2107.1 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.

2107.2 Comprehensive Plan workshops in Near Northwest during 2005-2006 provided an opportunity for residents to discuss both District-wide and neighborhood planning issues. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) were briefed on the Comprehensive Plan on several occasions, providing additional opportunities for input. There have also been other meetings in the community not directly connected to the Comprehensive Plan that focused on specific planning issues for different parts of the area. These include meetings relating to the Shaw/Convention Center Small Area Plan, the Great Streets Initiative, campus plans for the local universities, and a variety of transportation, historic preservation, and economic development initiatives across the area.

2107.3 During these meetings the community delivered several key messages, summarized below:

1. Improved public safety, a strong economy, and rising confidence in the real estate market have fueled demand for housing across the area. Home prices in Shaw rose 30 percent between 2004 and 2005 alone. As a result, there is growing anxiety about the effects of change, particularly east of 14th Street NW. On the one hand, the reduced number of abandoned units and extensive restoration of older homes are positive signs that should continue to be encouraged. On the other hand, renovation has led to increased rents and property tax assessments, along with the risk of displacement of older and lower-income residents, many who have lived in the community for generations. Economic diversity should be protected, and programs to retain and add affordable housing are urgently needed.
2. Given the location of Near Northwest adjacent to Central Washington, the encroachment of offices, hotels, and other commercial uses has been an issue for many years. During the 1950s and 1960s, much of downtown's expansion occurred in the area just south of Dupont Circle. Today, zoning regulations and historic districts limit commercial encroachment into Near Northwest neighborhoods. However, the conversion of housing to non-residential uses continues to be an issue. In Sheridan-Kalorama, there

continue to be concerns about homes being turned into foreign chanceries, with attendant impacts on parking, upkeep, and security. Foggy Bottom residents remain apprehensive about the impacts of university expansion on housing and neighborhood character. In Dupont and Logan Circles, there are ongoing issues relating to the conversion of apartments to hotels, offices, and institutional uses. Concentration of community-based residential facilities is an issue in Logan Circle and in Shaw.

1. Much of what makes Near Northwest sought-after is lies in the beauty of its tree-lined streets, its urbane and historic architecture, and the proportions of its buildings and public spaces. Maintaining the quality and scale of development continues to be a top priority for the community. Residents expressed the opinion that new infill development should avoid creating monotonous or repetitive building designs, and strive for a mix of building types and scales. View obstruction, insensitive design, and street and alley closings were all raised as issues. In the Shaw Area and the Mount Vernon Square North Area, additional designation of historic landmarks and establishment of historic districts may be needed. At the same time, downzoning is needed in parts of Dupont and Logan Circles, particularly where blocks of historic row houses are zoned for high-density apartments. Zoning in such locations has not kept up with their historic designations. There have also been ongoing debates about the definition of historic, particularly as preservationists seek to recognize the recent past.
2. The process of creating, administering, and enforcing zoning regulations, including the granting of variances and zoning changes, needs to be refined and consistently applied. Several meeting participants singled out the granting of large numbers of Special Exceptions as an objectionable practice. Another issue raised was the excessive use of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and the resulting allowances for increased density. The community asked that future PUDs be rigorously reviewed and designed in a manner that minimizes their impacts on adjacent properties and provides ample community amenities. Other specific zoning issues identified included parking provisions and the regulation of institutional uses.
3. The area's dense and historic development pattern results in many different uses adjacent to each other. This is part of what makes the area vibrant and interesting, but it inevitably leads to land use conflicts. There are continuing concerns about the impact of commercial development on the ambience of shopping districts and residential streets in Georgetown and Dupont Circle. Public safety and crowd control remains an issue in these areas. Certain kinds of commercial activities, such as fast food

restaurants and liquor licensed establishments are a source of concern for neighbors. The proximity of commercial and residential uses also leads to issues like the regulation of deliveries, trash removal, and sidewalk cafes. ANCs in the area play a particularly important role in addressing and resolving these issues.

1. In some respects, those who live and work in Near Northwest enjoy some of the best transportation service in the city. The area's compact development pattern and proximity to downtown encourages walking, biking, and transit use, and for many owning a car is a choice rather than a necessity. But the area's location at the hub of the region's transportation system also produces adverse impacts. Arterials such as Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania Avenues and 16th Street NW carry high volumes of car and truck traffic into the central Washington, DC from outlying District neighborhoods and from the suburbs, with accompanying noise, congestion, and safety hazards. The wide avenues are efficient for moving traffic, but the flow is complicated by the pattern of circles and squares. Moreover, the arterials move traffic in a radial direction in and out of downtown, but traveling from east to west across the area is difficult. Given this fact, long-range plans for the Whitehurst Freeway are a concern for many neighbors. Other transportation issues raised at Comprehensive Plan meetings in Near Northwest include the need for better access between Georgetown and the Metrorail system, the need to control cut-through traffic on residential side streets, and the need for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety.
2. Parking continues to be an issue in almost all of the area's residential neighborhoods, particularly near the commercial districts and around major employment centers. Georgetown, Foggy Bottom, Logan Circle, and Dupont Circle, are affected by evening visitors to restaurants and bars. Foggy Bottom and Georgetown are also affected by student parking from George Washington and Georgetown Universities and other employers and businesses in the area. Many of the area's residences do not have off-street parking, leaving residents to compete with visitors and employees for a limited number of off-street spaces. Cars circling for parking contribute to traffic and congestion in the area. Measures such as residential permit parking and university shuttle services addresses the shortage to some degree, but additional programs are needed to reduce parking conflicts.
3. Near Northwest is underserved by recreational facilities and open space. Despite proximity to Rock Creek Park, the ratio of park acres per resident is among the lowest in Washington, DC. Most of the neighborhood parks in the area are small and have limited or aging facilities. An analysis of recreational needs performed as part of the 2006 Parks and Recreation

Master Plan concluded that virtually all parts of Near Northwest were deficient in athletic fields and that the east side was deficient in swimming pools. The Foggy Bottom-West End area and Logan Circle were identified as needing new recreation centers. Given the shortage of parkland, it is not surprising that many participants in Comprehensive Plan workshops also expressed concerns about the loss of private open space. Particular concerns included the construction of additions and new buildings on lawns, patios, and parking lots, leading one workshop participant to the conclusion that “every inch of the area was being paved over.” Creating new parks will be difficult given the built out character of the area. Looking forward, it will be imperative to retain and enhance existing parks, make better use of street rights-of-way as open space, provide better connections to the area’s large parks, and set aside ample open space within new development. Landscaping, tree planting, and rooftop gardens should all be strongly encouraged.

1. Retail conditions in Near Northwest are uneven. Neighborhoods on the east side of the planning area do not have adequate commercial and service establishments; 7th and 9th Streets NW, for example, still contend with shuttered storefronts and abandoned buildings. Retail districts on the west side of the planning area appear prosperous, but face other challenges. The unique quality of some of the area’s streets is disappearing, as lower-cost stores and services are replaced by national chain stores. There are worries about the area becoming too homogenous—with some suggesting that Georgetown’s M Street NW has effectively become a suburban mall in an urban setting. The changes along 14th Street NW are welcomed by some, but create tension between the old and the new. Despite the vastly different physical conditions on the east and west sides of the Planning Area, small businesses across the entire area face the stress of rising rents. Residents from Burleith to Shaw are concerned about the loss of the neighborhood businesses that define the character of their local shopping streets.
2. Expansion of institutional uses and nonprofit organizations is an issue both for the community and the institutions themselves. The issue was most often raised in connection with George Washington University (GW), but was also brought up more broadly with regard to the effects of institutional expansion on the District’s tax base, traffic, parking, the loss of housing, and neighborhood character. Many residents believe that additional regulation and enforcement is needed to monitor university growth. University representatives, on the other hand, note the constraints of operating within enrollment and employment caps, and point to the steps they have taken to buffer adjacent areas from objectionable effects. In general, workshop participants emphasized the need to assess institutional

impacts on a cumulative, rather than incremental, basis. Campus plans guide the growth of universities, but there is no comparable mechanism to guide the expansion of institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the Red Cross. One approach that warrants further consideration is to allow universities to build up on their properties, reducing the need for additional land for expansion. Of course, this raises other concerns, such as building height and mass. Another approach is to promote the development of satellite campuses and facilities. Careful balancing is needed to make sure the interests of all parties are considered, and to reach solutions where all can benefit.

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)).