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

Signed_Correspondence_4.23.2020_ANC3E_CompPlan

Draft Comp Plan Resolution Follow Up Resolution for meeting