2207.1 This section summarizes the opportunities and challenges residents and stakeholders prioritized during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision. During large community workshops, residents shared their feedback on District-wide and neighborhood specific issues. Since the 2006 community workshops, however, some of the challenges and opportunities facing the community have evolved. The following summary does not reflect new community priorities or feedback from either amendment cycle but summarizes the most important issues during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision.

2207.2 Three Comprehensive Plan workshops took place in Rock Creek East during the Comprehensive Plan revision. These meetings provided an opportunity for residents to discuss neighborhood planning issues, as well as District-wide issues. The Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) and several civic associations were briefed on the Comprehensive Plan, providing additional input. There were also many meetings in the community not directly connected to the Comprehensive Plan, but addressing long-range planning issues. These include Small Area Plan meetings for Takoma and Georgia Avenue/Petworth, as well as meetings on the Great Streets program, the District's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and various transportation studies.

2207.3 The community delivered several key messages during these meetings, summarized below:

1. Land use planning for Rock Creek East should preserve and enhance the established neighborhoods for which the area is known. Residents at Comprehensive Plan meetings described their neighborhoods as parklike due to their tree cover, low densities, and proximity to Rock Creek Park. Apart of what creates the park-like ambiance is the large federal and institutional properties in the community. This is particularly true for Walter Reed Hospital and the Armed Forces Retirement Home, both of which may be redeveloped during the next two decades. Plans for these sites should make every effort possible to retain the open space, mature trees, and visual buffers that make these sites welcome neighbors in the community today. Residents at Comprehensive Plan meetings were also clear that design guidelines and zoning standards for these sites, and for other areas addressed by Small Area Plans, must be followed and enforced once they are prepared.
2. While preserving established neighborhoods is a priority, Rock Creek East also recognizes the need to provide a variety of housing choices. This community has always taken pride in the fact that it is economically integrated, with housing options for older adults, lower-income households, young professionals, moderate- income families, and persons with disabilities,

as well as high-income households. Appropriate sites for infill housing have been identified along Georgia Avenue NW, around the Takoma Metro station, between Upshur and Taylor Streets NW near 14th Street NW, along Kennedy Street, NW and on a limited number of other properties in the community. Development on these sites should be in keeping with the scale of the surrounding community, provide ample green space, address parking and traffic issues, upgrade infrastructure where needed, and serve a variety of incomes. Existing housing should continue to be renovated and rehabilitated, with programs to assist older adults and low-income residents and avoid displacement.

1. Neighborhood-serving commercial facilities need to be upgraded and expanded throughout the Planning Area. Some of the commercial areas have experienced decades of declining activity. Small Area Plans for Takoma and Georgia Avenue NW have focused on ways to improve the future viability of the local business districts in each area and attract investment that better meets the needs of residents, businesses, and property owners. Similar attention should be given to Kennedy Street NW, and to the Riggs Road Center in the adjacent Upper Northeast Planning Area. Much of the area continues to be underserved by basic consumer services like banks, hardware stores, and sit-down restaurants. Rather than siting these uses in long auto-oriented strips, future development should emphasize pedestrian-oriented centers. The community also expressed a strong preference for neighborhood-serving, rather than regional commercial uses. Such uses should be complementary to the low scale of existing development, and should enhance neighborhood identity through façade improvements, landscaping, signage, and lighting. Urban design excellence should be a very high priority.
2. As neighborhood commercial areas are upgraded, the potential for conflicts due to traffic, noise, litter, and other environmental impacts must be recognized and proactively addressed. In addition, conflicts caused by existing commercial and industrial uses in the community need to be addressed more effectively. This is particularly true in Petworth (along Georgia Avenue NW) and in Takoma and Lamond-Riggs near the CSX railroad tracks. For years, these neighborhoods have dealt with semi-industrial uses such as auto repair shops, bus storage, maintenance yards, and distribution centers, and in some cases immediately adjacent to single-family homes. These uses are important to the District and provide jobs and needed community services for Rock Creek East residents. But they also generate truck traffic, fumes, odors, noise, and vibration, often without buffering. Over the next 20 years, steps should be taken to reduce the land use conflicts and unappealing visual elements associated with industrial uses in such locations as Blair Road NW, Chillum Place NW, and Upshur Street NW. In a few cases, this may mean phasing out industrial and heavy commercial uses and replacing them with housing or

mixed uses.

1. Residents of Rock Creek East have expressed concerns about the growth of particular land uses, including group homes, places of worship, and related facilities such as day care centers and social service centers. The Planning Area's inventory of large homes, many located on major transit lines, has made it an appealing choice for social service providers and community-based residential facilities. Issues relating to safety, parking, and neighborhood character have been raised, particularly in areas where group homes are clustered. Residents seek a stronger role in decisions on the siting and management of such facilities, and desire increased coordination with group home operators. There are also issues connected to code enforcement, related not only to housing for persons with disabilities, but also to broader issues such as unpermitted construction and vacant or abandoned properties.
2. Growth and development in neighboring jurisdictions particularly affects Rock Creek East. This is most apparent along Eastern Avenue NW in Shepherd Park, where tall condominiums in Silver Spring, Maryland face single-family homes in the District. The revitalization of Downtown Silver Spring has provided new shopping, entertainment, and dining options for area residents, but has also siphoned away some of the District's retail potential and brought traffic to Shepherd Park. Takoma Park, Maryland is experiencing more modest growth near its border with the District. Regardless of location, it is important to ensure that neither jurisdiction bears an undue share of the impacts of growth related to traffic congestion and parking needs. Coordination between the District and Maryland is essential to preserving community stability. Coordination should also emphasize improvement of gateways into the city at New Hampshire Avenue NW, Georgia Avenue NW, and 16th Street NW. These entries provide first impressions for residents on both sides of the border, and do not convey as positive of an image of Washington, DC as they could.
3. The transportation system should be designed so that residents can easily travel between home, work, school, shopping, and public facilities. Right now, the network is designed to facilitate north-south circulation (between downtown and Maryland), but east-west circulation is problematic. Improvements are needed to reduce traffic congestion and address safety concerns, particularly on Blair Road NW in Takoma, Georgia Avenue NW and Missouri Avenue NW in Brightwood, and Riggs Road NW in Lamond-Riggs. Better transportation to the west side of Rock Creek Park is also needed, as many residents travel in this direction to access schools, shopping, and Metrorail. Parts of Rock Creek East are more than one mile from Metrorail stations and need better, more reliable bus and bicycle connections. On the other hand, it should also be recognized that auto ownership is higher in Rock

Creek East than it is in most other parts of Washington, DC. Transit is not a practical option for everyone, and adequate parking should be provided as development occurs. This was a clear message provided by many Comprehensive Plan participants in the area. The safety of pedestrians and bicyclists is also an issue in many neighborhoods and at many intersections. New traffic management measures, including street design changes, should be explored to better regulate traffic volume and flow, particularly where major development is proposed. Such changes have already been made to 16th Street NW and will need to be explored along Georgia Avenue NW as plans for Bus Rapid Transit along the avenue move forward.

1. A high priority should be placed on upgrading public services and facilities. The community has more recreation centers per capita than most parts of the District, but these facilities are not evenly distributed. Neighborhoods in the northern part of the Planning Area do not have a full-scale recreation center, while areas like Brightwood Park and Petworth are lacking facilities such as athletic fields and tennis courts. The new Takoma, Lamond, and Emery Recreation Centers are important additions, but maintenance of the parks themselves continues to be a concern. The Fourth District Police Headquarters is on Georgia Avenue NW, and there are fire stations in Petworth and Brightwood Park, but areas like North Portal and Colonial Village are several miles from the nearest station. Public libraries and schools in the community are in need of modernization. The community has the largest concentration of hospitals in the city, but they are clustered in the southern part of the Planning Area, with no facilities in the north. The new wellness center on Kennedy Street NW will provide a much-needed facility in a community where nearly one in five residents is over 65.
2. Important historic resources in the Planning Area should be recognized and preserved. The Fort Circle Parks are a resource of national importance, yet their significance is unknown even to many District residents. Additional interpretive facilities are needed, and the integrity and historic context of the parks themselves should be protected. The Takoma Historic District helps conserve the homes known for their architecture, as well as the small-town architecture of Takoma; however, other older neighborhoods and structures are not similarly preserved under historic designations. Important architectural resources like the Wardman row houses of Brightwood, the older homes of 16th Street, and the legacy of early 20th century commercial buildings along Georgia Avenue NW remain vulnerable to demolition or unsympathetic alteration. Additional properties in the Planning Area may merit designation as historic landmarks or districts. Plans for neighborhood heritage trails in Brightwood and elsewhere will help preserve Rock Creek East's legacy in the future.

1. The Georgia Avenue NW corridor remains a source of great interest and hope, as well as poses challenges for the community. In March 2005, the entire 5.6-mile corridor was designated as one of the District’s six Great Streets to be targeted for reinvestment. Participants in Comprehensive Plan meetings noted some positive signs, while focused on the work yet to be done. One issue raised was the limited demand for the avenue’s small, narrow storefront spaces (with no off-street parking), and the need to concentrate retail at key nodes rather than in a continuous strip. Additional programs and investments are needed to assist businesses, attract the desired mix of retail, resolve traffic problems, address problematic land uses, and provide appropriately designed infill housing for older adults and others. Transit plans for the corridor were the subject of much discussion during the Comprehensive Plan process, with concerns expressed about impacts on parking and congestion. The link between plans for Upper Georgia Avenue NW and plans for Walter Reed Hospital also was raised. Regardless of what happens on the hospital site, change should be leveraged to achieve positive results for Georgia Avenue NW and the neighborhoods around it.

SOURCE: District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984, effective April 10, 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76; 31 DCR 1049 (March 9, 1984)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Element Amendment Act of 1984, effective March 16, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-187; 32 DCR 873 (February 15, 1985)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-129; 37 DCR 55 (January 5, 1990)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989 NCPC-Recommended Amendments, and Closing of Public Alleys in Square 669, S.O. 88-452, Act of 1990, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-132; 37 DCR 2213 (April 6, 1990)); as amended by District Government Land Use Temporary Amendment Act of 1994, effective October 1, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-190; 41 DCR 5360 (August 12, 1994)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1994, effective October 6, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-193; 41 DCR 5536 (August 19, 1994)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Amendment Act of 1994, effective March 21, 1995 (D.C. Law 10-235; 42 DCR 30 (January 6, 1995)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 18, 1996 (D.C. Law 11-110; 43 DCR 530 (February 9, 1996)); as amended by Second Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 9, 1997 (D.C. Law 11-255; 44 DCR 1271 (March 7, 1997)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 1998, effective April 27, 1999 (D.C. Law 12-275; 46 DCR 1441 (February 19, 1999)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1999, effective April 12, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-91; 47 DCR 520 (January 28, 2000)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2006, effective March 8, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-300; 54 DCR 924 (February 2, 2007)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 2008, effective March 25, 2009 (D.C. Law 17-353; 56 DCR 1117 (February 6, 2009)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2010, effective April 8, 2011 (D.C. Law 18-361; 58 DCR 908 (February 4, 2011)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2021, effective August 21, 2021 (D.C. Law 24-20; 68 DCR 006918 (July 16, 2021)).