## Facts

- A developer sought approval for a consolidated planned unit development (PUD) and zoning map amendment for 1701 H Street NE, proposing a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and about 180 rental units, reaching ten stories at its highest point and stepping down to six stories.
- The project site consisted of a vacant lot and a used-car lot, not existing residential buildings.
- Sharon Cole, a nearby resident proceeding pro se, opposed the project in Commission proceedings, asserting that it would worsen gentrification, increase traffic and parking burdens, and displace vulnerable residents.
- The Commission approved an inclusionary zoning (IZ) commitment totaling roughly 8% of residential gross floor area (about 11,468 square feet) as IZ units for the life of the development, split between units affordable to households at or below 50% of area median income (AMI) and at or below 80% AMI (with at least six units at 50% AMI).
- The Office of Planning advised that the PUD was consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, including avoiding concentrated poverty and encouraging mixed-income neighborhoods.
- The Commission issued a final order approving the PUD and map amendment; Cole petitioned for judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law by approving the PUD without adequately addressing gentrification and displacement concerns raised in the record.
2. Whether the Commission reasonably determined that the PUD was consistent with the District’s Comprehensive Plan, including policies concerning affordable housing, income integration, and concentrated poverty.
3. Whether the Commission made findings on material contested issues and supported them with substantial evidence, including on traffic and parking impacts.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Commission’s approval.
- The court held the order was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.
- The court concluded the Commission reasonably found the project would not displace Cole or other residents because it did not require demolition of existing residential buildings and was located on non-residential parcels.
- The court upheld the Commission’s Comprehensive Plan analysis, including reliance on the Office of Planning’s assessment and the project’s permanent IZ commitments.
- The court found the Commission made findings on material contested issues, including displacement, traffic, and parking, and adequately explained its reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of zoning orders is deferential; a court does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s and asks whether the decision is arbitrary or capricious and supported by substantial evidence.
- The zoning authority must make findings on material contested issues and explain its reasoning in light of the record.
- The agency receives deference in interpreting and applying the Comprehensive Plan so long as its interpretation is reasonable and adequately explained.
- The agency is not required to perform a separate, freestanding “gentrification” analysis where it reasonably addresses concrete related impacts such as displacement risk, affordable housing commitments, and Comprehensive Plan consistency.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the PUD approval because the Commission reasonably addressed displacement and affordability concerns, relied on record evidence and planning analysis showing consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies favoring mixed-income housing and avoidance of concentrated poverty, and supported its findings with substantial evidence.


Cole v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 210 A.3d 753 (D.C. 2019)