The Zoning Commission on Dec. 1 heard hours of testimony on Zoning Case No. 25‑09, an Office of Planning proposal to create two new neighborhood mixed‑use zones on Connecticut Avenue: NMU‑8 ACP (Cleveland Park) and NMU‑9 WP (Woodley Park). Office of Planning senior planner Maxine Brown Roberts told commissioners, "OP is pleased to present the proposed text and map amendment to you this evening," and described a plan to allow more housing, ground‑floor retail, and design guidance meant to protect adjacent low‑density neighborhoods.

The proposal would raise matter‑of‑right floor‑area ratios and heights in the corridors OP identified, while applying the city's inclusionary zoning (IZ) and IZ Plus affordability program. Brown Roberts described standards for street‑level activation — "at least 75% of the street wall on the street level is constructed to the lot line" — as well as rear‑yard setback rules and the expectation that the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) will review design for compatibility. For Woodley Park OP described different FAR and height limits by side of the avenue: on the west side a maximum FAR of 6 with IZ and a 90‑foot height, and on the east side a FAR of 5.5 with IZ Plus and 75 feet in height.

Commissioners and staff pressed OP for clarification. Vice Chair Miller asked OP to "acknowledge at least that potential inconsistency with the density levels between comp plan and zoning" and requested a written analysis comparing the proposed FARs and heights to the Comprehensive Plan. Miller also highlighted a DDOT exhibit (Exhibit 150) that OP did not sponsor directly: the traffic agency's written analysis cited by a commissioner estimates roughly 864 additional residential units and 75,000 square feet of commercial space could be enabled under the proposal, with roughly 20% of the new units falling under IZ set‑asides if built out as modeled.

ANC 3C and numerous neighborhood groups urged approval. Janelle Pagets, chair of ANC 3C, said the ANC voted to "submit a letter of strong, unwavering, and unequivocal support" and argued the changes implement years of community planning. Supporters — including neighborhood organizations and many residents who said they walk the corridor daily — framed the rezoning as transit‑oriented development that would revive vacant storefronts and create new housing near two red‑line Metro stations.

Opponents and preservation groups urged changes. Several witnesses, including representatives of neighborhood preservation organizations and Ward 3 advocacy groups, raised three recurring concerns: that IZ Plus as drafted will not produce sufficient deeply affordable units for low‑income households (many asked for lower AMI targets in the IZ formula), that the zoning text omits mandatory front‑façade setbacks and stepbacks illustrated in the Connecticut Avenue development guidelines, and that the matter‑of‑right approach to upzoning limits public review on future projects. Carol Ayton of Northwest Opportunity Partners warned the commission that the proposal "neither maximizes the amounts of affordable housing nor targets those most in need." Deirdre Brown, testifying for the Ward 3 Democratic Committee, said the plan "leans heavily on 60% of MFI, but many black households in DC have income closer to the 36% MFI."

Historic‑district compatibility was a flashpoint. Testimony from Cleveland Park organizations and Single‑Member District commissioners cited Comprehensive Plan policy HP‑2.4.6, which says zoning in historic districts should be "consistent with the predominant height and density of contributing buildings." Commissioner Rick Nash argued the proposal's 75‑ to 90‑foot heights and an NMU‑8 FAR of 5 would exceed the prevailing scale in Cleveland Park and urged a lower maximum (roughly five stories) and legally binding setbacks to preserve the corridor's character.

Process and follow‑up. Several witnesses criticized the rule‑making format, saying it limits party status for affected neighbors; commissioners generally committed to keeping deliberations public. The commission asked OP for written follow‑ups on multiple items — comp‑plan consistency analysis, explicit IZ/IZ‑Plus calculations and tiers, family‑sized unit targeting, mandatory setback language, and any agency infrastructure comments (DC Water, DDOT) — and tentatively scheduled a follow‑up/proposed‑action meeting in late January to review OP's submissions.

What happens next. The commission did not vote on the proposal; rather, it collected public testimony and requested additional analysis from OP. The next public step will be the commission's consideration of the written responses and a proposed‑action session, with dates discussed to allow OP time to prepare. The hearing record now contains detailed pro and con submissions that the commission will weigh as it drafts its proposed rule.

The hearing transcript and exhibits remain in the case record. The Office of Planning and opponents alike framed the case as a once‑in‑a‑decade opportunity to deliver housing and preserve neighborhood character — a balance the commission will have to reconcile in subsequent written and public proceedings.