Friends of McMillan Park and DC for Reasonable Development v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the District of Columbia Zoning Commission’s approval, on remand, of a planned unit development for the McMillan Reservoir and Filtration Complex. The court rejected challenges concerning notice, zoning of a parcel for a medical building, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, historic preservation, open space, affordable housing, displacement, and economic feasibility. The court held that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that its conclusions followed rationally from those findings.

Holdings

1. No basis for reversal on notice grounds because petitioners failed to raise the objection before the Commission and did not identify concrete prejudice from lack of specific notice.
2. The Commission's analysis of site-specific and city-wide policies was reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and adequately explained.
3. The Commission reasonably relied on evidence that the medical building was necessary to the economic viability of the PUD and would address healthcare infrastructure needs.
4. The Commission adequately addressed affordable housing; any error in calculating the percentage of affordable housing was harmless.
5. The Commission's analysis of displacement and gentrification was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
6. The Commission reasonably relied on evidence that the medical building was necessary to the economic viability of the PUD.
7. The Commission adequately evaluated environmental impacts and other potential adverse effects, reaching reasonable conclusions supported by substantial evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission violated the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act by zoning Parcel 1 to the CR Zone District without providing notice or opportunity to present evidence
2. Whether the Commission adequately balanced site-specific Comprehensive Plan policies against city-wide policies
3. Whether the Commission reasonably found the medical building necessary and beneficial
4. Whether the Commission adequately addressed affordable housing concerns
5. Whether the Commission adequately addressed potential displacement of residents due to gentrification
6. Whether the Commission reasonably concluded the medical building was economically feasible
7. Whether the Commission adequately addressed other adverse impacts including environmental concerns

Disposition

affirmed