to the American people. It'll be another institution tarnished by security theater the serves no purpose but to inconvenient visitors.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:51 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am writing in reference to the announcement that the National Zoological Park will limit the number of entrances into the park, and will subject visitors to unnecessary and intrusive security checks at checkpoints at entrances. One of the many reasons I enjoy visiting this Zoo is the fact that I can walk right in‐‐no lines, no fees, no waiting. It is truly a park, and one that anyone can partake in during the day by simply walking in. Forcing visitors to endure a security checkpoint (with the waiting in line, opening bags & emptying pockets, and the frustrating and unnecessary invasion of privacy that this entails) is alarmist, wasteful and severely impacts the enjoyment of the park. I have two young children, and with all the accouterments (strollers, diaper bags, etc) that is involved with traveling with young children, I am afraid I will have to include the National Zoo as one more Smithsonian Institution I will be avoiding due to the ridiculous security theater involved. Please reconsider this plan and keep the Zoo free and open to all visitors without hassle and delay.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:53 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email As a current resident of DC and lifelong resident of the DC area I strongly oppose closing entrances and putting up security checkpoints at the National Zoo. I have never felt unsafe to the zoo, no matter the time of day or year. It is important to me that local families and visitors to DC feel like our zoo is easy to access and a pleasant, welcoming place.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 6:18 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Washington DC does not need more security theater. Have checkpoints on Easter Monday if you must, but the cost:benefit from the security salaries and the inconvenience to residents and tourists isnâ€™t worth it.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 6:20 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Do not build security perimeter; do not screen visitors. Improve emergency access instead. This design would actually create pedestrian chokepoints. Add water fountains. Help old people climb uphill. Improve enclosures. Stop it with the security theatre.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 8:25 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Please do not put security gates up at the zoo. The zoo is a great resource for kids and adults alike to learn how they and the creatures around them fit into the world together. Barriers arenâ€™t what you want for a place like this. Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 10:34 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution Public spaces should not be designed around terrorists. The National Zoo does not deserve the type of security being considered just as the National Mall should not require similar measures. The relative risk to the public in attending the Zoo is more likely to result in injury from their car trip to the Zoo. Don't allow irrational fears to dictate our everyday lives. The public is not asking for these measures to be taken.

1

Flis, Matthew


From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 10:36 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I want to voice my strong objections to additional security screening for entering the National Zoo. As someone who lived a short distance from the zoo for seven years ‐ one of its most special attributes is the ability to just walk in without having to wait in line to buy tickets or be screened by security. Being able to just walk into the National Zoo makes it a very welcoming and open place for both residents of DC and visitors. If I had to wait in line to enter the Zoo, especially on busy weekends, I wouldn't go as often and would feel that the Zoo was not an integral part of my neighborhood. Also, it's not clear to me why these security measures are needed. As far as I know nothing has happened at the Zoo that would call for the inconvenience and expense of these added security screening and closing entrances. Just because other museums on the Mall have these security measures in place does not mean that they need to be applied to the Zoo. Please don't make this change. Thank you for considering these comments.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 11:09 PM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing in regard to the Smithsonian's submitted plans to restrict access to the National Zoo and add security measures. I hope you will ask them to scale back the plans to preserve the current open feel and in fact keep visitors safe. As a DC resident who works in national security, I spend a lot of time thinking about the safety or vulnerability of public spaces. I firmly believe that not only will these proposed measures violate the intent of the Zoo to blend almost seamlessly with the surrounding Rock Creek Park and be part of the community, but they will actually make visitors and staff less safe. It is well known that efforts to secure airports have only moved the concentrations of people vulnerable to attack to a new location ‐ the security checkpoints instead of the airport gate, for example. The same would be true if the Zoo were to construct barriers at its entrances. Additionally, in the unlikely and horrible event of an active shooter, such checkpoints and f! encing could potentially restrict the ability of visitors to escape from the threat, funneling everyone into one or two limited exits that could be easily predicted and targeted by attackers. Although it may sound counterintuitive, the Zoo's current openness and flow may actually keep visitors and staff safer. I implore you to consider this proposal very carefully and push back on the conventional wisdom that more security is always better. Sometimes the cost of the loss of goodwill and connection with the population you seek to serve, outweighs any theoretical, tenuous gain in safety. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will decide to preserve the Zoo's current open access set up.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 3:09 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution This is in response to the proposed security checkpoints. If indeed these checkpoints are to be built, then they MUST install x‐ray machines. If x‐ray machines aren't considered, then the checkpoints should not be built as they would be unnecessary hassles. X‐ray machines are more thorough, efficient, and fairer than hand searches. A visitor with a large backpack being hand‐searched holds up the line behind them, while if an x‐ray flags something suspicious, they are pulled aside while the next visitor gets screened. (And many DC visitors carry backpacks instead of smaller bags) The proposed checkpoints are outside, but look at how the tour entrance to the White House has an outdoor kiosk for the x‐ray. I'm still baffled that the Air and Space Museum on the National Mall is the only Smithsonian venue that uses x‐ray machines (at least to my knowledge). Even its sister museum (opened in 2003 next to the biggest international airport in the DC metro area) and the newer ones on the Mall have the cumbersome hand searches. (And incidentally, the NASM on the Mall is my most‐visited Smithsonian venue partially because of the smoother security process and also its centralized location, not to mention its exhibits.) The Zoo is also less hassling to visit, and I hope it stays that way. Maybe the Zoo could lead the way into switching the rest of the Smithsonian to x‐ray screenings and efficient lines. In short, please install x‐ray machines or seriously reconsider building the project in the first place.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 6:27 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Regarding Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I am entirely opposed to the proposed new security fencing around the National Zoo. As someone who has enjoyed taking long walks through the park over the years and having hosted my daughter's birthday there I feel that these changes are detrimental to the park and will not improve security. Thank you.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 8:01 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Park's proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986. This proposal is unnecessary and unwise. As a resident of the surrounding neighborhood and extremely frequent visitor to the Zoo, I can provide direct assurance that security issues on Zoo property are extremely rare. Crimes are committed which notably higher frequency in the immediate vicinity *outside* the Zoo. A security fence, and the future planned check‐points, will not have any appreciable benefit to visitors to the Zoo. While the proposed fencing will not provide a worthwhile security benefit, it *will* have significant negative effects. First, the Zoo is under severe budgetary constraints, and cannot afford this unnecessary expense. Limited funds should be directed toward the vital programs that are unique to the Zoo. More important, the proposed fencing will have an unintended but severe effect on the visitor experience. The Zoo grounds currently convey a sense of open parkland, in accordance with its original inspiration over a century ago. The property is seamlessly embedded within Rock Creek Park, with minimally intrusive fencing mostly in remote areas of the site. I invite the commissioners and staff to observe families strolling from adjacent parking lots to the nearest animal enclosures ‐‐ the excitement, especially among children, builds palpably thanks to the open transition directly into the heart of the Zoo. These security fences send precisely the wrong message, that a visit to the Zoo is about danger, security, and exclusion. Any further plan to implement security check points would exacerbate these issues. With roughly two million annual visitors to the National Zoo, this decision requires substantially more public input and oversight. Please do not approve the fencing plan at the July meeting, and please provide an opportunity for the Zoo staff to re‐consider this ill‐advised proposal.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 8:04 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Such drastic ‐ and expensive ‐ changes to the National Zoo should only be pursued if there has been a thorough proven need for such security measures. General wariness about the lack of current security is insuffient. A demonstrated threat insufficiently met by the current set‐up should be required to justify the expensive, time‐consuming, and alienating changes. The National Zoo has been a safe and welcoming fixture of the DC landscape for decades; drastic changes to close it off to the community should be seriously disfavored. This plan will change the character and the charm of the institution and send the wrong message to our children ‐ that they should consider all public places a potential safety risk. Absent a very serious sustained and verified threat, this plan is a waste of taxpayer resources.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 8:47 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Project: National Zoological Park Supplemental Perimeter Fencing NCPC File Number: 7986 Agency: Smithsonian Institution I oppose the proposal for additional security booths at the Zoo. The National Zoo is a great, lasting institution in part because it feels welcoming to all and is a respite from the heavily, over‐secured nature of the rest of the city. Please reconsider!

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 8:48 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I write to excited concerns over the planned stepped up security at the Zoo. Will reducing entrances increase safety or will they create choke points that create denser groups of people for nefarious actors to target, reduce safety in case of actual need to m for an emergency exit? This seems more like security theater than actual public safety. I do not doubt the sincerity of the officials making these plans but unless there are some concrete threats to justify this it seems like fixing something that isn't broken, which will likely result in new problems (wait times, reduced privacy, reduced safety for evacuations, etc)

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 8:51 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I live a few blocks from the zoo and go almost every day. I'm also a member. Changing the entrances would keep me from these visits. Additionally, can you imagine the long lines that are going to end up down Connecticut Avenue once you force all those strollers and bags through limited checkpoints? It's going to be a nightmare. Not to mention that it would be a traffic hazard and more dangerous to those waiting in line. How do you keep the kids from running about and in to the streets? I am strongly against this plan

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:11 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Please don't close almost all of the entrances to the Smithsonian zoo or add checkpoints to those that remain. Creating the illusion of safety through this proposed security theater is not worth cutting the zoo off from the city. The open nature of the zoo is part of its unique charm; please don't cordon it off.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:15 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I've been a resident of DC for four years now, and I just heard that the NCPC is planning on reducing the number of pedestrian entrances to the National Zoo while adding a parking garage due to security concerns. I don't think that that is very sound reasoning. People can be a whole lot more dangerous with things they can bring to the Zoo in a vehicle, rather than on their person. I also think that this sends a message to the community: if you have a car, you're worth more than a person walking in from the street.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:27 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing in regard to the National Zoo proposal to add more perimeter fencing and to reduce the number of pedestrian entrances from 13 to three. Please do not do this. The public does not want it. The proposal will hurt both the zoo and public by cutting off the zoo from the rest of Rock Creek Park, by increasing wait times to get into the zoo, and by making it more difficult to find entrances into the zoo. Any meager benefit in terms of security is not worth these downsides. They are also not worth the financial cost of these measures. More security measures are not always better, and they won't be here. Please stop imposing these "security theater" on the public. We do not want this.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:14 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email This comment is in opposition to the proposed security fence and security checkpoint. This is a solution in search of the problem. Running our country in fear is counterproductive, and also leads to a huge missallocation of economic resources. Funding for a checkpoint should be directed to the Zoo's core programs. If security is such a concern, which data does not indicate it is, then funding should be directed to manned patrols, not a checkpoint and fence that would have little security benefit and which would have a dramatic chilling effect on Zoo attendance.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:14 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am strongly against this plan, which will have negative impacts on the zoo and surrounding area residents. The zoo is often used ‐ as was intended ‐ as open space for the residents nearby, who may enjoy a brief stroll through the grounds or a quick visit to take in ZooLights. The additional perimeter fencing limits access and while it may not deter full‐day users, it will have a particularly severe impact on casual users who (regularly) enjoy spending a few moments of their day in the green space in their neighborhood. Many of these visitors will not endure a longer walk to the approved entrances or a security checkpoint for what is just a short visit. I am strongly against this plan and urge the Commission to reject it.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:13 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a to oppose the National Zoological Parkâ€™s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:11 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Parkâ€™s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986. It is simply unnecessary and unwanted. It is an enormous expense to build the security checkpoints and the fencing, and will continue to be an expense through upkeep and staffing. Furthermore, it excludes people from the park experience. One of my favorite memories is of my first visit to the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, where I was stunned to find that you could just explore the park, for free. It felt so inviting and continues to be such a vital community resource, one that blends seamlessly into its neighborhood. And that leads me to my final point. Creating unnecessary 'safety' checkpoints excludes the community you serve in several ways. It destroys the park atmosphere, it limits the hours of operation, and it will prevent visitors from enjoying the Zoo. Creating these checkpoints will create an atmosphere of exclusivity, make people think they have to pay for the zoo, and will prevent people from coming. In museum education, a huge factor in visitor engagement is a welcoming first experience. If you have to stop guests and funnel them through a checkpoint, they will have a diminished experience. From that one opening moment you create a negative impression that reduces enjoyment, learning, and repeated visits. Additionally, removing the open atmosphere removes the free exploration and sense of discovery that is crucial for learning. I believe that we have sacrificed this on the Mall, and we must not at the Zoo. I understand that museums need security to keep everyone safe. While the Zoo is a museum, it is unique in its park setting. We do not require checkpoints and guards to enjoy our city parks and the Mall, and we should not require them at the zoo.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:10 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Hello, I write to you to express my strong objection to the new security program at the National Zoo. The National Zoo is a wonder, and I am proud to call myself a friend of this amazing establishment. For over a decade now my family and I have made trips to the zoo a regular part of our world, we've participated in the programs and attended the events. I have done early morning runs through the park to the Rock Creek trail, and partied with nearby friends until the flamingos reminded us it was sunrise. The openness of the zoo is what makes it so appealing, and to sacrifice that in the name of yet more security theater would be a tragic loss to the people who actually call this city home. I am not a fool, I witnessed the eruption of the Pentagon first‐hand on 9/11 and was in New York City at Ground Zero less than a week later. I am not naive about the threat of terrorism. However, that threat will never disappear. Transforming our city into a fortress makes it unlivable and unenjoyable and only increase the safety for a single, limited form of attack. There will always be risk, but security is not free. This effort would cost millions of dollars which could be better spent elsewhere. Please, do not let security take over our zoo. Stop the madness. Say no to this proposal. Bradley Hague

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:09 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email As a frequent visitor to the zoo, I despise the new security plan. This is one more step toward turning all of Washington, DC into one giant security perimeter, reinforcing the idea that our lives are to be led in fear and that all personal enjoyment must come at the cost of fences, check points, searches and police presence. The zoo is one of the few places left that locals can enjoy by strolling in and out without feeling like they are at the airport. In my many years visiting the zoo, I've yet to experience anything that would necessitate these extreme measures. If they go forth, I will no longer patronize the zoo, but instead find somewhere else to enjoy that does not feel like a military checkpoint.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:09 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Parkâ€™s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986. Additional security measures at the National Zoo are unnecessary and will negatively affect the experience of visitors to the zoo. The money would be best spent elsewhere on Zoo programming.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:09 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I read the "first phase of the security check‐point plan" for the zoo and I have 3 concerns: 1) NCPC provided no statistics to support the need to build fences for "security and visitor safety." It's hard to imagine the zoo having more safety issues now than in the past, considering the surrounding neighborhoods have gentrified significantly and crime has decreased. 2) NCPC provided no evidence that fencing would actually improve "security and visitor safety." I would be concerned for my safe escape from the facility if a dangerous animal or\ a fire/dangerous situation developed ‐ I would feel trapped. 3) NCPC provided no evidence that the cost of the project is less than the supposed benefits.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:09 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Park’s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986. This proposal is unnecessary and unwise. As a resident of the surrounding neighborhood and extremely frequent visitor to the Zoo, I can provide direct assurance that security issues on Zoo property are extremely rare. Crimes are committed which notably higher frequency in the immediate vicinity *outside* the Zoo. A security fence, and the future planned check‐points, will not have any appreciable benefit to visitors to the Zoo. While the proposed fencing will not provide a worthwhile security benefit, it *will* have significant negative effects. First, the Zoo is under severe budgetary constraints, and cannot afford this unnecessary expense. Limited funds should be directed toward the vital programs that are unique to the Zoo. More important, the proposed fencing will have an unintended but severe effect on the visitor experience. The Zoo grounds currently convey a sense of open parkland, in accordance with its original inspiration over a century ago. The property is seamlessly embedded within Rock Creek Park, with minimally intrusive fencing mostly in remote areas of the site. I invite the commissioners and staff to observe families strolling from adjacent parking lots to the nearest animal enclosures — the excitement, especially among children, builds palpably thanks to the open transition directly into the heart of the Zoo. These security fences send precisely the wrong message, that a visit to the Zoo is about danger, security, and exclusion. Any further plan to implement security check points would exacerbate these issues. With roughly two million annual visitors to the National Zoo, this decision requires substantially more public input and oversight. Please do not approve the fencing plan at the July meeting, and please provide an opportunity for the Zoo staff to re‐consider this ill‐advised proposal.”

1

Flis, Matthew


From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:07 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email As a long time resident of DC frequent visitor to the zoo I am strongly against the proposal for additional security and fencing. One of the best aspects of the zoo is the fact that its an open and welcoming environment that is easy to access for everyone. Given that the zoo had successfully existed with its current arrangement for so long without any incident I don't rationally see how this will benefit anyone. Funding required for this would be much better spent on upgrades to existing infrastructure and programs that would add value to the zoo experience.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:06 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Do not fence off the National Zoo! It is intended to be part of Rock Creek Park, easily and naturally accessible.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:01 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Park’s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986. This proposal is unnecessary and unwise. As a resident of the surrounding neighborhood and extremely frequent visitor to the Zoo, I can provide direct assurance that security issues on Zoo property are extremely rare. Crimes are committed which notably higher frequency in the immediate vicinity *outside* the Zoo. A security fence, and the future planned check‐points, will not have any appreciable benefit to visitors to the Zoo. While the proposed fencing will not provide a worthwhile security benefit, it *will* have significant negative effects. First, the Zoo is under severe budgetary constraints, and cannot afford this unnecessary expense. Limited funds should be directed toward the vital programs that are unique to the Zoo. More important, the proposed fencing will have an unintended but severe effect on the visitor experience. The Zoo grounds currently convey a sense of open parkland, in accordance with its original inspiration over a century ago. The property is seamlessly embedded within Rock Creek Park, with minimally intrusive fencing mostly in remote areas of the site. I invite the commissioners and staff to observe families strolling from adjacent parking lots to the nearest animal enclosures — the excitement, especially among children, builds palpably thanks to the open transition directly into the heart of the Zoo. These security fences send precisely the wrong message, that a visit to the Zoo is about danger, security, and exclusion. Any further plan to implement security check points would exacerbate these issues. With roughly two million annual visitors to the National Zoo, this decision requires substantially more public input and oversight. Please do not approve the fencing plan at the July meeting, and please provide an opportunity for the Zoo staff to re‐consider this ill‐advised proposal. Thank you.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:01 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email Please do not put up a fence. The existing openness and welcoming design to the zoo is what makes it so appealing. A fence will only turn this wonderful zoo into another fortified government facility that has changed the tenor and character of this wonderful city. Please leave it as‐is.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:00 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email A security fence, and the future planned check‐points, will not have any appreciable benefit to visitors to the Zoo. While the proposed fencing will not provide a worthwhile security benefit, it *will* have significant negative effects. First, the Zoo is under severe budgetary constraints, and cannot afford this unnecessary expense. Limited funds should be directed toward the vital programs that are unique to the Zoo. These security fences send precisely the wrong message, that a visit to the Zoo is about danger, security, and exclusion. Any further plan to implement security check points would exacerbate these issues. With roughly two million annual visitors to the National Zoo, this decision requires substantially more public input and oversight. Please do not approve the fencing plan at the July meeting, and please provide an opportunity for the Zoo staff to re‐consider this ill‐advised proposal.â€ Beyond all of that ‐ every non‐partisan scientific study shows that security theaters like this don't make anyone safer. What they do is corral large groups of people in one spot (making them a target when they wouldn't have been) and make something which should be free for everyone an elusive and exclusionary activity. It's bad enough this has happened to other museums ‐ don't do it to the zoo as well.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:59 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Parkâ€™s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986. I live a few blocks from the zoo and go almost every day. I'm also a member. Changing the entrances would keep me from these visits. Additionally, can you imagine the long lines that are going to end up down Connecticut Avenue once you force all those strollers and bags through limited checkpoints? It's going to be a nightmare. Not to mention that it would be a traffic hazard and more dangerous to those waiting in line. How do you keep the kids from running about and in to the streets? I am strongly against this plan

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:56 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am writing as a member of the general public to oppose the National Zoological Parkâ€™s proposed Supplemental Perimeter Fencing, NCPC File Number 7986.

1

Flis, Matthew


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: NCPC General Information Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:42 AM To: NCPC General Information <[email protected]> Subject: NCPC Website Email I am a resident of Adams Morgan who regularly runs through the zoo as part of my fitness regimen. One of the most wonderful parts of the zoo is its accessibility to the public. By limiting the entrances and adding security checkpoints, congestion is inevitable. The initial design, which was to make this truly like a public park, will be effectively erased. This place will lose a vital part of its character. I am not naive, I understand that security is a primary concern, but there must be other ways to implement it. Making something so family‐friendly and approachable harder to access will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the community and its visitors. I truly hope that you will reconsider this proposal, and attempt to find another solution. Thank you.

Executive Director’s Recommendation · 2018. 7. 6. · Executive Director’s Recommendation Page...

Documents

Transcript of Executive Director’s Recommendation · 2018. 7. 6. · Executive Director’s Recommendation Page...