This section is much stronger now that it has more data. It would be helpful to add the year and source of the information about household income used to calculate spending potential. Also, year and source of information about housing values.

On page 24/25, there is data on housing market demand. It states that there is a projected need for 183-275 new units (not including 140 proposed by EYA and Eichner). Does this mean that the 140 proposed units would help satisfy the projected 10 year demand? The wording is very unclear and is repeated throughout the report. This is an important clarification because it has implications for the potential of housing development on the areas slotted for long-term development.

Recommended housing density of 2-3 story townhomes and 3-4 story garden apartments is first brought up in this section (though it is, of course, introduced in the overview as well). I’m sure this will be one of the more contentious recommendations for the community and I don’t believe the plan either presents enough information or is worded carefully enough to allay the concerns of many community residents about development density. First, the plan should put some context around the DUA recommendations – referencing the pictures more explicitly and indicating the density of other development in the area (i.e. co-housing, Watkins apt., Whittier apts.). Second, the plan should recognize that there are economic considerations that partly dictate the density requirements of investing in housing in the area. Currently, the plan suggests that only the existing scale and density of the area inform the recommendation. If surrounding scale and density were the only consideration, one could easily see recommending single family or semi-detached homes around Eastern, Willow, and Maple. If there are valid reasons for not recommending lower density housing, then include them explicitly. Otherwise, the recommendation seems too facile. Finally, the plan should be very cautious about the wording used regarding density. On page 10, for example, the plan says the village green should be framed by development of at least 3-4 stories in height. It should say, of no more than 3-4 stories in height. This is not "word-smithing", but a very important difference in the stance of the report that is likely to save the planning department a lot of headaches. (Please also see p. 15 point 6d. – the density recommendation of 65-95 dwelling units per acre is wrong. The plan recommends 65-95 dwelling units on all 2.7 acres).

On p. 39, the plan slates Priority Revitalization Site 4 as optimal for retail-office. FYI – Mr. Katz, who has bought the lot, intends to include several apartments in the building on that lot. This alters the future housing supply/demand numbers.

I am very pleased with the guidelines suggested for the metro site. I believe they address nearly all of the concerns raised by various area residents. I do think it would be wise to give more context to the recommendation to have the open space be 0.8-1.2 acres. The plan suggests that this is comparable to the current open space at the site. The plan, should, therefore, explicitly say that the current green space is X acres and that they recommend the retention of a comparably sized village green.

This section also omits a recommendation that I have mentioned at other times in this process. Here (p.43/44), and throughout the report, the plan rightly emphasizes the need for improved pedestrian access and safety at Blair, Carroll and 4^th Street. Those streets are clearly a priority for improved pedestrian safety. But, the lack of sidewalks is also very key just east of the metro underpass at Aspen- along Aspen Street between Sandy Spring and Willow and along Sandy Spring/Maple and Willow. The recommendation to improve or add sidewalks in this area should be included in the streetscape section of p. 13; in pedestrian safety bullet point on p. 41; p. 43 reference).

Recommending the closing of Blair Road is a very bad idea. The emphasis should be on moving commuter traffic efficiently through Blair Road and keeping it off other neighborhood streets.

Having a kiss and ride drop off on the north (westbound) side of Carroll at the village green is a good idea. But people will also continue to use the south (eastbound) side of Caroll as a drop off point. The plan would do well to recognize this and formally recommend a kiss and ride area with a well marked pedestrian cross-walk on that side of Caroll as well.

When referencing left turns off Georgia on to Blair Rd. (bottom of p. 50) and left turns from Piney Branch on to Blair Rd. (top of p. 51). Specify that this is for southbound traffic.

Historic Preservation (no comments)

Please note in the Overview section that the Illustrative Scenario on p. 20 omits the lots where the liquor store and chinese take out/spa are located between the metro tracks and Blair Road. This may be nice wishful thinking, but the map is inaccurate if it doesn’t recognize the existing lots/buildings there. Also, in the middle of p. 4 of the overview, plan references 4^th Street, NE. This is NW.

Generally, I think the plan is a good, comprehensive guide for the area that is very responsive to the many and varied concerns of community residents. It would be a much stronger document if it included an implementation section identifying next steps, responsible parties and a timeline.

Name and address: Cristina Himes, Whittier St., NW, Washington, DC