RESOLUTION REGARDING OP MISCONSTRUCTION OF ANC 3E RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP
WHEREAS:
1. The District of Columbia Office of Planning (OP) misused an ANC 3E resolution (“FLUM
Resolution”) calling for a Small Area Plan (SAP) process to, instead, justify substantial increases in
permissible density (“up‐FLUMing”) without a SAP. OP must submit a corrected proposed Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) to the Council of the District of Columbia (Council) to fix this error.
2. OP conducted a review of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (“Comp Plan Review”) over
many months. OP released a draft amended FLUM for public review. Any changes to the draft FLUM
were to have been made pursuant to public comments. OP set different deadlines for comments from
the general public and ANCs.
3. In response to OP’s call for comments, ANC 3E passed the FLUM Resolution on February
13, 2020 and timely transmitted it to OP.
4. The FLUM Resolution acknowledged that OP had proposed a lengthy discussion period
after the Council amended the FLUM, but among other things called instead for a genuine SAP process
in which the community would work with OP to craft recommendations to the Council that would
include changes to the FLUM:
OP proposes to conduct a process after FLUM changes are made to develop
recommendations for improvements to the neighborhood as a whole, including
streetscape changes. The process proposed is akin to a Small Area Plan (SAP),
except FLUM changes are ordinarily considered in conjunction with
recommendations for improvements to the neighborhood as a whole.
ANC 3E believes the better course would be, in fact, to conduct an SAP process
so that the ANC, community members, and OP can work together on a holistic
set of recommendations for improving the neighborhood, including density
changes.1
5. In case OP refused our request for a genuine SAP process, The FLUM Resolution
provided advice for numerous amendments OP proposed in the draft FLUM OP released.
1 “FLUM Resolution” at Whereas Pars. 4‐5 (emphasis in original).
2
6. The FLUM Resolution also contained recommendations for changes to consider if an SAP
process was conducted, in particular regard the following lots (“Subject Lots”):
9976 (the “Dancing Crab Lot”): This lot is far from any single‐family housing, and
close to Wisconsin Avenue. OP proposes to keep the lot medium density.
Although we do not oppose that recommendation if no SAP process is
initiated, we believe that if there is an SAP process, this lot should be a
candidate for high density residential.
2155.9 (the “Whole Foods Lot”): Except for the southeastern portion of this lot,
which is near single‐family housing, this lot is on or near Wisconsin Avenue and
relatively far from single‐family housing. OP proposes to keep the lot medium
density. Although we do not oppose that recommendation if no SAP process is
initiated, we believe that if there is an SAP process, this lot, except for the
southeastern portion, should be a candidate for high density residential.2
7. ANC 3E’s advice regarding these lots was clear. If OP refused ANC’s request for an SAP
process, ANC 3E did not oppose OP’s recommendation that these lots be reclassified as “medium
density.” If, by contrast, OP supported an SAP process, then these lots should be candidates during such
a process for reclassification as “high density.”
8. Yet, OP’s response to the FLUM Resolution was, in pertinent part, to revise its proposed
FLUM to reclassify the Subject Lots as “high density,” while refusing our request for an SAP process. OP
specifically – and wrongly ‐‐ used ANC 3E’s advice about what should be a “candidate” for up‐FLUMing if
a SAP process were initiated to justify up‐FLUMing these lots without a SAP.
After careful review, components of the resolution received from ANC 3E,
marked as “Yes” were integrated into the Mayor’s Comprehensive Plan Update
(Comp Plan). Such changes include updates to the Future Land Use Map along
Wisconsin Avenue, the Dancing Crab Lot, and the Whole Food Lots.3
9. OP, after a long process, released for public comment a proposal for changes to the
FLUM. The opportunity for public comment was (unsurprisingly) supposed to allow OP to fine‐tune its
proposal in light of public comments. Yet, here, neither ANC 3E nor, so far as we can tell, anybody else
timely wrote to OP to support increased density on the Subject Lots. Accordingly, OP has up‐FLUMed
the Subject Lots without properly‐submitted expressions of support from the public or notice that it
intended to change its own recommendation even without public support. If allowed to stand, this
would constitute an abuse of the process OP itself created.
2 “FLUM Resolution” at Resolved Pars. 12‐13 (except in headings, emphasis supplied) [attached hereto as Exhibit
1].
3 “Letter from OP Director Andrew Trueblood to ANC 3E, April 23, 2020,” at p. 1.
3
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. OP must promptly send a corrected draft FLUM to the Council and all affected parties
showing the Subject Lots classified as “medium density,” as OP originally proposed. Failure to do so
would transform (what we presume is) an error into an act of dishonesty.
2. Additionally, OP should initiate an SAP process for the neighborhoods within ANC 3E’s
boundaries, as described in our FLUM resolution.
The resolution passed by a vote of 4‐0‐0 at a properly noticed virtual meeting held on May 21, 2020, at
which a quorum was present, with Commissioners Bender, Hall, McHugh, and Quinn in attendance.
ANC 3E
__________________
by Jonathan Bender
Chairperson
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP
WHEREAS:
1. The District of Columbia Office of Planning (OP) undertook an update of the 2006
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) in 2016 and is seeking feedback from Advisory Neighborhood
Commissions about its proposed changes before sending a final proposal to the DC Council to be voted
on.
2. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) more than any other component of the Comp Plan
guides future development and land use decisions in the District of Columbia as it aspirationally
indicates what might be built on a particular lot rather than what is there today.
3. As part of this process OP received numerous amendments to the FLUM within the
boundaries of ANC 3E.
4. OP proposes to conduct a process after FLUM changes are made to develop
recommendations for improvements to the neighborhood as a whole, including streetscape changes.
The process proposed is akin to a Small Area Plan (SAP), except FLUM changes are ordinarily considered
in conjunction with recommendations for improvements to the neighborhood as a whole.
5. ANC 3E believes the better course would be, in fact, to conduct an SAP process so that
the ANC, community members, and OP can work together on a holistic set of recommendations for
improving the neighborhood, including density changes.
6. Schools in our ANC, particularly Alice Deal Middle School and Wilson High School, are
overcrowded and enrollment is expected to continue to grow sharply. DCPS has known about this
problem for years and has not taken adequate steps to address it.
7. This overcrowding has multiple reasons, among them existing housing and increasing
desire of in‐boundary parents to send their children to public schools here. Nonetheless, increasing
permissible density (“Up‐FLUMing”) will likely exacerbate this situation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. ANC 3E strongly believes a broad and robust planning process would provide a greater
opportunity for community input for the Wisconsin Avenue Corridor between Van Ness Street and
Western Avenue and would lead to better policy outcomes than considering FLUM and broader
neighborhood needs sequentially. Accordingly, we prefer a plan for the corridor that would study lot by
lot how best to transition between the commercial corridor and the adjacent single family homes. ANC
3E therefore strongly urges DCOP to immediately initiate a small area planning process for this area and
to postpone the implementation of the changes to the FLUM for one year to allow for a small area plan.
However the ANC does not believe a planning process should be a mechanism to put a halt to all
development via a “death by process” and requests that if the small area plan has not been completed
2
and submitted to the DC Council within 1 year of the formal passage of the FLUM revisions that the
changes to the FLUM go immediately into effect.
2. ANC 3E believes that no Up‐FLUMing should be implemented until the Mayor has
submitted a formal plan to address school overenrollment within our boundaries, and the Council has
approved and funded such a plan. Any such plan should aim to preserve diversity in our schools.
3. If OP refuses our request for a SAP, we provide comments on specific proposals below.
We again note our strong preference for an SAP, however, and we provide comments below about how
an SAP would enable fine‐tuning of density. We note that although we would expect an SAP to involve
both decreases and increases of density from that currently proposed, the net change could well be
increased density beyond that currently proposed.
4. All change in land use designation should be accompanied by policy language that
indicates that any rezoning to higher density should be accomplished only through Planned Unit
Developments, so that any increased‐density projects be architecturally sensitive to adjoining residential
neighborhoods, and include appropriate community benefits, such as increased affordable housing and
attractive public open spaces
5. To the extent not mentioned below, ANC 3E supports the proposed changes.
6. 2154.21 (the “WMATA Lot”): Part of the southernmost portion of this lot adjoins
relatively small apartments and condominiums in a moderate density zone, and part is diagonally across
the street from low‐density duplexes. We believe, accordingly, that it is appropriate to step down
density here from high to medium. The precise delineation of this stepdown should be determined in an
SAP.
7. 2155.14 (the “Lot Behind Rodman’s”): OP proposes to change this from low to
moderate density. Because the lot, particularly the section behind Rodman’s parking lot, is relatively far
from Wisconsin Avenue and adjoins single‐family housing on two sides, we believe that limiting
language should be added to this change to the effect that “moderate‐light” is most appropriate here,
such as townhomes or multi‐unit housing that approximates townhomes in height, density, and general
appearance. For avoidance of doubt, we support the proposed change of the portion of the lot closest
to Wisconsin Avenue to medium density.
8. 2430 (the “Lot Behind the Fox 5 Building”): Like the Lot Behind Rodman’s, OP proposes to
change this from low to moderate density. Because the lot, is behind Wisconsin Avenue and adjoins
single‐family housing on two sides, we believe that, like the Lot Behind Rodman’s, limiting language
should be added to this change to the effect that “moderate‐light” is most appropriate here, such as
townhomes or multi‐unit housing that approximates townhomes in height, density, and general
appearance. For avoidance of doubt, we support the proposed change of the portion of the lot closest
to Wisconsin Avenue to medium density.
9. 2155.2 (the “Rome Pizza Lot”): The parking lot behind this building was not included in
either proposals for FLUM changes or OP’s recommendation. Accordingly, for process reasons, we do
not here recommend changes to it, but note that if OP institutes an SAP, discussion should occur as to
whether the parking lot’s FLUM designation be changed to moderate.
10. 2155.5 (the “Maartens Lot”): The southwestern portion of this lot is behind Wisconsin
Avenue and adjoins single‐family housing. We believe that it would be appropriate to step down some
of this part of the lot to moderate density. The precise delineation of this stepdown should be
determined in an SAP.
3
11. 2095 (the “Doctors and Dentist’s Building”): This lot is well behind Wisconsin Avenue
and adjoins single‐family housing. Moreover, it is the only lot in our ANC that OP proposes to Up‐FLUM
from low‐density to medium density. Given these facts, we believe that OP should increase the density
only from low to moderate on this lot, which will provide a step down from the large medium density lot
between it and Wisconsin Avenue.
12. 9976 (the “Dancing Crab Lot”): This lot is far from any single‐family housing, and close
to Wisconsin Avenue. OP proposes to keep the lot medium density. Although we do not oppose that
recommendation if no SAP process is initiated, we believe that if there is an SAP process, this lot should
be a candidate for high density residential.1
13. 2155.9 (the “Whole Foods Lot”): Except for the southeastern portion of this lot, which is
near single‐family housing, this lot is on or near Wisconsin Avenue and relatively far from single‐family
housing. OP proposes to keep the lot medium density. Although we do not oppose that
recommendation if no SAP process is initiated, we believe that if there is an SAP process, this lot, except
for the southeastern portion, should be a candidate for high density residential.
The resolution passed by a vote of 4‐0‐0 at a properly noticed meeting held on February 13, 2020, at
which a quorum was present, with Commissioners Bender, Hall, McHugh, and Quinn in attendance.
ANC 3E
__________________
by Jonathan Bender
Chairperson
ANC 3E FLUM Resolution Follow Up Resolution