On Declining to Survey Ward 3

To: kacyk kacyk@takomaparkmd.gov
Sent: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 6:05 pm
Subject: Ward 3 Survey on the Junction

 

Dear Kacy,

As your constituents, we respectfully urge you to survey the residents of Ward 3 on whether or not they support the current Takoma Junction site plan, before you vote on the Junction Resolution.
As you know, there is precedent for this, with at least two other Council members having done Ward surveys on the Junction in the past.
We understand that you are elected to use your judgement in City matters. But we also believe that, because our Ward will be the most affected by the development, you have a particular ethical responsibility to represent your constituents in Ward 3 in this matter.
In order to have as many days as possible for constituent responses, especially deep in summer, we would strongly suggest putting up the survey as quickly as possible. As we’re sure you understand, any later questions about the objectivity in the framing of the question would negate the survey results. We’ve included suggested language here.
As your Ward 3 representative, I will be voting YES or NO on July 25th on a resolution on the proposed site plan for development of the parking lot owned by the City at Takoma Junction. The Draft Resolution is here. The developer’s site plan is here
If the resolution is approved, the plan goes before County and State agencies for approval. 
Please register your opinion as to whether, as your representative, you would want me to:
A. Vote YES
B. Vote NO
Some neighbors in the last few days have asked us when residents will get to vote on the Junction plan. The process has been long and complex, and unfortunately, many neighbors deep in summer are still not aware that the Council will vote on July 25th.
Thank you for taking this final, important step to ensure clear feedback from your constituents.
Natalie Angier, David Blockstein, Megan Christopher, Leah Curry-Rood, Joan Duncan, Meriwether Jones, Sue Katz Miller, Merrill Leffler, Susanne Lowen, Ben Miller, Paul Miller, Dara Orenstein, Chas Poor, Debra Prybyla, Ron Resetarits, Roger Schlegel, Ann Slayton, Joe Uehlein, Paul Wapner, Rick Weiss
*****
Re: Ward 3 Survey on the Junction
From: Kacy Kostiuk, kacyk@takomaparkmd.gov
Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2018 2:09 pm

Dear Sue, Natalie, David, Megan, Leah, Joan, Meriwether, Merrill, Susanne, Ben, Paul, Dara, Chas, Debra, Ron, Roger, Ann, Joe, Paul, and Rick:

Thank you for reaching out to me with this request.
I appreciate your interest in having a survey conducted on the Junction project.  Throughout this process, I have sought to engage as many people as possible in this discussion and to carefully and thoroughly review the comments and information that residents have shared with me.  I have very much appreciated the high level of civic engagement on this issue and believe it has and will continue to result in an improved project.
Over the past few months, I have engaged in a lot of listening and thinking about the Junction.  I have spoken with and heard from residents at the Junction Project Open House, the Pop-Up, the One-on-One Conversations event last week, public comment sessions at every Council meeting since the beginning of April, two listening sessions that I arranged for Ward 3 residents, the traffic discussion with SHA at the firehouse, neighborhood gatherings, small-group meetings, one-on-one discussions, phone calls, emails, and listserv comments.
Thorough this process, I have carefully considered the perspectives of Ward 3 residents in particular.  Based on what I have heard, I have asked questions of NDC, the traffic firms, and City staff, and I have requested changes to the plan.  These include:
  • Adding an elevator to the west side of the building next to the Coop
  • Reducing the building height of up to 5 feet while maintaining natural light in the interior spaces
  • Minimizing negative impacts on the wooded lot behind the building
  • Setting 2700 sq ft as the minimum amount of public space
  • Minimizing noise and lighting impacts on the neighborhood from the rear of the building and requiring outdoor lights with no higher than 3000K temperature
  • Adding language to the resolution to require “non-formula” businesses without the Council’s consent
  • Dedicating a portion of the revenue from the project to the affordable housing fund
  • Requesting that NDC’s traffic firm complete an analysis of traffic based on a restaurant rather than just a shopping center prior to submitting to the County
  • Mediation between the Coop and NDC
I am still reviewing the Site Plan and Draft Resolution and considering if there are additional changes that need to be addressed prior to the vote.
Although I understand the impetus to call for a survey, I do not believe this would provide me with new information that would better inform my decision-making process.  Through all the engagement opportunities noted above, I have had opportunities to talk with and hear from residents, gaining a general sense of residents’ diverse range of perspectives throughout the ward.  The most important feedback I have gotten has focused on concrete aspects of the project or specific concerns.  These concerns have led to the changes I noted above, as well as others, and to me reconsidering the plan in a new light.  This is a vote on a resolution that involves a series of proposed changes to the project as well as opportunities for further amendments — not just a “yes” or “no.”
I can understand how frustrating it would be to feel that I am not listening.  I assure you that I have been and continue to be interested in hearing all of the opinions shared with me.  If you or others would like to talk more in-depth, I am happy to do so.  Anyone who feels they haven’t had a chance to share their thoughts is encouraged to email, call, or arrange a meeting with me.  I have appreciated all the input, and my discussions with residents have led to the changes I listed above and others.
Thank you again.
Best,
Kacy
*****

Alternative Plan #3

-Leibmann.alternate scheme 04-26-18 (3)-page-1Here, we bring you Alternative Plan #3, submitted to the City Council by Eric Liebmann, an architect experienced in working with developers on commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings. This plan features a proper on-site loading zone at the back of the development.

Features of this plan:

  • A one way loop drive behind the development which would allow all trucks up to 55 feet to unload and collect trash off-street, and out of public sight and smell.
  • A lay-by would still be needed on Carroll, solely for the use of the largest trucks. Someday when the largest trucks are no longer in use, the development would still have a proper loading zone in the back, and the lay-by could be repurposed (bike lane? row of trees?).
  • From Carroll Avenue, the project could look virtually the same, Streetsense’s handsome facades could be retained, and virtually all the valuable street-front retail would be preserved. The number of underground parking slots is also preserved.
  • The loop drive and loading zone along the woods could possibly be used in off-hours as public space.
  • The overall project would decrease in size by around a third in order to accommodate the loop drive, which would return the project back to the size originally envisioned by several responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP).

-Leibmann.alternate scheme 04-26-18 (3)-page-2-Leibmann.alternate scheme 04-26-18 (3)-page-0

Funding an Alternative Plan

There is great interest in the community in any number of alternative plans for Takoma Junction, with either more public space, smaller commercial space, or both. The developers maintain that they cannot afford to give us the smaller 34,000 sq ft from their original drawing, or more public space, or space for proper off-site unloading in the back of the development.

One response would be for the City to recognize that some of the open public space has great value to the community for multiple reasons (just as we recognize that the wooded slope has great value), and that the City can and should include significant public open space, even if it isn’t “cost neutral.”

But there are also lots of sources of funding out there for visionary and transformative community space–for innovative open space, city placemaking, hubs and incubators–for a design that would benefit more than just people who can afford upscale retail. Ideas that have gained traction include a food hub, a crafting/maker hub, a job training hub, and a small business incubator.

Below are some possible funding sources other than commercial developers. This is a crowd-sourced document. Please email additional resource ideas to tjcommunityvision@gmail.com.

1. State Funding

  • Maryland Economic Development Assistance Authority and Fund – direct grants and low-interest loans are available for developments and infrastructure
  • Economic Development Opportunities Fund (Sunny Day fund) – grants and loans especially for projects that incorporate employment training or creation for populations with high unemployment
  • Maryland Industrial Development Financing Authority – taxable and tax exempt bonds to the city for development of particular projects including those related to clean energy
  • Community Development Block Grants
  • Maryland Venture Fund – if we included a Impact Hub for start-up small businesses
  • Maryland Economic Adjustment Fund
  • Maryland Industrial Projects Fund – if we created a partnership with University of Maryland with our Impact Hub focused on food businesses
  • Maryland Jobs Now – investing in workforce oriented projects (think a training program for lower income residents interested in business start-ups in landscaping, composting, backyard gardening, home based graphic design, etc.)

2. Philanthropic support

  • Annie E. Casey – for Impact Hub focused on environmental problem solving start-ups, from tree care to composting
  • Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation – for workforce development for high  unemployment pockets of Takoma Park
  • Abell FoundationThe Abell Foundation encourages initiatives that attract resident investment in neighborhoods, promote sustainability, increase economic development opportunities and nurture entrepreneurial talent to increase the livability of neighborhoods, the number of residents, the number of jobs and the size of the tax base.
  • Town Creek Foundation

3. Impact Capital (non-profit investment firms)

4. TPSS Co-op members 

5. Other funders interested in community building and placemaking, such as those listed here: https://www.pps.org/article/innovative-funding-programs-for-placemaking. 

6. Community crowd-sourcing and other forms of resident investment, including IOBY

Junction Construction: Predicted Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution

Below, we print the recent public comment to City Council by resident Paul Chrostowski, PhD, QEP, on the greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the proposed Junction development plan. We also print a companion piece he posted yesterday on the air pollution impacts.

TAKOMA PARK CITY COUNCIL Public Comment

MAY 27, 2018

Environmental impacts of major construction are often overlooked, with a focus on the finished product rather than the construction process. However, construction can have significant impacts on air and water quality.

For example, the removal and disposal of the existing asphalt/concrete parking lot will likely involve jackhammers, compressors, front-end loaders, and roll-off or dump truck haulers. All of these operations use diesel fuel which emits greenhouse gases, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate. In addition, particulate matter from the asphalt and concrete itself will be emitted. At typical published rates of activity, this could mean about two weeks of constant air pollution and noise. As many as 40 loads would be required to transport this material.

During my 6 years on the Committee on the Environment, I pressed for environmental impact analysis of proposed major construction in the City. Since this has not been done, I have undertaken my own evaluation starting with a Limited Life Cycle Analysis of the proposed NDC development plan, focusing on greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

I based my analysis on material on the City’s website including the development plan: demolition and removal of the existing parking lot, 50,000 sq. ft. building with one level underground parking, about 8,000 sq. ft. of paving, and no recycling of demolition materials (none required in RFP or agreements). This did not include demolition of Takoma Auto Clinic (Johnny’s) structure, excavation for underground parking, or any street reconfiguration (all of which will also have impacts).

Using standard methods in the environmental engineering profession, I predict that this activity will release about 88,000 MTCO2e (190 million pounds). This is more than the Brendle Group 2013 report predicted for 2018 for the entirety of all greenhouse gas emissions in Takoma Park and would negate all the improvements we have made over the last several years. One would have to plant over one million trees to offset this effect. In reality, we would not be able to mitigate this impact. An alternative design concept I have seen is for a 34,000 sq. ft. building with no underground parking. This would cut the greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% and with careful attention to construction practices and offsets could be mitigated.

I encourage Council to pay close attention to these environmental impacts and engage any developer in a discussion to mitigate the impacts. The legacy of this project should not be that it contributed in any way to climate change or local air pollution.

 

AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS OF PROPOSED JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT

July 6, 2018

In my testimony of May 27, I presented the results of a technical analysis of greenhouse gases (GHG) during construction of the proposed development. At that time, I did not include emissions from the excavation for the underground parking level or impacts from demolition of the Takoma Auto Clinic. Including these, the GHG emissions will approach 90,000 MTCO2e (about 200 million pounds). These GHGs will contribute to climate change and stay in the atmosphere for some 39 years – long after a decision on this project has been made. These emissions are so high that they cannot be mitigated unless the project is made smaller.

In the meantime, I performed an air pollution analysis of diesel exhaust that will be emitted during the excavation for the underground parking. To do this, I focused on air pollutants regulated under the federal Clean Air Act – nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. In addition to these pollutants, diesel exhaust also contains hundreds of other pollutants that have been associated with human health effects. I used standard engineering assumptions that the underground garage would be 10 feet tall with a 2-foot subbase resulting in a 12-foot deep excavation. After subtracting 1 foot for asphalt removal and using the dimensions from NDC’s diagrams, this results in a 14,400 cubic yard excavation. We don’t know NDC’s excavation plans, so I developed a benchmark scenario using one 200 HP dozer, a track loader, and 30 cubic yard dump trucks. It would take about 6 months to excavate this hole using this equipment. Using more (or larger) equipment would shorten this time but increase diesel exhaust emissions.

I obtained emission data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the scientific literature. I then used a simple air quality model to project these emissions out to 350 feet from the center of the proposed project, where people are likely to be exposed. At this distance, the diesel particulate concentrations would exceed EPA’s screening level that is based on pulmonary inflammation and the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for oxides of nitrogen. Besides pulmonary inflammation, exposure to diesel exhaust has also been associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, central nervous system effects and developmental effects according to the EPA and the World Health Organization. In addition to local health effects, this excavation would add about 250 MT of pollutants to the airshed.

Exceeding screening levels in a preliminary environmental impact analysis does not necessarily mean that there will be health effects, but it does mean that there should be an in-depth refined study prior to implementation of construction. This would be based on NDC’s exact construction plans and would include appropriate mitigation measures. It is premature to approve the development plan without considering its potential impact on the health of Takoma Park residents.

NDC’s Traffic Study Is Skewed to Shift the Blame for Traffic to Others and Force a Costly, Questionable “Fix”

In which Roger Schlegel’s close analysis of the traffic studies leads him to the conclusion that “the next logical step would be to begin considering other kinds of site development with minimal impacts on peak-hour traffic.” Here, we give you the Introduction to his full 19-page analysis, with a link to read the rest, including charts, diagrams, and suggestions for logical alternatives to the current plan.

 

Introduction

When Neighborhood Development Corporation (NDC), presented its draft site plan for Takoma Junction in October 2017 and its revised site plan in April 2018, the required accompanying traffic study still wasn’t completed. Early critiques of the site plan thus couldn’t take into consideration the development’s impact on traffic, although it seemed that the driveway location and the truck lay-by could create traffic or safety hazards. Thinking that this was NDC’s “final offer,” I initially concluded that the Council should vote “no” because the revised site plan failed to respond adequately to ten of the eleven requirements set forth in the Council’s October 25, 2017 resolution. While the facade seemed acceptable, I soon realized that its height was incongruous with that of the Turner building and other buildings nearby.

As the process unfolded after April 4, there seemed reason to hope that the site plan could be revised to better meet the project goals outlined in the Development Agreement and the October 25 Resolution. Therefore, along with many other residents, I focused on suggesting adjustments that could address apparent shortcomings, particularly with respect to the size of the public space, the plan for deliveries and trash, and the total square footage. NDC’s responses to Council questions during work sessions indicated that the developer was unable or unwilling to make meaningful changes. Despite this impression, I collaborated with another resident, Byrne Kelly, who drew up an alternate 34,000 square-foot site plan that, in our view, better responded to the project goals and that could likely be profitable for NDC.

The completion of the traffic studies in mid-June changed everything for me. These studies were conducted by A. Morton Thomas (hired by the City) and by The Traffic Group (TTG), hired by NDC. Between June 19 and July 3, I carefully examined the studies, along with presentations and Council work sessions, to grasp fully what they reveal and how they are being interpreted.

What I’ve concluded is that if the City Council had had studies like these in hand in 2014 or 2016, it never would have sought a retail/office development anything like what NDC has proposed. The TTG study indicates that NDC’s commercial development would push Junction traffic to the breaking point, regardless of how deliveries or parking are handled. The study obscures that fact, though, by projecting that future off-site, “background,” developments would cause intersection failure; my analysis below calls that key assumption into question.

The studies make clear that the NDC design — especially the configuration of the lay-by and the public space — relies upon public funding for major changes to the junction of Grant, Carroll, Ethan Allen and Sycamore Avenues. The City Council is being advised that these “intersection improvements” (a) are necessary for other reasons and (b) will improve Junction traffic. Again, both of these assumptions must be called into question. As annoying as peak-hour delays can be, the Junction intersections are rated as having “acceptable” levels of service at present. While the intersection reconfigurations recommended by AMT and TTG would be projected to lessen peak-hour delays in the short term, they would immediately increase the total volume of traffic flowing through the 410 and 195 corridors in Takoma Park. As area drivers responded to the improved intersection capacity, the reconfigured intersection would generate still more traffic by inducing more trips along these routes — and could possibly generate new north-south routes involving Sycamore, Columbia, Elm, and Poplar Avenues.

Regardless, the City Council is being advised to vote “yes” for the NDC site plan in order to get the State Highway Administration (SHA) to study intersection improvements. However, the relationship seems to be the opposite: it’s not that site plan approval is needed to get a new intersection; rather, a new intersection design is needed to make the site plan feasible!  Obviously, the possibility of leveraging public funding for changes in the transportation infrastructure is not sufficient reason to vote “for” a particular development. And serious concerns exist about the advisability of making such changes, among them:

How long would it take for SHA to approve, design, and schedule intersection changes?

How much would an intersection reconfiguration cost?

How much would the City have to pay to make such a project happen?

How much time and attention from the Council and the public would be demanded by a process to evaluate and respond to designs for intersection reconfigurations?

– How would a changed intersection affect mobility for bus riders, cyclists, and pedestrians?

– How would a changed intersection affect cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods?

– How long would it be until induced demand returned traffic delays to their previous levels?

– What effects would permanent increases in traffic volume have on other areas of the City?

– What environmental impacts would result from increases in intersection capacity?

– How would changes affect visibility and viability for businesses on Carroll Avenue?

– How would changes affect the historic character of the Junction, which is the chief bulwark against future widening of Route 410 through Takoma Park?

On what basis can we conclude that traffic is “bound to keep getting worse”? Given investments in the Purple Line, intersection changes at Ethan Allen and New Hampshire Avenues, possible establishment of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor on New Hampshire Avenue, increasing use of biking as a means of commuting, and the advent of driverless vehicle technology, is it possible that congestion is at its peak right now and about to start declining?

Given what we know, as well as what we don’t know, the wise course of action for the City Council is to vote “no” vote on this NDC site plan. Based on the traffic studies alone, the next logical step would be to begin considering other kinds of site development with minimal impacts on peak-hour traffic. Such uses could include small-scale retail, housing, certain kinds of institutional uses, continued parking, a park, or a multi-use pavilion.

– Roger Schlegel

(Member, Takoma Junction Task Force, 2010-2012)

Letter from Seven Former Members of the Takoma Park City Council

June 26, 2018


Dear Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers Dyballa, Kostiuk, Kovar, Seamens, Searcy, and Smith
:

 As former City Council members we appreciate the serious thought and considerable time you have invested in Takoma Junction development.  We respect the efforts of the Mayor and Council as well as City staff, many community stakeholders as well as the developer and consultants. 

 We can identify with the sense of “getting this project done” now after long hours of public debate.  The lengthy, complex and contentious process has led to even more questions and some issues, such as traffic implications, not fully answered. 

 Despite many great efforts, there is still a tremendous amount of community disagreement, which unless resolved, will threaten the larger sense of community for which Takoma Park is known.   We urge you to take additional time for consideration and debate to assure that Takoma Junction becomes a vital part of a larger community vision. 

 As you prepare for a vote on the Takoma Junction site plan we former Council members would like to share the following thoughts:

 Takoma Park is a built city

Two of us served on the Council in the 1980’s.  It was a time when the City was coming out of bank redlining issues (deposits from TP welcome; housing loans not so much) and beginning to deal with issues of gentrification.

 We are unsure whether any of the traffic study options will have positive impact in the short term.  However, we do believe that none of the options will make Takoma Park a better place to live in the long term.

 Even acceptable levels of traffic today will likely mean unacceptable levels tomorrow and create pressure in an area where road widening and neighborhood spillover are unacceptable.

 In a community like Takoma Park, process is at least as important as product

For so many of us who came to Takoma Park, the goal was a city welcoming for all, a city open to seeking out and hearing all opinions.   It is that view that took us beyond city to community.

While we understand the desire of the Council to conclude a long process and move on, the impact on Takoma Park will be decades long.  Disagreements are expected, honest and deserve consideration…and a process that assumes respectful and good faith postures can resolve them.

There are multiple stakeholders with different views on the use of the Takoma Junction property.  Each believes that their view contributes best to the public good. The Council’s role is not to tinker with design (we suggest that be left to professionals) but rather, something far more important, to manage us through a process that not only delivers a better Takoma Junction but also a stronger and more engaged community.

You now have your traffic studies. You do not have a unified community.  We encourage you to take some more time, bring together representatives of all stakeholders, keep your minds open and task them with creating several consensus options for your review.

We wish you our common success.

Sincerely,

Rino Aldrighetti, Lynne Bradley, Jim Di Luigi, Sharon Levy, Hank Prensky, Marie Ritzo, and Dan Robinson

 

A Letter from 15 Local Architecture and Design Professionals

June 26, 2018

Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,

We are writing to you, as Takoma Park residents who are also professionals in the field of architecture and design, regarding the handling of the Takoma Junction project. Our goal is to express our concern about the approach the City is currently taking, and to offer our counsel about steps to be taken that can ensure that the customer’s vision – in this case, the City of Takoma Park is the Customer – is properly realized by the Developer. We appreciate that you as leaders of our City and many members of our Community have invested time energy toward the opportunity. However, we are concerned that collaboration with the Community has flagged and that the opportunities associated with inspired public space might be lost.

Traditionally in projects of this nature, the Customer’s goals and requirements are a starting point in working with an Owner’s Representative (an experienced architecture and design professional) to develop a Program that defines the required functions of the project. The Program is the resultant product of a phase where goals are clarified, relevant information gathered and priorities established. It details specific information such as estimated square footage and functional relationships of each usage type. The success of a project depends on the Customer, Owner’s Representative and Developer having a shared understanding of these key requirements and, to use the language of architecture and design, the problem to be solved.

Takoma Park has not followed standard practice and we are now paying the price for failing to do so. The City has produced a number of different documents that have elements of the necessary requirements: these include Resolution 2015-19[1], which spells out the project’s ‘Mission Statement’ and lists the elements to be included in the developer’s ‘conceptual plan;’ the Junction Development Agreement and Ground Lease,[2] which provides additional objectives and intentions, and Resolution 2017-53[3], which offers a critique of the developer’s earlier plan and provides a one page list of goals going forward.

But what has been missing is the articulation of the requirements and expectations – in clear, concise and measurable/accountable form – that must be included in a successful project. That gap is what has empowered the Developer to deviate substantially from the initial concept plan and mission statement, moving the community further and further away from consensus and delaying the completion of an acceptable plan that is actually consistent with the Junction Task Force’s mission statement[4]:

“Takoma Junction, predominantly located in the Takoma Park Historic District, is a small commercial district in the heart of a residential community, with historically significant resources and a vital fire station that should:

encourage motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists to slow down, park, relax, and shop while functioning adequately as a link within the local road and transit networks,

encourage sustainable commercial opportunities and provide convenience to local consumers,

serve as a cultural meeting-point for old and young in a diverse community,

blend harmoniously with adjacent residential neighborhoods, and

all in a forward-thinking, attractive and environmentally sensitive way.”

We advise you to make a critical mid-course correction in the current process to enable us to realize the community’s vision. While it may take some time to develop a complete Program, the up-front investment will save time, irreversible decisions and lost opportunities, heartache and possibly litigation costs. Here is a suggested pathway for action:

1. Hire an experienced Owner’s Representative and, working with that architectural/ design professional using the documents already prepared by the City (Resolutions 2015-19 and 2017-53 and the Development Agreement and Lease), and other information already gathered from users, generate an outline Program and identify questions and research required.

2. Conduct a Community Programming and Design Charrette, open to the public, led by a Charrette facilitator to include: independent design professionals; the Developer and their professional design representative; local business owners, and neighborhood representatives. Produce a community-valued Program that establishes consensus and captures expectations.

3. Use a Council Resolution to formally adopt the Program.

4. Armed with the finalized Program, authorize and empower the Owner’s Representative to represent the City in the back and forth with the Developer.

During this recommended mid-course correction, we should also be examining our priorities in this project, emphasizing and enhancing what is valuable to us – our Co-op, other local businesses and services and our neighbors. There is also the opportunity to explore a shift in the current direction of this project to come up with some new ideas—a new way of looking at the problem to be solved. There are members in this architecture/design community interested in an exploration along these lines.

We urge you to heed our professional advice and put a process in place which will enable us to achieve a mission we have set for ourselves.

Sincerely,

James A. DiLuigi, AIA, CSI (Ward 6)

Jeffrey C. Luker, AIA (Ward 1)

Joan Duncan, AIA (Ward 3)

William Mallari, AIA (Ward 5)

Carl Elefante, FAIA, FAPT, LEED AP (Ward 3)

Charles Poor, AIA (Ward 3)

Dana Haden, RA (Ward 2)

John Salmen, FAIA (Ward 3)

Sydney Katz, RA, LEED AP (Ward 2)

Charlotte Schoeneman, Architectural Designer (Ward 3)

Byrne H. Kelly, LLA, ASLA, QEP (Ward 3)

Richard J. Vitullo, AIA (Ward 2)

Joseph Klockner, LEED AP BD+C (Ward 2)

Maria Wright, Architectural Designer (Ward 2)

Rick Leonard, Pres., Heritage Bldg & Renov Inc. (Ward 3)

 

[1] https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/resolutions/2015/resolution-2015-19.pdf

[2] https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/initiatives/project-directory/Takoma-Junction/HCD-20160801-DA-GL-wOCRScannedSignaturePages.pdf

[3] https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/resolutions/2017/resolution-2017-53.pdf

[4] The Mission Statement is spelled out in the 2015 Resolution: see footnote 1 above.