1906.1 This section summarizes the opportunities and challenges residents and stakeholders prioritized during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision. During large community workshops, residents shared their feedback on District-wide and neighborhood specific issues. Since the 2006 community workshops, however, some of the challenges and opportunities facing the community have evolved. The following summary does not reflect new community priorities or feedback from either amendment cycle but summarizes the most important issues during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision.

1906.2 Planning issues along the Anacostia Waterfront were discussed at many of the Comprehensive Plan workshops held in 2005 and 2006, particularly at meetings conducted on Capitol Hill and in Southwest DC. Priorities for this area were more explicitly stated during the previous three-year process that led to the development of the Anacostia Waterfront Framework plan. Concurrent planning programs for the Southwest Waterfront, Reservation 13, and the Near Southeast in the early 2000s involved hundreds of District residents. Since 2000, several citizens advisory groups, focus groups, and design charrettes have been convened, providing additional opportunities to identify key issues and goals.

1906.3 The Comprehensive Plan responds to the key messages provided by the community at these meetings. These are summarized below:

1. The river has come to symbolize the social and economic divide in Washington, DC, separating east from west and presenting a challenge to the District's goal of growing more inclusively. It should instead become a unifier and a source of economic opportunity for the neighborhoods on its shores. The waterfront should unite the District physically, economically, and socially. This will require redefining its image and identity, and fundamentally redirecting growth patterns in Washington, DC toward emerging waterfront areas.

2. Revitalizing the waterfront must not be done at the expense of the established communities that exist near its shoreline. Existing neighborhoods and important community institutions should be conserved and should be the focus of reinvestment during the coming years. Residents should have a say in the future of the waterfront and should be protected from displacement as change occurs. Within new neighborhoods, diverse housing choices should be provided so that a mix of household types and incomes are accommodated. Affordable housing for moderate-income families and for the District's lowest-income residents should be part of this equation. Social and economic diversity should be respected.

3. The river provides a unique setting for monuments, memorials, and signature features that can potentially shape and redefine Washington, DC's identity in the 21st century. This potential should not be squandered. The Potomac River is already a celebrated waterfront, but its character is distinctive in its own way. The Anacostia River should be unique, with activities that invigorate urban life. New destinations should celebrate the cultural heritage of the District and the nation. As cultural facilities are developed, the extraordinary and unheralded stories of the neighborhoods along the river should be told.

4. Many of the great open spaces and parks of the Anacostia waterfront are hard to find, underused, and neglected. These areas should be better connected to one another, and to the neighborhoods they adjoin. A variety of park environments should be created, from lively urban waterfront plazas to serene natural settings. Trails and promenades are needed to provide better access along the shoreline, and to make the waterfront more accessible to surrounding communities. New parks, recreational areas, and cultural facilities should be developed.
5. Urban development and natural resource conservation should not be mutually exclusive, but should go hand in hand. Development on the waterfront—and throughout the watershed—should be environmentally sustainable and designed to minimize negative effects on water quality and ecological resources. In some cases, plans to reduce sewage overflows into the river should be accompanied by restoration of wetlands and buried streams, and conservation of natural habitat. From a regional perspective, additional density along the waterfront is one of the best examples of smart growth. It can curb urban sprawl by channeling more housing demand back toward the District's center. More density near the waterfront can also be used to leverage the creation of additional waterfront parks and open spaces.
6. Access between the east and west sides of the river should be improved. Human-scale crossings should be emphasized, rather than the existing freeway bridges that are almost exclusively oriented toward cars and trucks. The design of transportation infrastructure should be rethought to better serve waterfront neighborhoods, reduce barriers to waterfront access, and create gateways to waterfront parks. Bridges should be regarded as opportunities for great civic architecture. In general, transportation design should strive for a better balance between the needs of cars, and the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The river itself should be seen as a transit opportunity, with water taxis and ferries providing easy access across the river and to riverfront designations like Georgetown and Alexandria, Virginia.
7. Development along the waterfront should be designed to respect the scale and integrity adjacent neighborhoods. As the District works to create distinct

waterfront destinations, it should also restore and rehabilitate historic structures, protect views and sunlight, reinforce neighborhood commercial centers, and enhance the quality of life for existing residents. While densities in new waterfront communities are likely to be higher than those in adjacent communities, they should not be visually overwhelming. This is particularly true where new development sites abut fine-grained row house neighborhoods that have existed for more than a century. Planning for large-scale development should be responsive to local concerns about traffic, crowd-control, displacement, community service impacts, and changing neighborhood character.

SOURCE: District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984, effective April 10, 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76; 31 DCR 1049 (March 9, 1984)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Element Amendment Act of 1984, effective March 16, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-187; 32 DCR 873 (February 15, 1985)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-129; 37 DCR 55 (January 5, 1990)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989 NCPC-Recommended Amendments, and Closing of Public Alleys in Square 669, S.O. 88-452, Act of 1990, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-132; 37 DCR 2213 (April 6, 1990)); as amended by District Government Land Use Temporary Amendment Act of 1994, effective October 1, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-190; 41 DCR 5360 (August 12, 1994)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1994, effective October 6, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-193; 41 DCR 5536 (August 19, 1994)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Amendment Act of 1994, effective March 21, 1995 (D.C. Law 10-235; 42 DCR 30 (January 6, 1995)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 18, 1996 (D.C. Law 11-110; 43 DCR 530 (February 9, 1996)); as amended by Second Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 9, 1997 (D.C. Law 11-255; 44 DCR 1271 (March 7, 1997)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 1998, effective April 27, 1999 (D.C. Law 12-275; 46 DCR 1441 (February 19, 1999)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1999, effective April 12, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-91; 47 DCR 520 (January 28, 2000)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2006, effective March 8, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-300; 54 DCR 924 (February 2, 2007)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 2008, effective March 25, 2009 (D.C. Law 17-353; 56 DCR 1117 (February 6, 2009)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2010, effective April 8, 2011 (D.C. Law 18-361; 58 DCR 908 (February 4, 2011)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2021, effective August 21, 2021 (D.C. Law 24-20; 68 DCR 006918 (July 16, 2021)).