Beloved Cmty. Alliance v. D.C. Zoning Comm'n

284 A.3d 728

BELOVED COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, Petitioner,

v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZONING COMMISSION, Respondent,andMCF WALP Phase 1, LLC, Intervenor.

No. 21-AA-52

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Submitted December 3, 2021

Decided November 3, 2022

Aristotle Theresa, Washington, DC, was on the brief for petitioner.

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General at the time of submission, Caroline S. Van Zile, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and Ashwin P. Phatak, Deputy Solicitor General, filed a Statement in Lieu of Brief for respondent.

Philip T. Evans and Cynthia A. Gierhart, Washington, DC, were on the brief for intervenor.

Before Glickman, McLeese, and Deahl, Associate Judges.

Glickman, Associate Judge:

Beloved Community Alliance petitions for review of a Zoning Commission order approving the application of intervenor, MCF WALP Phase 1, LLC (MCF), to construct a residential apartment building as a planned unit development (PUD) on a vacant city block in downtown Washington, D.C. The Alliance consists of two churches located across the street from the project, First Rising Mt. Zion Baptist Church (First Rising) and Miles Memorial Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (Miles Memorial). In the proceeding before the Commission, the pastors of those two churches unsuccessfully opposed the application. They claimed the PUD would provide insufficient affordable housing, displace residents and reduce the diversity of the neighborhood, and exacerbate a problem of limited Sunday parking availability for the churches in its vicinity. In this court, the Alliance complains that the Commission failed to address their concerns properly and in light of applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that guides land use planning in the District of Columbia¹ and related public policies. We conclude, however, that the record supports the Commission's determinations regarding these matters, and we therefore deny the petition for review.

I.

On August 2, 2019, MCF filed its application for approval of a PUD to build a multi-family, mixed-income residential apartment building at 1200 5th Street NW. The site MCF proposed to develop is an entire city block situated between the Shaw and Mount Vernon Square neighborhoods. It is one block away from the Mount Vernon Square/Convention Center Metrorail station and is close to other public transportation options as well. The zoning designation of the block, RA-2, contemplates development with "predominantly moderate-density residential" uses.² Consistent with that designation, the surrounding area contains primarily residential housing (two-to-three story apartment buildings, garden apartment units, and rowhouses), along with several churches and low-density commercial uses.

MCF, the applicant, is an affiliate of Mid-City Financial Corporation (Mid-City), which is the owner of the site to be developed. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mid-City constructed 63 garden-style, market-rate rental apartments on the site, along with a surface parking lot for the residents of those apartments. By the time of MCF's PUD application, all the apartments were vacant and slated for demolition. In response to questions from the Commission, MCF's executive vice-president explained that the company had stopped leasing the 63 garden apartments three years earlier, and that all the remaining tenants had moved out prior to the filing of the PUD application. MCF had covered the moving costs for tenants to relocate to other, newly renovated units in the same neighborhood.

The PUD application sought minor zoning flexibility (notably a higher lot occupancy than is permitted as of right in an RA-2 zone) in order to replace the 63 vacant units and surface parking for them by a modern apartment building with various residential amenities and a large underground garage. The building is to contain approximately 360 apartments ranging from studios to three-bedroom units. The underground garage is to have 103 parking spaces for cars and additional space for bicycles, including 121 long-term bicycle parking spaces.

The building is to have a maximum height of 50 feet plus a habitable penthouse (as is permitted by right in the RA-2 zone). With a gross floor area of approximately 246,000 square feet, the building would include two residential wings (a three-story north wing and a four-story south wing, each designed to be compatible with the residential and other structures adjacent to it), joined by a narrower two-story connection containing the "residential support and amenity areas" and flanked by open courts to the east and west. In these and other design, architectural, and landscaping respects, the building is meant to fit in physically with the surrounding community.

For the life of the building, 12 percent of its gross residential floor area, approximately 41,153 square feet, is to be dedicated to about 41 inclusionary zoning units under the District's Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Program. These are affordable housing units.³ They will include three three-bedroom units and 11 two-bedroom units. The IZ Program is intended to "further the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan by increasing the amount and expanding the geographic distribution of adequate, affordable housing available to current and future residents," and to "mitigate the impact of market-rate residential development on the availability and cost of housing available and affordable to low- and moderate-income households."⁴ Affordable housing provided in compliance with IZ requirements may be considered a public benefit supporting a PUD application where (as in the present case) "it exceeds what would have been required through matter-of-right development under existing zoning."⁵

The PUD application was modified over time to address community and other concerns. In the proceeding before the Zoning Commission, the application was supported overall by the Office of Planning (OP) and other relevant District government agencies, and by the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 6E) and many area residents who wrote letters or testified at the Commission hearing. However, the pastors of First Rising and Miles Memorial opposed the application (as did six other witnesses who are not parties to this appeal). As we discuss in more detail below, the two pastors expressed concerns that the affordable housing set asides were insufficient and the project would adversely affect the racially integrated character of the neighborhood by driving out "residents of African American descent."⁶ They also objected that the building did not include enough parking for its anticipated residents and consequently would exacerbate a parking shortage affecting churches in its vicinity.

On April 27, 2020, the Commission approved the PUD application by a vote of four to one. Its forty-page order concluded, inter alia , that the PUD would be compatible with the area's RA-2 zoning and not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole; that it would further numerous Comprehensive Plan elements and components; and that the building would not result in any unacceptable impacts that are not capable of being mitigated or outweighed by the project's "high level" of public benefits. The public benefits that the Commission found included (but were not limited to) the provision of "high quality" housing "located near multiple transit options and key commercial corridors"⁷ ; "20% more affordable housing" in the building (measured by gross floor area) "than would otherwise be required under matter-of-right development ... resulting in approximately 41 dedicated affordable housing units"; replacement of "a vacant and underutilized property with a new, multi-family, mixed-income building"; replacement of a surface-level parking lot with underground parking; and design, architecture, and landscaping features "that [would] improve the surrounding neighborhood to a significantly greater extent than would likely result from matter-of-right development." We discuss below how the Commission responded to the particular concerns expressed by the pastors of First Rising and Miles Memorial.

II.

The District of Columbia's Comprehensive Plan is "a broad framework intended to guide the future land use planning decisions for the District."⁸ The Plan reflects numerous "occasionally competing policies and goals," which the Commission "is responsible for balancing ..., subject only to deferential review by this court."⁹

As explained in the zoning regulations,

[t]he purpose of the planned unit development (PUD) process is to provide for higher quality development through flexibility in building controls, including building height and density, provided that a PUD: (a) Results in a project superior to what would result from the matter-of-right standards; (b) Offers a commendable number or quality of meaningful public benefits; and (c) Protects and advances the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience, and is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.¹⁰

Thus, a PUD application "generally requests that a site be rezoned to allow more intensive development, in exchange for which the applicant offers to provide amenities or public benefits which would not be provided if the site were developed under matter-of-right zoning."¹¹ When considering a PUD application, the Zoning Commission is required to "judge, balance, and reconcile the relative value of the project amenities and public benefits offered, the degree of development incentives requested, and any potential adverse effects according to the specific circumstances of the case."¹² Given the requirement of overall consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, "if a proposal conflicts with one or more individual policies associated with the Comprehensive Plan," the Commission must "recognize these policies and explain [why] they are outweighed by other, competing considerations."¹³

In considering...