Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-AA-52

BELOVED COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, PETITIONER,

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZONING COMMISSION, RESPONDENT,

and

MCF WALP PHASE 1, LLC, INTERVENOR.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the District of Columbia Zoning Commission

(ZC16-19)

(Submitted December 3, 2021 Decided November 3, 2022) 

Aristotle Theresa 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 were on the brief for intervenor. 

Before GLICKMAN, MCLEESE, and DEAHL, Associate Judges.
2

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.

 1 10 D.C.M.R. subtit. A.
3

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 (MidCity), 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 

 2 11-F D.C.M.R. § 300.3. 
4

demolition. In response to questions from the Commission, MCF’s executive vicepresident 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 
5

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 moderateincome households.”4

 Affordable housing provided in compliance with IZ 

requirements may be considered a public benefit supporting a PUD application 

 3 Approximately 4,280 square feet of the inclusionary zoning space is to be 

set aside for households earning less than 50% of median family income (MFI), and 

the rest of the inclusionary space would be set aside for households earning less than 

60% of MFI. 

4 11-C D.C.M.R. § 1000.1(a), (d).
6

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.

 5 11-X D.C.M.R. § 305.5(g)(1).

6 As petitioner’s brief reiterates, one of the pastors asserted that the project 

amounted to “an act of ethnic cleansing” targeting “community residents of African 

American descent.” 
7

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-

 7 The Commission was impressed that the project would significantly advance 

the Mayor’s stated goal of creating 36,000 new residential units in the District by 

2025, by supplying one percent of that target in a single site. 
8

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-ofright standards; (b) Offers a commendable number or 

quality of meaningful public benefits; and (c) Protects and 

advances the public health, safety, welfare, and 

 8 Friends of McMillan Park v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n, 211 A.3d 139, 144 (D.C. 

2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

9 Durant v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n, 65 A.3d 1161, 1167 (D.C. 2013).
9

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

 10 11-X D.C.M.R. § 300.1.

11 Blagden Alley Ass’n v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n, 590 A.2d 139, 140 n.2 (D.C. 

1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

12 Howell v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n, 97 A.3d 579, 581 (D.C. 2014) (citation

omitted).

13 Durant, 65 A.3d at 1168, 1170.
10

In considering the proposal, the Commission is required to give “great 

weight” to the recommendation of the OP.

14 This requires the Commission to “make 

the findings necessary to justify its departures [if any] from OP’s 

recommendations.”15 Similarly, the Commission must give “great weight” to the 

issues and concerns raised in the recommendations of the affected Advisory 

Neighborhood Commission.16 This “requires acknowledgement of the [Advisory 

Neighborhood] Commission as the source of the recommendations and explicit 

reference to each of the Commission’s issues and concerns.”17

When reviewing an order of the Commission, “we start from the premise that 

the [Commission’s] decision . . . is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of 

demonstrating error is on the . . . petitioner who challenges the decision.”18 Our 

 14 D.C. Code § 6-623.04.

15 Sheridan Kalorama Hist. Ass’n v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 229 A.3d 

1246, 1263 (D.C. 2020).

16 D.C. Code § 1-309.10(d)(3)(A).

17 Id.

18 Union Mkt. Neighbors v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n, 197 A.3d 1063, 1068 (D.C. 

2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
11

review does not involve “reassess[ing] the merits of the decision,”19 as we recognize 

the Commission’s “statutory role and subject-matter expertise [and] generally defer 

to the Commission’s interpretation of the zoning regulations.”20 Accordingly, we 

generally “must affirm the Commission’s decision so long as (1) [the Commission]

has made findings of fact on each material contested issue; (2) there is substantial 

evidence in the record to support each finding; and (3) [the Commission’s]

conclusions of law follow rationally from those findings.”21

III.

A. The PUD’s Provision of Affordable Housing and Its Effect on 

Community Stability and Diversity

In its petition for review, Beloved Community Alliance primarily faults the 

Commission for failing to acknowledge and properly address the PUD’s allegedly 

insufficient affordable housing and adverse impact on the stability and diversity of 

the surrounding residential community. Petitioner contends the Commission should 

 19 Id. at 1067 (citation omitted).

20 Howell, 97 A.3d at 581 (quoting Durant, 65 A.3d at 1166-67). 

21 Durant, 65 A.3d at 1167 (citation omitted).
12

have found the proposed building to be inconsistent with provisions in components 

of the Comprehensive Plan (the Near Northwest Area Element, the Convention 

Center Area Small Area Plan, and the Generalized Policy Map) recognizing the 

area’s history as “a vibrant center of African American culture”22 and “an 

economically and ethnically diverse residential neighborhood,”23 and stating that 

development should protect the historic character and diversity of such areas.24 

Relatedly, petitioner contends that the Commission failed to give great weight to an 

OP recommendation that the PUD be required to provide an increased number of 

affordable inclusionary housing units. 

In fact, however, the Commission explicitly addressed the pertinent 

requirements in the referenced components of the Comprehensive Plan, and it found 

the PUD to be consistent with them. The Commission also justified its decision to 

approve the PUD without demanding an increase in the affordable housing it would 

provide. We are satisfied that the Commission’s findings are supported by 

 22 10-A D.C.M.R. § 2101.6.

23 10-A D.C.M.R. § 2111.1. 

24 10-A D.C.M.R. §§ 223.5-223.7
13

substantial evidence in the record and that its legal conclusions follow rationally 

from its findings.

The Commission recognized and acknowledged that the Generalized Policy 

Map designates the subject property as being in a primarily residential 

Neighborhood Enhancement Area, where “[l]and uses that reflect the historical 

mixture and diversity of each community should be encouraged” and “overall 

neighborhood character should be protected as development takes place.”25 The 

Commission cited, as well, the requirement of the Near Northwest Area Element that 

“[e]conomic diversity must be protected, and programs to retain and add affordable 

housing are urgently needed.”26 The Commission acknowledged that the relevant 

Small Area Plan “encourages” new “mixed-income housing at and near Metro 

stations” and “redevelop[ment] with [an] equivalent/increased number of affordable 

residential units.”27 

 25 10-A D.C.M.R. §§ 223.6-223.7.

26 10-A D.C.M.R. § 2107.2(a).

27 See 10-A D.C.M.R. § 2111.5 (“Protect existing affordable housing within 

the Shaw/Convention Center area, and produce new affordable housing and market 

rate housing on underutilized sites. Use a range of tools to retain and develop 

affordable housing in the . . . area, including . . . inclusionary zoning . . . .”); id. at 

§ 2111.7 (“Encourage mixed-income residential development with underground 

parking adjacent to the Shaw/Howard and Mount Vernon Square Metro stations, 
14

Both the applicant, MCF, and the OP addressed the project’s compliance with 

these policies. MCF explained, inter alia, that the PUD it proposed would not 

“change the existing [RA-2] zoning but rather [would] respect[] the existing patterns 

of development” by “replac[ing] outdated market-rate housing” and “revitalizing a 

currently undeveloped block . . . with a new, mixed-income residential building” 

containing “approximately 41,153 square feet of affordable units on a site where 

none currently exist.” MCF pointed out that this would provide more affordable 

housing units than would suffice for a matter-of-right development. And MCF

emphasized that “[t]he Building will not cause any unacceptable [housing market] 

impacts, but instead will have a positive impact on the housing market,” among other 

reasons because (1) “[t]he creation of new housing units helps buffer increasing 

housing costs, by increasing the supply of housing stock,” (2) “[t]he Property is 

currently vacant so there will be no adverse impacts in terms of displacing current 

residents of the Property,” and (3) “[t]he inclusion of permanently affordable units 

 

particularly on existing surface parking lots.”). The recommendation that residential 

redevelopment in the area include an equal or greater number of affordable units is 

found in the Convention Center Area Strategic Development Plan, which the OP 

produced in 2006 and on which the Small Area Plan relies. 
15

helps address the District’s ongoing affordable housing shortage in an inclusive, 

mixed-income community.”28 

The OP generally supported the proposed PUD as consistent with the 

Comprehensive Plan and the policies supporting redevelopment of an underutilized 

site with a new apartment building without displacing existing residents. The OP 

agreed that the amount of proposed affordable housing would be a benefit to the 

surrounding neighborhood. The OP did, also, express its support for a suggestion 

made by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) that the 

set aside for inclusionary zoning units be increased from 12% to 15% of the building. 

But the OP did not explain why it supported that suggested increase (amounting to 

over 10,000 additional square feet of the building’s residential space, by our 

calculation), and the record before us does not contain a reasoned justification for it. 

MCF did not agree to such an increase. It informed the Commission that, after 

studying the issue, it had determined that a 12% IZ set aside was the maximum 

amount the proposed building could sustain economically. No evidence to the 

contrary was presented. Moreover, MCF argued, its proposed 12% set aside was 

 28 The applicant also predicted that the PUD would have “favorable economic 

impacts on the neighborhood” (that would contribute to stabilizing it) “through the 

introduction of a new residential use that contributes patrons for the existing 

businesses” there. 
16

commensurate with IZ set asides in similar PUD applications the Commission had 

approved, and the 12% set aside would provide approximately 12,000 square feet 

more affordable housing than a matter-of-right building would need to furnish. 

Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6E also supported the PUD application. 

Its resolution reported that the application satisfactorily addressed its concerns with 

respect to additional affordable housing (among other issues). The ANC did not call 

for an increase in the number of IZ units.

In its decision approving the PUD application, the Zoning Commission 

acknowledged the “displacement concerns” expressed by the pastors of First Rising 

and Miles Memorial. It concluded, however, “that the Building will not result in any 

unacceptable impacts with regard[] to housing or displacement for the reasons 

advanced by the Applicant and OP.” This conclusion was supported by the evidence

and the Commission’s findings. As the Commission found, the project would not 

displace anyone from the site of the building, because that site was no longer 

occupied by anyone.29 Nor would the project reduce the supply of affordable 

 29 As the Commission found, MCF “began the process of ending the leasing 

of the existing 63 market-rate units on the property well in advance . . . of the 
17

housing in the area; the 63 units to be demolished on the site all were market-rate.30 

Rather, the PUD would add 41 new affordable-income IZ apartments in the area. 

Quoting a then-recent decision of this court, the Commission pointed out that 

“mitigation of the potential displacement of low-income residents through 

gentrification and market pressures is taken into account in the Zoning 

Commission’s IZ regulations,” and that “the pressures of gentrification . . . can be 

mitigated through inclusionary zoning . . . rather than avoided by having 

underutilized property remain as it is.”31 

The Commission stated that it gave great weight to the OP’s recommendations 

and the ANC’s issues and concerns. However, while the Commission acknowledged 

 

application,” and it had covered moving costs for tenants to relocate to its other 

buildings in the neighborhood. 

30 Petitioner has argued that the Commission ignored the recommendation in 

the Convention Center Area Strategic Development Plan that residential 

redevelopment in the area include an equal or greater number of affordable units. 

But since none of the 63 units to be demolished were affordable units, this 

recommendation is inapplicable here, and it certainly would not call for the 

Commission to require the PUD to have 63 inclusionary units as petitioner has 

contended.

31 Cole v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n, 210 A.3d 753, 762-63 (D.C. 2019) (internal 

quotation marks and footnote omitted) (upholding Commission’s approval of a PUD 

application that set aside 8% of the residential gross floor area for inclusionary 

units).
18

OP’s support for an increased percentage of inclusionary housing space, the 

Commission determined that neither OP nor DHCD conditioned their support for 

the PUD application on such an increase, and the Commission declined to require it. 

It concluded that MCF “ha[d] provided sufficient evidence that the 12%[] IZ proffer 

is the maximum that the Building can support and that the proffer is sufficient to 

qualify as a public benefit when considered against the flexibility requested by the 

Application.” 

We are satisfied that the Commission reasonably and properly concluded that 

the PUD’s “new housing, both affordable and market rate, outweigh[ed] any 

potential . . . displacement impacts in the surrounding neighborhood,” would not 

threaten the diversity of the community, and would further the area development 

policies and other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The findings undergirding this 

conclusion are supported by substantial evidence in the record, as recounted above; 

indeed, we perceive no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, we are satisfied that 

the Commission adequately justified its decision not to require the additional 

affordable housing supported by the OP. The Commission was entitled to credit the 

applicant’s testimony that the suggested increase would be economically infeasible, 

and to do so without requiring “detailed financial information” to corroborate it —
19

“in particular given the absence of contrary evidence requiring greater specificity.”32 

Although “petitioner (and others) may believe that the [inclusionary zoning] setaside is not sufficient, we have no authority to second-guess the Commission’s 

judgment on such policy matters.”33

B. The PUD’s Impact on Local Parking Availability

The Zoning Commission concluded that the PUD will not result in any 

unacceptable parking impacts, either for the neighborhood generally or, more 

specifically, for the churches in the vicinity. Petitioner contends that conclusion was 

not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The Commission relied on

expert analyses and testimony from MCF’s transportation consultant Gorove Slade, 

the review performed by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), and the 

report of the OP. They were all in agreement, and no contrary analysis or evidence 

of a likely adverse effect on parking availability was submitted to the Commission.

In relying on the reasons advanced by Gorove Slade, DDOT, and OP, the 

Commission emphasized that the analyses “all concluded that the amount of 

 32 Friends of McMillan Park, 211 A.3d at 150.

33 Cole, 210 A.3d at 762 n.12.
20

[automobile] parking provided in the Building [(103 spaces)] is greater than what is 

required by the zoning regulations and sufficient to meet the demands of the 

Building at a ratio of no more than 0.3 parking spaces per residential unit.” The 

Commission noted that the analyses “did not identify any parking impacts that would 

require mitigations,” and it agreed with their conclusion that “[t]he Building’s 

central location and access to multiple transit options including Metrorail, Metrobus, 

and significant bicycle infrastructure reduce the need for residents of the Building to 

have personal vehicles.” 

These determinations have a firm foundation in the record. The applicable 

zoning regulations required the building to furnish only about 60 parking spots in 

view of its location within a half mile (actually within a block) of the Mount Vernon 

Square/Convention Center Metro Station.34 The PUD application proposed a 

significantly greater number of parking spots. In fact, as the Commission found, the 

103 spots that MCF proposed for the building came close to DDOT’s recommended 

 34 See 11-C D.C.M.R. § 701.5 (Table C) (generally requiring multi-family 

residential buildings to provide one parking space for every three units) and 

§ 702.1(a) (providing that the minimum parking space requirement shall be reduced 

by 50 percent for any site that is located within a half-mile of a Metro station). A 

360-unit building within a half-mile of the Mount Vernon Square/Convention Center 

Metro Station therefore would be obligated to provide only 60 parking spaces (360 

divided by 3 = 120; 50% of 120 = 60).
21

maximum parking ratio for sites like the PUD that are within a quarter mile of a 

Metro station.35 The OP similarly supported the PUD’s provision of 103 parking 

spaces, with the proviso that any design flexibility allowed by the Commission 

should “be limited to providing less parking only” (emphasis added). The Advisory 

Neighborhood Commission 6E Zoning Committee likewise concluded that the 103 

parking spaces in the PUD garage would be sufficient due to the building’s 

proximity to the Mount Vernon Square/Convention Center Metro Station. 

In addition to being just a block from the Metro, the PUD location is 

approximately one block from both a Metrobus stop and a Capital Bikeshare station. 

“Overall,” Gorove Slade found, the PUD site has “excellent pedestrian, transit, and 

bike accessibility.” This positive assessment was not contradicted. Moreover, the 

PUD’s provision of 121 long-term bicycle parking spaces in the underground garage 

also substantially exceeds what zoning regulations require.36 The bicycle parking 

spaces (and other biking infrastructure) are part of the PUD’s Transportation 

Demand Management (TDM) plan, which (with DDOT input and approval) contains

 35 The maximum ratio adopted by DDOT is meant to encourage the use of 

available non-automotive modes of transportation and thereby reduce adverse traffic 

and parking impacts. The PUD’s compliance with this policy was one reason DDOT 

enthusiastically supported the application. 

36 See 11-C D.C.M.R. § 802.1 (Table C).
22

multiple elements to reduce the demand for single-occupancy vehicular demand 

during peak travel times and encourages the use of alternative transportation options. 

In testimony before the Commission, DDOT’s representative described the TDM 

plan as “robust” and “sufficient to encourage non-auto modes.” 

As part of its assessment of the adequacy of the 103 parking spaces to be 

provided by the PUD, Gorove Slade utilized the Park Right DC Tool that DDOT 

created to produce site-specific residential parking demand estimates based 

(according to DDOT) on “a model using current local data of actual parking use

correlated with factors related to the building and its surroundings.”37 Taking into 

account the location and characteristics of the PUD building (including the number 

of each size of apartment), the model projected parking utilization at the building to 

 37 Petitioner objects that the “Park Right DC Tool is from 2014 and includes 

parts of the city that do not have 40 churches and a dire need for ‘Sunday parking’.” 

It is not clear that this assertion is accurate. There is scant if any evidentiary support 

in the record for the claim that the need for Sunday parking space is “dire,” and no 

evidence that the Park Right DC Tool was unsuited for the area at issue here. In its 

report to the Commission on the results it obtained with the Park Right DC Tool, 

Gorove Slade quoted DDOT’s explanation that the Tool’s calculations are “based 

on a model developed from extensive field work on data collected mostly in the fall 

of 2014 and spring of 2015 on over . . . 90 multi-family buildings across the District.” 

We are not persuaded that an expert transportation consultant erred by utilizing 

DDOT’s publicly available model as part of its analysis in this case, or that the 

Commission should have discounted Gorove Slade’s conclusions because they were 

corroborated by the Park Right DC Tool. 
23

be in the range of 72-115 spaces. The projection characterized a parking supply of 

103 spaces as “an oversupply.” Gorove Slade’s discussion of the Park Right DC 

Tool estimate noted that after the project is completed, there will be 47 on-street 

parking spaces on the building’s block in addition to the 103 spaces in the garage. 

“Thus,” Gorove Slade concluded, “if the parking demand for the Project ends up at 

the higher end of Park Right DC’s range and exceeds 103, the on-street spaces 

immediately adjacent to the Project can easily accommodate the additional demand.”

Petitioner’s witnesses (the pastors of Miles Memorial and First Rising)

expressed concerns that the PUD would impair the future ability of their parishioners 

to park in the neighborhood to attend church on Sunday mornings. While these 

concerns were not substantiated in the proceedings before the Zoning Commission, 

petitioner faults the Commission for failing to address the fact, recognized in the 

Convention Center Area Strategic Development Plan, that “[t]here are more than 40 

religious institutions in the Study Area that have additional parking needs, primarily 

on Sundays, when the street right-of-way is used to double-park during services.”38

 38 It should be noted that when the Convention Center Area Strategic 

Development Plan refers to a “Study Area” containing some 40 churches, it is 

describing a geographically extended area that is “generally referred to as Shaw, but 

[that] includes a number of neighborhoods identified by area residents.” (The Study 

Area “is bounded by New York Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, 12th Street, 

Vermont Avenue, U Street, Florida Avenue, and New Jersey Avenue.”) For what it
24

However, in its order, the Commission acknowledged the character of the 

neighborhood, noting “[t]he blocks immediately surrounding the property contain 

primarily residential, religious-affiliated, and low-density commercial land uses,” 

and specifically naming Miles Memorial, First Rising, and several other churches in 

the neighborhood. The Commission acknowledged and did not ignore their parking 

concerns. “With regard to the Churches’ parking concerns” it concluded that “the 

Building will not result in unacceptable parking impacts for the reasons advanced 

by the Applicant and OP,” in particular because (1) the Gorove Slade and DDOT 

analyses “did not identify any parking impacts that would require mitigations,” and

(2) “[t]he Building provides more than the required parking, especially as it is 

located in an area of the District well served by multiple transit options.”39

We consider the Commission’s findings supported by substantial evidence in 

the record. Simply put, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it unquestionably 

was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that construction of an apartment 

 

is worth, the Plan states that while “[o]n street parking is increasingly becoming an 

issue in the Study Area,” there is “less competition for on-street parking” in the area 

east of 7th Street, which is where the PUD and petitioner’s churches are located.

39 On a separate but related issue, the Commission also found that the building 

“is designed to ensure that site circulation and loading activities will not negatively 

impact the surrounding residential and religious uses.” Petitioner does not question 

this finding. 
25

building with more than adequate underground garage parking of its own for all its 

occupants will not have a deleterious impact on Sunday morning parking for 

churches in its vicinity.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Zoning Commission. 

So ordered.