The Zoning Commission should open the record to allow public input.
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City urges the Zoning Commission to re-open the record to allow the public to comment on the recently submitted Office of Planning’s Supplemental Report II, containing substantial new material.
On April 28, 2026, C100 submitted an official request for the record to be re-opened in the Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Upzone case (ZC 25-13):
The Supplemental Report II submitted by the Office of Planning on 4/20/26 includes major substantive changes – especially the incorporation of design review guidelines – making it a substantially different rule from the one issued for public comment and heard by ZC.
A number of witnesses, including ourselves, testified against adopting corridor rules that established matter-of-right development into the foreseeable future. The Commission asked OP to consider including design review guidelines. OP has now generated standards and a mechanism for case-by-case review. The Commission should allow the public a meaningful opportunity to comment.
Please note that Ward 3 Councilmember Matthew Frumin also asked the Commission to reopen the record. His letter notes that OP “has requested several months to conduct the necessary analysis indicating that its responses are likely to be substantial. The public should have a reasonable opportunity to review and provide comments on the analysis and any resulting recommendations.” Ex. 230.
The Zoning Commission did re-open the record in Case 25 – 09 – Connecticut Avenue Upzone – to allow public responses on the record.to OP’s supplemental in that case.
The Zoning Commission will decide this today. Wisconsin Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Upzone case (ZC 25-13): Click here for case details here.
Zoning Commission Public Meeting – Thursday, April 30, 2026, @ 4:00 pm.
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City's comments strongly opposing the District of Columbia Office of Planning's Supplemental Report III regarding Zoning Commission Case 25-13 (Wisconsin Avenue Upzone), specifically objecting to proposed exemptions from Design Review for small lots under 15,000 square feet, affordable housing developments, and historically preserved sites.
The Committee argues that these exemptions eliminate crucial public participation and fail to account for the outsize community impacts of smaller or historic developments, while also noting technical oversights regarding family-sized unit incentives and inconsistent lot tallies across official reports.
Councilmember Frumin's July 15, 2026 letter to the Zoning Commission to reopen the record in Zoning Case 25-13 Wisconsin Ave Mixed Use Text & Map Amendments to Create New Wisconsin Avenue Mixed Use Zones.
Committee of 100 on the Federal City's July 8, 2026 letter asking Councilmember Frumin to request that the Zoning Commission again re-open the record for public comment in the Wisconsin Avenue Upzone Case (Case No. 25-13) after closing it after allowing the public to respond to the Office of Planning‘s post-hearing submissions.
Committee of 100 on the Federal City's June 11, 2026 letter asking Councilmember Frumin to request that the Zoning Commission re-open the record for public comment in the Wisconsin Avenue Upzone Case (Case No. 25-13).
The Committee of 100's letter to the DC Council urging the Council to use its oversight authority to urge the Office of Planning and the Zoning Commission not to rush approval of the Cleveland Park, Woodley Park and upper Wisconsin corridor upzonings without full public participation.
The draft Framework is a glossy PR piece of what the upper Wisconsin corridor could look like. However, it is unlikely that the proposed up-zoning alone will lead to that result. The Framework falls far short of satisfying Comprehensive Plan requirements of providing for truly affordable housing, assuring adequate supporting infrastructure, and protecting contiguous neighborhoods from massive overshadowing without adequate step-downs in place. Critical implementation details, including mechanisms to achieve the Framework’s vision, are missing.
