The Comp Plan guides future growth and development in DC. Image by Ted Eytan licensed under Creative Commons.

DC’s Comprehensive Plan sets the course for how the city will grow, and the Framework element sets the tone for the rest of this important planning document. Right now the DC Council is in the process of updating the Comp Plan, starting with the Framework—but getting the amendments passed has been a slog.

The bill’s first hearing was almost a year and a half ago on March 2018, and the DC Council was expected to cast its final vote on the Framework upon its return from recess on September 17. However, it wasn’t on the docket. The Framework bill is now scheduled for a vote on October 8.

There are a couple of reasons why we think that the council isn’t taking up the bill for another few weeks, but first, a recap.

Catch me up on the Comp Plan again?

The first vote, on July 7 of this year, was on a version of the bill edited over a 16-month period by Chairman Phil Mendelson, following the March 2018 hearing. As we wrote then:

In the amendments he released on July 7, Mendelson scaled back what was initially offered by the Office of Planning (OP) in September 2017. His approach to the Framework is more traditional, and restores much of the 2006 Framework’s emphasis on “neighborhood character.” This language, while neutral on the surface, is often used to justify exclusionary policies.

Also on July 7, Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau proposed two amendments. One requires Office of Planning to study, by the time amendments are submitted to the land use element of the Comp Plan, “options for increasing the variety of housing types in areas zoned for single-family detached and semi-detached housing; and the implications on equity and affordability of allowing small multifamily buildings in all refsidential zones.” (We anticipate this will be sometime next spring.) This was accepted as friendly, or without opposition.

The second defines “high-priority public benefits” for the zoning commission to consider when evaluating planned unit development (PUD) proposals. These types of projects allow developers to build more densely than what is allowed in exchange for public benefits, such as more affordable housing or money for local parks (more on them later). The chairman did not accept it as friendly, but he did agree to work with Nadeau on it over the summer.

The Comp Plan has been the subject of citywide discussion for nearly three years, since about midway through Bowser’s first term. Then, former planning director Eric Shaw solicited public input to inform Office of Planning’s amendments to the 2006 Comp Plan, which were released in September 2017. Various interest groups and coalitions, including GGWash’s Housing Priorities Coalition, offered their own amendments.

The future of a lot of housing rests on the Framework element

The Framework element is the most important part of the Comp Plan. When the zoning commission evaluates PUD proposals, it does so on the basis of whether the proposed developments will be in compliance with the Framework and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) it contains, because those parts of the plan offer the most specific guiding language for how the city’s built environment should look, feel, and function. PUDs are allowed to exceed zoning regulations up to the density determined by the FLUM.

The Framework has received particular attention in recent years because of its role in the numerous lawsuits filed against significant development projects, like McMillan reservoir and 901 Monroe. Though the zoning commission deemed PUDs like those two in compliance with the Comp Plan, the plaintiffs’ allegations in these cases hinge on claims that they are not, and mostly exceed the density allowances detailed in the Framework element and the FLUM.

After a bill has a public hearing, it gets a first and second vote, during which councilmembers can amend it further. The Framework bill’s first reading was the July 7 Committee of the Whole meeting; its second is now October 8. While there will be future bills and hearings about the rest of the Comp Plan updates, the March 2018 hearing allowed for public comment on the same bill that we’re still discussing a year and a half later, which will determine what changes are made to the 2006 Framework element. (If it seems like the process is taking awhile, that’s because it is.)

What’s going to happen at second reading?

Mendelson often releases complex bills close to the date on which the council will vote on them. The version of the Framework bill voted on at first reading was released by his office a week before the Committee of the Whole meeting. We anticipate that the same will happen with the version that will be voted on, and hopefully passed, at second reading.

The chairman’s office has worked on the bill over the summer, and is continuing to edit it. But it’s really, really hard to explain the minute changes that they’ve made. At this point, the best way to think about the Framework is as, ahem, a blog post that you’ve fussed with over and over, to the point that you can’t really remember what the original said, and you’re not clear what kind of impact your writing is going to have.

With that in mind, we feel like the most important thing to look out for are whether Nadeau’s amendments—both of which we wholeheartedly support—make it through. Since the chairman committed to working with Nadeau over the summer on the amendment he didn’t accept as friendly, we feel positive about this.

There’s also the matter of Section 227.2. As it was amended by the chairman between March 2018 and July 7, it contains language that’s particularly relevant to how the zoning commission interprets whether PUDs should be approved.

Trueblood’s letter reflects concerns raised in an email to councilmembers and the Office of Planning by zoning commissioner Rob Miller. Per Washington Business Journal:

Trueblood and Miller both fear that a section of the amendments that gives the Zoning Commission authority to set density and height limits for PUDs could open up a new avenue for legal challenges. The language contains a familiar standard for the commission to meet — determining that any zoning designation should be “not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan” — but also directs the body to examine other factors, like assessing if a new development is “generally compatible with the physical and visual character of the surrounding neighborhood.”

Miller wrote to lawmakers that this section “gives much more ammunition than already currently exists” to PUD opponents looking to challenge the developments in court, according to a copy of his letter provided to the WBJ. He didn’t respond to a request for additional comments.

Trueblood largely agrees. He feels the language could create more confusion as judges review the commission’s decisions, which has been the source of several successful challenges to PUDs.

“It seems to potentially create new standards,” Trueblood said. “In our view, any potential for new standards leads to confusion and alternate readings and potential disagreements and those are oftentimes resolved in the courts.”

Trueblood and Miller also worry that calling out some specific priorities, like compatibility with the existing neighborhood, could send the message that the plan’s other goals aren’t as important if they aren’t mentioned. In particular, they think this emphasis could overshadow the importance of affordable housing in the document, a key issue for Mayor Muriel Bowser in her second term.

Basically, if one were to sue a PUD over its conformance with the descriptions of density in the Framework, which is what most of the recent PUD lawsuits have done (because descriptions of density are proxy for the physical and visual character of a neighborhood), the current language would aid their case.

Mendelson prefers this language, while OP and at least one zoning commissioner are at odds with him in their preference for greater weight toward affordable housing, which necessarily is created through new development—and which may not be in lockstep with a neighborhood’s character.

Why have we not passed this dang bill yet?

There was a lot on the council’s docket on Tuesday. The first Committee of the Whole meeting after recess is busy by default; this one included the council investigation into Jack Evans’ ethical misconduct. Also this week was one particular congressional hearing on whether DC deserves to be a state (it does).

The Framework, which is much more esoteric than statehood and self-dealing, got punted. Miller’s letter was circulated to councilmembers and Office of Planning early in September, and generated a good deal of public and internal feedback. It’s probably worth taking a few weeks to sort all that out.

But it’s also worth remembering that, early in his political career, Mendelson sued a PUD himself. In 1988, as a member of the Tenley and Cleveland Park Emergency Committee, he alleged that there was not sufficient outreach to residents regarding a PUD proposal. It’s not hard to read the charge of “insufficient public outreach” as an indirect way to protest new development altogether. (Indeed, the case was quite substantially slapped down by the court of appeals.)

The chairman is the most powerful player in the Comp Plan saga, because even though the Comp Plan is a plan, changes to it are passed as a bill. He has the greatest control over this piece of legislation, including when it’s introduced and what it says.

That anyone could operate completely free from the influence of their own lived experience is an irrational expectation, so it’s worth paying attention to the chairman’s career, which has been marked by preferring neighborhood preservation to new development. As City Paper succinctly explained in 2012:

So, what does Mendelson’s record tell us about his priorities? To briefly sum it up: Mendelson is as much of a nitpicker on development as he is on everything else, and usually falls on the side of less rather than more.

He’s also a member of the Committee of 100, a preservation group which has engaged with the Comp Plan through the Grassroots Planning Coalition, which has emphasized community preservation as a means to affordability. While there are certainly many opportunities in real life for neighborhood stability and affordable housing to blend nicely, a document whose role is to provide guidance for subsequent legal decisions, like the Comp Plan, does have to choose between one thing or another. So there is a real and salient question about which the Comp Plan prioritizes: affordable housing or neighborhood stability.

So, fast forward 20 years from TACPEC’s lawsuit. WBJ’s September 17 story about the delayed vote ends with this comment from Mendelson:

“Housing is a high priority and affordable housing is a high priority, but they’re not the only high priority,” Mendelson said. “Depending on the project, there could be other high priorities…One of them was compatibility [with the neighborhood]. What’s wrong with that? That’s important. That’s very important.”

Ostensibly, these changes to the Comp Plan are part of an amendment cycle, not even a full rewrite. That they’ve been going on nearly three years isn’t because the Comp Plan is too wonky—it’s a deliberate political choice.

Alex Baca is the DC Policy Director at GGWash. Previously the engagement director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth and the general manager of Cuyahoga County's bikesharing system, she has also worked in journalism, bike advocacy, architecture, construction, and transportation in DC, San Francisco, and Cleveland. She has written about all of the above for CityLab, Slate, Vox, Washington City Paper, and other publications.