2307.1 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.

2307.2 Three large Comprehensive Plan workshops took place in Rock Creek West during 2005 and 2006. These meetings provided a chance for residents and local businesses to discuss both District-wide and neighborhood planning issues. Many smaller meetings on the Comprehensive Plan also took place in the community, including briefings and workshops with Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) and neighborhood organizations.

2307.3 There have also been many meetings in the community not directly connected to the Comprehensive Plan, but focused on related long-range planning issues. These meetings have covered topics such as the future development of Upper Wisconsin Avenue NW, streetscape improvements along the Glover Park commercial corridor, and proposals for individual properties.

2307.4 The community delivered several key messages during these meetings, summarized below:

1. Residents of the Rock Creek West Planning Area remain deeply concerned about growth. While there is support for development on underutilized sites along the major corridors, issues of height, scale, character, and density remain a source of concern, as well as a source of debate within the community. The relatively low-density commercial zoning on most of the corridors has not provided the predictability that many residents seek. The reliance on planned unit developments (PUDs) has brought neighborhood amenities but has also resulted in density bonuses that are beyond what many residents find acceptable. The potential impact of density increases on schools, emergency response and safety, infrastructure, traffic, parking, environmental health, and neighborhood character led residents to conclude that the only acceptable growth rate is one that matches infrastructure capacity.
2. Rock Creek West has the unique characteristic of containing some of Washington, DC's most dense and least dense neighborhoods, some of which are located next to each other. Along parts of Connecticut and Wisconsin

Avenues NW, multi-story apartment buildings abut single-family homes along rear lot lines. These uses successfully coexist in part because of the significant buffering effects of open space, parking lots, alleys, mature trees and shrubbery, changes in topography, and other screening and site planning measures. Neighborhoods seek assurances that existing buffers will be maintained and that additional buffers, setbacks, and a stepping down in building heights will be provided, if and when, infill development occurs along the corridors.

1. Like the rest of the District, Rock Creek West is facing a lack of affordable housing. Home prices here are the highest in Washington, DC and many residents could not afford the homes they live in now if they were first-time buyers today. The conversion of formerly modest apartments to upscale condominiums has created a burden for low- and moderate-income renters, older adults, and workers just entering the job market. On the other hand, these conversions have provided a more affordable alternative to individuals and families who would otherwise have been priced out of the community entirely. There is broad support for requirements to include affordable or moderate-income housing units within new market-rate projects, but the prospect of density bonuses and other zoning flexibility in exchange for these units continues to raise objections. While there is support for development on underutilized sites along the major corridors, issues of height, scale, character, and density remain a source of concern as well, as a source of debate within the community.
2. A wider variety of retail choices is needed in some parts of the Planning Area. It was acknowledged that the area does not need public action or the involvement of nonprofit community development corporations to attract retail in the same way that other parts of the District do. However, some neighborhoods still lack the range of goods and services needed to support the basic needs of local residents. High costs have had a negative effect on some of the area's small businesses, leading to a loss of small businesses and family-owned neighborhood institutions. The community continues to favor neighborhood-serving retail rather than office space along the corridors, both to meet community needs and to avoid uses that would generate commuter traffic.

3. Some of the Planning Area's commercial streets lack the vibrancy of other pedestrian-oriented neighborhood shopping streets. Recent efforts to renovate existing commercial buildings in Friendship Heights have generally been well-received and created a more vibrant pedestrian environment. There is support for development that emphasizes walkability over auto-orientation, provided that height, scale, parking, infrastructure capacity, and other issues can be reconciled.

4. Traffic congestion and pedestrian safety are also problematic. The radial street pattern results in very high volumes along major corridors, particularly Connecticut, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Western Avenues NW, MacArthur Boulevard NW, and Military, River, and Canal Roads NW. Local trips combined with commuter traffic to and from the Maryland suburbs and I-495, push many intersections beyond their capacities. As is the case in many parts of the District, major arterials are at Level of Service D or E during peak hours, with stop and go traffic. The prior Ward Plan for this area suggested that traffic be restored to Level of Service B or C, yet such conditions cannot be attained without massive road reconstruction and removal of major trip generators. This is neither a realistic nor desirable solution. Consequently, more integrated solutions to traffic control, including bus improvements, bicycle improvements, transportation demand management programs for new development, and more efficient use of existing roadways (such as synchronized traffic signals), are needed.

5. Parking is also an issue. On-street parking has been removed in some locations to facilitate traffic flow, which has exacerbated parking needs on side streets. Residential permit parking has helped, but additional parking management measures are needed. Some residents have suggested municipal parking garages. Others have called for limits on development as a way to control parking demand. Still others have suggested that developers build more parking spaces than are required by law, or that the District limit the issuance of residential parking permits. There are pros and cons to these options. One downside of building more parking garages is that they may attract more non-local traffic to the area, particularly near Metro stations.
6. The community's public facilities are experiencing the strains of age and increased demand. While enrollment has fallen at DC Public Schools (DCPS) in other parts of Washington, DC, many of the schools in Rock Creek West are over capacity. Some of these schools are experiencing physical deterioration and are in need of modernization. There continue to be concerns about fire and rescue services, and the difficulties associated with renovating historic fire stations to modern standards. The projected addition of nearly 3,000 households in Rock Creek West by 2025 will likely mean that additional fire and emergency management services may be needed, and that library services may need to be expanded. Some of the recreation centers in the area are lacking the amenities found in other parts of the District or are insufficient. The planned new recreation center at Stoddert will provide a much needed facility not only for the community, but for children at Stoddert Elementary.
7. The character of new development is an issue, particularly as more smaller homes are expanded or torn down and replaced with larger homes. While

many decry tear downs and mansionization, others believe the District should not overly restrict the scale or design of new homes. Communities like the Palisades expressed interest in the conservation district concept to preserve neighborhood identity without regulating each detailed aspect of architectural design. Related issues confront the older apartment buildings along Connecticut Avenue and some of the historic estates in the community. These properties may have the capacity for additional development under zoning, but such development could reduce the integrity of the sites or structures and compromise the features that allow them to coexist so well with adjoining single-family homes.

1. The preservation of the natural environment and improvement of environmental health remain top priorities. Like the rest of the District, Rock Creek West includes areas where storm sewers and sanitary sewers are combined, leading to sewage overflow problems during heavy rains. Tree removal and development on steep slopes in areas such as the Palisades and Forest Hills causes erosion, despite tree and slope protections in the zoning regulations. Spring Valley continues to contend with the effects of discarded chemicals and munitions from World War I-era weapons testing. Residents in the westernmost part of the Planning Area are concerned about proposed dewatering facilities at Dalecarlia Reservoir, while those in Tenleytown are concerned about the health effects of communication antennas. Residents in Friendship Heights continue to be concerned about emissions and ground pollutants from the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) Western Bus Garage. Along major corridors throughout the Planning Area, residents contend with air and noise pollution due to cut-through traffic and idling vehicles.
2. Esthetic improvements are needed along some of the area's roadways to become the gracious gateways to the nation's capital they were intended to be. In other areas, aesthetic qualities already exist, and should be preserved from future degradation. This is true on roads traversing national parklands such as Canal Road NW, Dalecarlia Parkway, and Rock Creek Parkway.
3. There are far fewer community-based residential facilities (CBRFs) in Rock Creek West than other parts of Washington, DC. There is support in the community for scattering small-scale shelters for persons experiencing homelessness (especially in places of worship), providing social service facilities on the commercial corridors, and accepting small community residence facilities within single-family neighborhoods.
4. Institutional uses, including private schools, nonprofits, large nursing homes, colleges, hospitals, and religious establishments, are part of the fabric of the Rock Creek West community. In fact, they comprise almost 660 acres in the

Planning Area, almost one-third of the District-wide total. Local institutions provide resources for local families and include some of the most architecturally distinctive buildings in the community. Many of these facilities have structures that do not conform to the underlying zoning. In some instances, tensions have arisen between institutions and surrounding neighbors due to noise, parking, traffic, and other issues. Pursuant to the District's zoning regulations, the compatibility of these uses should be maintained, their expansion carefully controlled, and conversion to other non-conforming uses avoided. Solutions to traffic, parking, and other issues should continue to be developed so that the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods is not diminished.

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)).