I'm calling to order this hearing.

This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia.

I am Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Today is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026.

The time is 5.23 in the afternoon.

We're having this hearing in the Council Chambers Room 500 of the Johnny Wilson Building.

And this hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Council's website, which is WW.dccouncil.gov.

The subject of this hearing is Bill 26-625 entitled the RFK Campus Small Area Plan Amendment Act of 2026.

Which was submitted by the mayor on March 6th.

In her letter, transmittable letter, she said this bill is necessary to facilitate the timely zoning and development of the RFK campus, which cannot proceed until the future land use map covering the site is amended to allow mixed use development.

Under this bill, the future land use map could be amended in connection with the approval of the RFK campus small area plan.

Amending the future land use map would still require legislative approval by the council, but the planning process associated with the map change would be more focused than for a comprehensive plan amendment.

Significantly, this bill would ensure the development of the RFK campus benefits from, would ensure the development of the RFK campus benefits from the extensive community input and detailed planning that comes with a small area plan.

And to read from the hearing notice the stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984, Land Use Element Amendment Act of 1984 to modify the requirement for preparing and submitting a small area plan for the RFK Memorial Stadium campus.

This bill is intended to facilitate the next steps in zoning for the RFK campus to allow for development of a new stadium and mixed use development resulting from the Robert F.

Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025 adopted by the Council last year.

The record in this matter will be open for two weeks.

That is, it will close at 5 p.m.

on May 1st, Tuesday, May 1st, excuse me, May 5th, 2026.

I'll just add that the council, after extensive or intensive public awareness and participation, adopted the RFK Campus Act last August.

I think it was August 1st was final reading.

No, August 1st was first reading.

To allow for the construction of a stadium to house the Washington Commanders football team, and also to allow for substantial mixed-use development on much of the rest of the campus.

And that site under the current future land use map is designated as I believe Parks and Open Space, and so that designation needs to change for the mixed-use development.

And that's what this is about.

So we have a number of witnesses before I get to the government.

Well after four.

So let me call the witnesses who've registered.

We'll see who's here.

Ashley Ruff, who's a ANC Commissioner, ANC 7F, William Jordan, Antonio Myers, Parissa Naruzi, who is Executive Director of Empowered DC, Regina Tatum, Sarah Francis Morris, and Michael Rodriguez, who is Chief Executive Officer of St.

Coletta of Greater Washington.

So I believe a couple of the witnesses are online.

And I see Mr.

Jordan at the table.

I know Ashley Ruff was in the chamber earlier, but that was while the council was meeting.

So since she's not online and she's not here, I'll turn to Mr.

Jordan, Europe.

Good evening.

I would urge the council to not pass this legislation and allow the plan to move through the normal comp plan rewrite process.

And I wanted to share a few reasons why I believe it should.

One, I really have no confidence in the Office of Planning.

And I'm sharing this from a hearing earlier this year where the director, when questioned by Councilmember White about the number of three-bedroom housing needed in the city, basically punted on the issue and didn't answer why we need three bedrooms, and so we didn't.

Also, when talking about displacement in the production of housing units, basically said that they don't count how many people have left.

They only look at the number of people and the number of units produced and not the number of units lost.

So if they're not even counting the total impact of policy, to me that's really insane.

And then they talked about the old soldiers' home and said they were still counting the units that are going to be developed at the whole soldiers' home as part of the city's planning, and that project has died twice on the bond and doesn't even exist anymore.

So I don't have any confidence that the Office of Planning takes this process seriously.

The other is we're really creating a moral hazard here.

And we've been doing it over and over.

You know, it's always a rush.

We're telling the commanders or whoever, whatever the developer is that they don't have to go through a community process.

In the last 20 years, they've been truncating the process from land disposition to planning, zoning, even the zoning comp plan, PUD process.

They've been truncating it and making it harder for people to defend and develop their communities.

So he was just fined by the judge 30 million dollars for basically using the project that was supposed to be under DIMPED Oversight as a kind of money laundering.

So he was caught for 30 million.

He refinanced over a hundred million, and we don't know what happened with that money.

That was a city developed project.

The project never met the community benefits that were required, and we were so pumped up about getting development and doing things, we didn't do any oversight, and nothing has changed.

So 100 million dollars laundered through a project, and we were still awarding that same developer new projects.

Now he's gone, and his family wants to sell the rights to a project in Hill East.

I mean, it's insane, and that's what we get when we do these kind of processes.

So I'm urging you slow it down.

If the commanders can't do it by the process that I have to follow, then let them run away because they'll just do the same thing that Ted Leonis did downtown.

He'll just play it.

And we need to end this moral hazard, and it needs to happen now.

Thank you.

Uh Antonio Myers.

I believe is not here.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Paris and Ruzi.

I'm the co-founder and director of Empower DC, where for over 20 years I've worked with DC residents throughout the district who've been impacted by displacement and inequitable development.

And today I'm testifying in opposition to the RFK campus small area plan amendment act.

Um I want to raise the underlying questions and concerns that are you know sort of ref unspoken in this in this legislation pertaining to similar to what Mr.

Jordan was talking about, a real failure of planning in our city and really questioning the integrity of the Office of Planning and how it's governing itself.

Um what exactly are the rules governing small area plans and the future land use map and changes to the map?

The bill states that you know OP would provide proposed amendments and that the council could approve those as they consider the small area plan.

But when the Ivy City community worked on a small area plan with OP and specifically wanted to identify potential changes to the future land use map, the community was told no, uh we don't do small area plans that way.

We don't use them to make uh flum changes.

And actually was told we don't do that anymore because of litigation.

But then when pushed back and asked, well, can you please clarify what are you talking about?

If there's a new approach, you know, there must be a memo, there must be some internal guidance, please, you know, be transparent.

So what what is the methodology?

Um they would never clarify, they just refused to offer the opportunity to shape the future land use map through the small area plan where residents are uh rightfully very concerned about displacement.

The plan itself uh says that 30% of residents are at risk of displacement.

So why would we allow flum changes with the RFK uh small area plan, but not with um the plans that are being undertaken for communities like Ivy City.

Um, secondly, where how exactly is OP uh addressing racial equity?

Um, the comp plan was passed five years ago with the requirement of the racial equity lens in planning and zoning.

Uh zoning has created a tool of questionable effectiveness, but OP still has not articulated what is it, what is the racial equity lens?

What is the approach specifically?

You know, how does it conduct a community engagement?

How does it conduct analysis?

It has never never fully articulated its approach.

Um, third, where is the anti-displacement strategy that was also required in the 2021 comp plan?

Um here we are five years later.

Uh we're you know, well into the DC 2050 planning process, and there is no anti-displacement strategy anywhere to be seen.

This is especially important for a site like RFK, where we know this big stadium development is going to contribute to land speculation and displacement pressure.

And finally, um, environmental analysis must be upheld.

And unfortunately, as a city, we have a systemic failure across the board of ignoring environmental review.

Environmental review should be strengthened, not done away with.

Um, in fact, we should be looking at cumulative impact analysis, not just the individual sources, and not uh not gutting the basic environmental reviews.

I did a quick scan of Director Cozart's uh testimony tonight, and I it was interesting to me that there was no mention of racial equity, displacement or affordable housing.

It looks like this was a fad that came and left, and um, Chairman Mendelson, I hope that the council will disapprove this and really push OP to ensure that planning efforts emphasize racial equity, displacement prevention, and environmental protection.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Narusi.

Uh Regina Tatum.

I think is not here.

Sarah Francis Morris.

I think it's not here.

Michael Rodriguez from St.

Coletis.

Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Mendelssohn.

Uh, my name is Mike Rodericks.

I lead the St.

Coletta Special Education Public Charter School, where we serve 250 students with severe and multiple disabilities here across the street from RFK.

We understand the importance of planning for the future of this site, and we've actually hosted a number of RFK community meetings ourselves.

We're here because this bill raises concerns about who gets to be part of that planning process.

As written, the legislation allows proposed future land use map changes for the RFK campus to move forward through the small area plan process without being subject to the full set of procedures that would normally apply to amendments to the comprehensive plan.

While those changes would still come before council, the overall process is more limited, and that matters because for communities like ours, process is the access point.

If the process is narrowed, then the question becomes where exactly do our students and families fit.

Leaders often point to tools like community benefits agreements to ensure developments reflect community needs.

But those agreements only work if the community has a real seat at the table from the beginning.

If this bill limits the pathways for meaningful engagement, there is no clear mechanism to ensure decisions are made through a lens that is inclusive of residents with disabilities or for securing commitments that reflect our basic needs.

The city accelerating decisions about land use while avoiding certain decisions about people is not theoretical for us.

Coletta students whose intensive needs have been fully documented for years, students whose services are legally mandated, students who are still not fully accounted for in the district's budget.

As these projects quickly move forward, construction work is already disrupting our school community.

Staff parking displaced, daily operations impacted before a single dollar has been committed to the students right next door.

So we're left with a difficult contrast.

From aligning agencies to advancing plans and unlocking resources, the city certainly can move quickly when something is a priority.

But for DC students with the most intensive needs, even with official studies, volumes of data, and five years of political engagement, there is still no clear funding commitment from the district for St.

Coletta students' basic needs.

As written, this bill risks reinforcing that pattern by accelerating decisions about the future of the site while narrowing the avenues for the very communities most affected to shape those decisions.

That is why we're asking Council to ensure that any planning process for the RFK campus, especially the CBA, includes enforceable pathways for community participation.

This bill illustrates the diff the district's ability to move with urgency when it chooses to.

We are asking you to ensure that the same intentionality applies to inclusion and to the students whose needs cannot continue to be deferred.

If the process excludes the community, the outcomes will as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Rodriguez.

Thank you each of you for your testimony.

I do have some questions.

I'm going to ask the questions because I signed up.

Come forward.

Your name again is Richard Millman.

You can have to spell your last name.

And you're with Pan-African Community Action.

Okay.

Please.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman Mendelson.

Your microphone is not on.

Okay.

Good evening, Chairman Mendelson.

My name is Richard Villemone, and I'm speaking on behalf of Pan African Community Action, a grassroots organization based in Southeast D.C.

PACA recently launched a platform for community control grounded in the idea that residents should have direct democratic decision-making power over the land, resources, and institutions that shape our lives.

We are here today because the RFK campus Small Area Plan Amendment Act raises serious concerns about who actually has power over land use decisions in the city.

This bill is being framed as a technical change to streamline development.

But what it really does is allow major changes to the future land use map to move forward to a more limited process, one that weakens existing requirements for review, transparency, and public accountability.

We've seen this pattern before.

Decisions get made quickly behind closed doors, and communities, especially black working class communities, are bought in after the fact, if at all.

By the time residents are invited to give input, the outcome is already decided.

For us, this is not just about process, it's about power.

Land use decisions determine whether our communities can stay, whether public land serves public needs, and whether development benefits residents or displaces them.

If the city is serious about community input, then we meet more than meetings and comment periods.

We need real binding community control over land planning and development decisions, especially for a major public site like RFK.

So our demand is clear.

This council should not move forward with any RFK development process that does not include binding community control.

That means establishing democratic resident-led structures within with real decision-making authority over land use, not advisory boards, not consultation, but power.

This is part of PACA's broader platform, community control over land, resources, and public funds.

The RFK site should be a test case for that vision, not another example of top-down development, because the question before us is simple.

Who decides what happens to public land?

The people of the city or a small group of officials and developers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Villmanet.

Thank you, Chairman.

So I do have some questions.

I'm I guess I would preface by saying I'm just a little bit uh mystified.

So, Mr.

Jordan, you referred to rushing, and I think there was at least another witness who said something like that.

Umetas, you talked about a community benefits agreement.

Um just kind of a little bit at a loss here because the council last year, last summer, eight months ago, nine months ago, after two days of hearings, approved, essentially approved a development plan for the RFK site.

And uh so to suggest that what is before us today is rushing when it's eight months after that action, which occurred after there were public hearings, um, is a little bit surprising to me.

Um Mr.

Rodriguez talked about a community benefits agreement.

There was a community benefits agreement.

It was part of the legislation that the council adopted last year, um requiring that the commanders put up roughly $50 million over 30 years, not spread evenly but episodically.

Um the contours of that community benefits agreement were set forth in the legislation that the council adopted.

Let's see, we adopted first reading again after a public hearing on August 1st and second reading, as I recall on April on September 17th, which was more than the customary two weeks.

It was close to two months, not quite, maybe a month and a half.

So there was lots of opportunity for input on the community benefits agreement on the development proposal.

Um here we are roughly.

Three, three, six, seven, seven months later, and folks are complaining that we're rushing the process.

The reality is that the council approved that there would be development of a stadium which is exempt from zoning, and adjacent parcels, which would have mixed use development with, as I recall, about 6,000 housing units.

And the comprehensive plan land use map needs to be amended to reflect that.

That council action needs to be amended by the council.

And then there will be for the mixed-use parcels zoning hearings.

I don't know if there will be a planned unit development or it will be a matter of right development, but in any event there will have to be hearings before the Zoning Commission on the zoning.

And in that way, another opportunity for the community to comment.

So I'm a little bit at a loss over the criticisms.

Mr.

Jordan, I'll let you go first.

So first is the commander stadium in this process should follow the same process that anybody else should have to follow.

Well, it didn't.

It got approved by the council as part of a uh development package last year.

So it's a matter of law.

Last September 17th was second reading.

So I mean, okay, I'll say it again.

Obviously, it's a different process, or we wouldn't have this legislation.

This legislation would have this legislation unless we're just doing jump legislation.

We're doing the legislation because we want to, it seems my reading of it, is to accelerate the process for by a year that we will get to making zoning decisions a year earlier than the comp plan process would have us take.

So it is accelerating the process.

Right?

No.

Otherwise, that's what the that's what I read.

It said that if it if we don't do this, we will require, I think it was So no, let's be clear.

So it might advance from 2028 to 2027.

So that's acceleration, right?

Uh yes, that's correct.

That's also a year and a half from now, which I would not call accelerating.

There's a lot of it is it's accelerating the process, correct?

That's what we're we're talking about first accelerating the process.

If you don't want to see high-density residential development or high density hotels or high density office, I don't know what it is going to be.

But if you don't want to see that, do you need a year and a half to figure that out?

But that's see, this is the I mean, this is why I say we're in a moral hazard.

Right.

We've I'm coming to you and bringing this up because I've been dealing with the same process more or less for the last 20 years.

Not exactly.

Yeah, I know I keep interrupting you.

I live in Columbia Heights.

Yes.

I live in Columbia Heights, and I've watched the land disposition process change and accelerate, because it used to be used to have this ERA, and then the community could talk about it, and then you have an LDA, and then you go to legislation and you might go to zoning and all this, and then there was this process, and what I'm telling you is that in Columbia Heights, my experience is all the promises, none of them were executed or the ones that were not sustained, right, through the process.

So what we have is a mess in Columbia Heights, right?

In part, in fact, the reality, this youth curfew zone thing we just went through, is a result of planning that did not include those young people.

So now we really have no way to plug them in to this new community that we've bought.

We're not learning these lessons.

I don't care whether the council made it law or not.

The reality is bad law is bad law.

We haven't done the analysis.

We're just doing things based on anecdotal evidence, and I can tell you that that's what we're seeing today, or this city would be much further along the process.

So planning is broken, zoning is broken, we blame it on people trying to have a say in what their community looks like, right?

And then we quote, yes, we did this, check these boxes off.

And so I'm saying to you, this is wrong.

This is not the best we can do, and we're seeing the result.

That's why I gave that Donatelli example, is because 120 million dollars is poof because we let these projects become land speculation, and that's really what we're doing.

Financial land speculation, and we're going to pay the price.

We saw what happened downtown with the with the basketball arena, same game.

And I'm saying it's time to not do that.

I would say that this is a little bit different.

So I'm thinking Park Morton, it went through its own process, and I know there's a lot of criticism of the process, but a very different process than here.

But I would also say that we know the broad contours of the development of the RFK campus.

Because all that was outlined last year by the mayor when she presented the legislation to the council, and then in the negotiations with the commanders and commitments they made, and then the legislation we adopted.

But we're at the beginning of this process.

So there's probably going to be 6,000 units.

But are they going to be in three buildings or six buildings or eight buildings?

Is it going to be high density, moderate density?

Um what's the office uh retail residential mix?

We're at the beginning here.

There's a small area plan process that's underway.

The director is going to testify about that.

There's the opportunity for the community to participate or to have input into the design of the urban, if you will, the urban design of the development of the RFK campus.

I dare say that's not the case with other projects that you can cite.

And no, no, I interrupted you, but you can't interrupt me.

It's not right now.

And uh as I said, there's a small area plan, then there's gonna be the zoning uh zoning process, which it may not be a PUD, in which case there won't be design opportunity for design input, but it will be about what the what the um zoning envelope will look like, and so there is the opportunity there.

There's the opportunity for the community to reach out to the commanders and um have uh bilateral discussions with them about what uh the community wants to see.

So uh there's a as far as I can see, there's still a lot of opportunity for community input.

And yes, it's accelerated from 2029 to 2028 or 2028 to 2027.

The last I checked, this is April 26.

Well, I'll let others speak, but I've drank that Kool-Aid before, and I can tell you what it results in.

Well, I can't speak to the veracity of commitments.

Excuse me.

I can't speak to the veracity of commitments.

Well, then that's this is the that's the whole point.

So this is I think Theresa spoke to this.

So one of the things about recracial equity that is the problem with particularly with the Office of Planning, but we see it in zoning.

Racial equity says let's analyze the outcomes of what we've been doing so that it informs us moving forward.

And when you analyze it, let's break it down into the different groups, right?

And then bring it back together and analyze and see what's going on, right?

So I'm telling you that we don't do that.

This is an indication that we don't intend to do that, because we're basically arguing that it's going to take care of itself, and we know that it doesn't.

So I'm basically saying to you, this is a bad idea.

Um there are better ways to do it.

Maybe others have a better way to figure this out than I do, but I can guarantee you I know what the result is going to be.

And the result is going to be those who it matters the most for won't even be here because we will be gone and displaced by this process, and even if it works out, we've been left out.

Because if it does, if we're not taken care of now, we won't be.

So I'm going to move on to Ms.

Naruzzi.

You've heard this discussion.

Um I didn't have a direct question to you or to Mr.

Jordan or to Mr.

Villeme.

Villmanag, excuse me.

Uh, but uh I want you to respond if you wish.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's not there's obviously not an equitable approach to planning and development.

You know, we have a different standard for politically driven, uh, politically desirable development than we do for uh the communities who want to be heard and want to help shape land use, especially land use that would um prevent displacement, provide the housing that that we need as a city.

And and chairman, I I just like you know, really looking at what were the commitments in the 2021 comp plan and where are we with them?

We have failed completely.

Racial equity has become nothing more than a buzzword.

Uh the agencies have already forgotten these commitments.

I don't hear it coming up in oversight hearings.

Um, you know, even the Office of Planning itself is not even really talking about it anymore.

The anti-displacement strategy should be for in the forefront as we're planning land use maps, and it doesn't exist at all.

And no government, you know, spokesperson is saying anything about it.

So I mean, that's really my point is uh, you know, I could have a conversation about whether I think small area plans should come with flum changes, but not just for RFK.

Let's have that conversation as a city, because Ivy City was not given that opportunity.

They were told, oh no, those those flum changes, they're they're already in place.

You can't you can't address that, even if we are now acknowledging that 30% of the residents are at risk of displacement because of this coming development.

We are still not going to allow your small area plan to address this.

And so those are the issues that I'm raising.

And then, of course, the environmental laws, which are so ignored that it's a complete joke.

You know, when was the last time you saw an environmental impact assessment on anything?

I'd like to know.

I mean, I don't, it's an honest question, because it seems to me that we as a city have have completely ignored that.

So I don't think we should be allowing the mayor's office to then legislate.

Oh, okay.

Now we're we're we're gonna just completely say we're not even gonna do them.

We're not even gonna do the process, we're not even gonna do the environmental review.

Um I think we should be doing the opposite.

We should be holding them accountable to doing these things correctly.

Well, but isn't it too late for those points?

I mean, the council acted last August.

So the time for the, and I think actually there is an EA because it's federal land.

I think there's something that has to be done uh with regard to an environmental assessment.

Uh I think.

But um other issues that you bring up.

Um wasn't the time for that before the council vote, and I don't remember if you testified then.

And I don't remember if you testified then.

Maybe you made the point then, maybe not, but isn't it?

I think a lot of people, I think a lot of people raise these points.

I mean, that's sort of the underlying concern about the development model that the city continues to pursue.

Is we're going to do these massive developments, we're going to create a whole new neighborhood with a centered around a sports stadium and nightlife, and any affordable housing or community amenities are secondary.

A second thought.

$50 million over 30 years is the community benefit.

Well, now wait a minute.

You said uh whatever small amount of affordable housing, my recollection is that a third of the 6,000 units are going to be affordable.

Well, that's all part of the deal.

That's all part of the deal.

It's public land, so that is the law, but the mayor can waive it when there's a so-called public amenity in place.

The deal was signed, sealed, delivered last August.

That the percentage of affordable units is already locked in.

So don't say with regard to this site that the mayor can waive it.

Well, I hope you're right, Chairman, and I hope you fight for that to the bitter end, because what we've seen time and time again is that the affordable units are I mean, we still haven't replaced the units at Arthur Capper, Carolsburg, 25, 30 years later.

Okay.

So I'm I'm just saying like they're always the afterthought.

And if we are serious about these things, we have to do them first.

Anti-displacement means we we put those things in place first before the massive development comes and the land speculation that follows.

And that's why I interrupted you earlier.

I shouldn't be interrupting, but I am to say, but isn't it too late to be making that point?

The council already, the mayor and the council already approved the RFK legislation.

I think we should be making the point every time this discussion is being had, Chairman.

And no, I don't think it's too late because like you said, this is a process that's going on for the next two, three, however many years, we're gonna have to raise these issues every single time the conversation.

Okay, so let me ask you looking at the RFK campus, who's being displaced.

Displacement pressure goes beyond the site in question.

I mean, do we have to uh argue that fact?

Do we not now understand that when you build it could be a vacant site, but that still draws a lot of land speculation and um you know um rising housing costs to the surrounding area?

So that's the whole point of the anti-displacement strategy is to evaluate those risks.

Where are the at-risk buildings in the vicinity of the so then I don't know that I want to go down this road too far, but I'll go down it a little bit.

What is the displacement?

If the value of property goes up and the property owner sells their property at a profit, are they being displaced?

Well, I mean, if they're renters, yes.

If they're renters who cannot take advantage of the very difficult TOPA process with too few resources in place to secure buildings.

Okay, the last I checked, Kingman Park, which is the adjacent community, is single family homes, maybe some row houses.

Well, RFK is a large site and there's apartment buildings on certain sides of it, but we work with some of those properties.

And uh well.

First of all, the whole uh Benning Road side of it.

Okay.

And then there's properties like Benning, I think it's called Benning Quartz that we work with that are tenants who are already struggling to get you know, housing code enforcement to to deal with um unaccountable landowners.

Okay, but Benning Road is uh a mile from the stadium, maybe.

It's on the perimeter of the stadium parking lot.

Is you're talking about a whole mixed-use development that includes that whole site, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, so this has wide effect.

I mean, that's one of the perimeters, one of the the roads alongside of it.

And you have public housing just on the other side there.

So but wait a minute, wait a minute.

Wait a minute.

I'm looking at I'm trying to see a map in my head.

St.

Give me a second here.

But that's the other side you're thinking of the Capitol Hillside.

Yeah, I'm looking at a map.

So if you follow the campus up to Benning Road, there's a Langston golf course on the other side.

Right, right next to the length of the state of the state of the state.

So you're actually talking, I think you're talking about there's a distance.

At any rate, I think this this talk about displacement there is it needs to be quantified rather than just thrown out.

Can we do the plan then?

Let's do the plan.

I mean, that's sort of the whole point of the comp plan requirement is to analyze the different forces that shape displacement.

Let's understand it.

Let's figure out where do we make the investments.

And we have to do them at the front end, not at the back end.

So then you would not have this development take place.

Because if I remember correctly, the first phase of the mixed use is something like 2032 or 2034.

So if it's 2032, that's six years from now.

Is there not is that not enough time to look at the issue of displacement?

Not if the council does not prioritize it, the Office of Planning does not prioritize it, the mayor does not prioritize it.

And that was my whole point is that we said we were doing this five years ago.

Now we're changing future land use maps for the whole new comp plan, and we still haven't done it.

We haven't even looked at it.

There's not one piece of data about this placement in this planning process.

So I would hope that you would be as concerned as I am, Chairman, that again we we keep kicking the can when it comes to the issues of displacement deeply affordable housing.

We keep building the nightlife, we keep building the stadiums and saying there's going to be some trickle-down effect.

William's point is that we're not even counting the net gain of affordable units, right?

We're not even looking at how much did we lose in the process of creating what you're saying is going to be this 3,000.

Who said we're losing any?

My point is as a city, the the mayor's office tells us how many new units of affordable housing they've created, but they it's not a net gain.

They don't subtract the units that they demolished or that were lost from that number.

We don't even have an accurate accounting, is my point.

I thought we were talking about RFK.

Yes, but I'm talking about the manner in which the city goes about planning and even prioritizing and focusing on, you know, how do we approach the I'm not even saying I'm against the RFK development.

I'm saying that the city has proven time and time again that it puts community development, affordable housing and displacement on the back end.

It does not make the uh investment the give it the attention.

And I would hope that you would make sure in everything that you do, including if you pass this legislation, that you would add some things to force them to confront those issues front on, invest in them front on, because it cannot be an afterthought.

Let me turn to Mr.

Rodriguez.

So you've heard all this discussion.

Do you have any response?

Yes, I do.

And um I appreciate the opportunity to clarify uh our testimony, my testimony, uh, and perhaps to separate it from uh some of the other testimony that you've heard.

Um we have been a part of the process all along.

We have utilized our community voice, and there have been, as you have have pointed out, many opportunities for that.

We're not here speaking out in opposition to this legislation.

As a matter of fact, I figured that this uh hearing was going to be more of a procedural matter.

Um but a big part of my job is channeling the voices of 250 students and their families uh in the public square, if you will.

So a couple of things.

One, they expect St.

Coletta to be at the table, since this is right across the street from the school where their children go, um, and be a voice in this process, which includes this conversation today.

That's why we're here, and we want to ensure since those voices that I'm channeling are typically not the voices that are heard and valued in these uh in these conversations weighing different factors.

They expect me to be here and to preserve our voice around the table, which we have done and which we will continue to do.

Secondly, we are the largest and closest nonprofit to this development.

We are the closest school to this development.

And we expect to be and continue to be at that table.

Also, our constituents, this is the last thing I'll say, our stakeholders and in particular the families want me to point out the visual inequity of millions and millions of dollars being poured into the ground across the street, and the pervasive and systemic and illegal underfunding of St.

Coletta, which I will speak to in hearings both tomorrow and the day after.

And I hope that hope that clarifies our stance.

I'm happy to answer any any questions that might help.

I think I'll leave it there.

Let me ask Mr.

Villenay, you've been hearing this.

Yes.

Do you have any response?

I do, uh Chairman.

So under the current law, the mayor has to follow a process as it relates to any proposed amendments to the district's comprehensive plan.

So as it was noted by another witness, you know, environmental assessments, meetings and review.

Um the small area amendment act would allow the mayor to propose amendments without um to the future land use maps for the um for the mixed use area of the RFK campus without going through that process.

So not having the environmental assessments, not having the meetings, not having the review.

And so this just goes to the point.

It's not the position whether you're for or against RFK in general, is just that that was done as you noted.

Now there's a there's uh um amendment that is allowing the mayor to make some changes without going through that uh the process, right?

And in fact, it uh any consideration, amendments would be or considered by the council, but they don't need approval by the council.

So again, we just uh PACA, we view it as um as with it's a change in the what was the original nature of of the of the RFK plan, and it kind of it just speaks to the community when you you thought you were uh approving or supporting one thing, and then later on things get changed without that input that was originally given, the consultation, the advisory boards, things of that nature.

Now through this amendment act, it would it would give the mayor uh effectively authority to make those changes without that consent or without the review from the community.

And that just goes to our broader point where we would like to see um for for this plan and anything moving forward where the community is involved throughout the whole process, because you know, hopefully this benefits us all.

Um we just like to know that the individuals, the stakeholders who are the residents of Ward 7 and other members of the DC community who are going to be using this space are going to be using it for the intention that it was originally um presented to us.

So it seems to me it's like process inserting process without purpose.

The decision has already been made that there will be a stadium and there will be uh substantial development on the mixed-use parcels, including about 6,000 residential units.

That decision has already been made.

So I'm not quite getting why we should act like this is a process to get there when we already got there.

True, but the small area plan amendment will allow the mayor to propose amendments without even going through the process that we origin that was originally agreed to in the original um in the original um plan.

Well, yeah, isn't that what I just said?

Yeah, and and but isn't that part of the problem, right?

Where the community had uh they had stakeholders who had input, consultation, things of that nature, but now which was originally intended is now you're it's we're saying now the mayor can do what he or she decides what certain areas of that project.

I get that we're looking at amending the comprehensive plan to look at what's already been decided as opposed to deciding based on the comprehensive plan.

There is a certain rationality to making decisions, land use decisions based on a plan of forethought.

That's not what happened here.

But that's not what happened here.

The mayor negotiated a deal with the commanders to come back to the city.

There was a lot of excitement about that.

And after public hearings and a rather noisy process, which also took in totality from I'll say April to October, the council adopted those changes, and now the plan needs to be fixed.

That's why I keep saying the decision has already been made.

I mean, the amendment act was just recently different than, as I said a minute ago, ordinarily, development would follow a plan.

Here, the plan is following the development.

But unless you would have the council reverse what it did last year, them's the facts.

The council said we want this development.

We've set some parameters for it, and so now the plan has to be amended.

I'll note the plan for this, the comprehensive plan, the land use map for this site is essentially a blank map.

It's open space and park.

As opposed to 6,000 residential units, mixed use, hotels, and stadium.

So what I'm hearing is well, we should invoke the process for the ordinary course.

But that course has already taken place.

I don't think that's correct.

Okay.

Now I'll let you speak, but this is could we call in my office we call this double dipping?

Yes, but uh we deserve some double dipping in this case.

In that what you just said is a little bit a little bit a historic.

Um a historic.

It's not quite what the experience has been, at least in my community in Ward 1.

And I must admit that's the framework that I've shown.

But your community in Ward 1.

So before this is RFK.

No, no, so this is where I have a this is fundamentally where I have a problem.

So in any other environment, you use your resume, you know, to qualify you to participate moving forward, whatever the position or whatever.

You use data from the past to help you look into the future, right?

So past experience matters, looking at the results of that past experience, and then trying to apply it moving forward, whether it's in the macro or the micro.

So part of my point is, again, is I don't think the Office of Planning, and even when the council went in acted, even when the mayor acted, did not take advantage of past data, past experience, to make certain conclusions, right?

So we got here, and now the argument is since we didn't do that before, we shouldn't have to do it moving forward, and I'm saying because you didn't do it before, the bar is even higher.

You have to do more of it moving forward to make up for the fact that you didn't do it as deeply as you did in the past.

So I mean, that's what's concerning to me is that we have a lot of past experience.

We know how these things tend to play out.

We know who gets hurt, we know whose benefits, we know that a lot of this is selling jobs, so it doesn't produce what we say it's going to produce.

And I think anything that says let's do this faster is a problem.

And that's just from my experience.

And I'm will give you more data.

So I'll end it at that.

But I'll I'll give you more data to prove to you that what I'm saying, and we're heading around a dangerous course.

We're on a slippery slope, and we're heading into a moral hazard.

So the record's open for two weeks.

We don't have a written statement from you.

You can refine what your remarks are to make the case.

If there's no other comments, I'm gonna excuse you all and turn to um the director of the office of planning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Anita Kozar, Director of the Office of Planning.

When you're ready.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and members and staff of the committee of the whole.

My name is Anita Kozard, and I'm the director of the DC Office of Planning.

I'm pleased to be here today to testify about the RFK campus Small Area Plan Amendment Act of 2026 on behalf of Mayor Bowser and the many district government agencies working on the RFK campus development, including the RFK Project Management Office and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development.

In December 2024, after years of effort, the district gained control of the former RFK Stadium site.

In April 2025, Mayor Bowser announced that the Washington Commanders would be coming home to the sports capital.

Working with our partners, the Washington Commanders, we're making sure this redevelopment is about much more than football.

The 180-acre site on the banks of the Anacostia River will be a world-class waterfront destination with 6,000 homes, as well as hotels, restaurants, retail, entertainment, parks, and recreation areas, a sportsplex for district youth, and of course a beautifully designed roof stadium that will host football games, concerts, and much more.

This is a transformational opportunity to bring homes, jobs, and amenities to this area.

The district is working with community members to develop a master plan that reflects the culture and feel of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The master plan will cover and cover the entire campus, including the portions that will be developed by the district and the Washington Commanders.

The plan will include guidance on buildings, open space, pedestrian-friendly spaces to support the site's transformation into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood that will serve all eight wards and help grow the district's economy.

The RFK campus master plan will also advance the goals of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, DC government's long-term effort to revitalize the Anacostia River and its surrounding neighborhoods, which calls for connected, accessible, and vibrant waterfront.

The master plan will be released for a 45-day public comment period in June 2026.

And the mayor will transmit the master plan to the council as a small area plan resolution in September 2026.

The RFK campus small area plan amendment act is critical to this process.

It has two components.

First, it allows the RFK Small Area Plan Resolution to be accompanied by an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan's land use map and conforming amendments to the comprehensive plan.

The entire RFK campus is currently on zone, and its future land use map is parks, recreation, and open space, as we've heard in the hearing today, with the stadium designated as institutional.

Under the RFK campus, under the Robert F.

Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025, all uses in the stadium district and the DPR district, including the stadium and an accessory office building, accessory parking facilities, and the DC sportsplex are exempt from zoning.

And therefore, development can proceed without any changes to the future land use map.

However, the remaining uses in the Plaza District, Kingman Park District, and Riverfront District are subject to zoning, and development cannot proceed at these locations without changes to the future land use map.

OP anticipates that the DC 2050 Comprehensive Plan rewrite that is underway will be adopted by Council in late 2027.

Amending the future land use map at the RFK campus site during the DC 2050 process would mean that zoning would be complete in October 2028 at the earliest.

The RFK campus small area plan amendment act would enable the mayor to transmit an amendment to the future land use map to council by September 2026, along with the RFK campus master plan, allowing zoning to be completed by October 2027, allowing this critical development to proceed without undue delay.

The second component of the RFK campus small area plan amendment act would clarify that in proposing a future land use amendment for the RFK campus, the executive would follow the robust public engagement process or public engagement requirements for a small area plan rather than the process required for amending the comprehensive plan.

Existing public engagement requires for a comprehensive plan, requirements for a comprehensive plan include an open call for amendments.

Under current law, OP cannot limit public submission of proposed amendments to certain portions of the comprehensive plan.

Conducting an open call that attempts to focus on only RFK campus redevelopment during the DC 2050 comprehensive plan rewrite process would likely lead to significant public confusion.

Instead, planning for the RFK site will be subject to the robust public engagement requirements and the fine-grained analysis associated with a small area plan, which OP is undertaking in the master plan process.

The RFK campus master plan has already been informed by a significant amount of community input, and there are more opportunities to participate.

Since the district gained control of the RFK campus, the district has held town halls, community meetings, stakeholder forums, as well as meet and greets for the business community.

In March 2026, the RFK Project Management Office and the Office of Planning held two community open houses dedicated to the master plan that had nearly 300 attendees.

OP also held a community walk just this past Saturday at the site where participant participants visited areas that are important to the redevelopment with stopping points for discussion.

And we'll have one more community walk like this on Thursday.

We also have targeted engagement with community groups, including uh students from Phelps High School, uh students from the University of District of Columbia, as well as older adults.

As required for small area plans, OP will release the campus master plan for a public comment period in June 2026.

During that time, OP will also hold a mayoral hearing and accept written submissions of public comment.

The master plan will then be transmitted to council as a small area plan resolution in September 2026.

We encourage the council to pass the RFK Campus Small Area Plan Amendment Act by the June 2nd legislative hearing.

This will allow OP to clearly communicate to the public at the beginning of the comment the public comment period regarding engagement milestones.

Thank you again for your partnership on this project and for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Ms.

Cozart.

Can you say a little bit more about the community engagement con the community engagement that is informed land use planning on this site?

Sure.

So in addition to what I mentioned in my testimony, we also had uh a virtual version of the workshops that we held, and we uh offered a community survey for those who weren't able to come to our workshop in person most recently.

Um I mentioned the community site walks that we have uh scheduled for Thursday, and a number of those uh kind of targeted focus groups that will be a part of that.

And certainly will be available through the entire public comment period around the master plan to um meet with uh advisory neighborhood commissions, civic association meetings, some of those we already have uh on the books or are in the process of scheduling in River Terrace and Kingman Park.

So these uh meetings that you've had or community in whatever, um where are the residents from?

So many of the residents are from the immediate area meaning park, Kingman Park, River Terrace, um Rosedale, say that again.

Rosedale?

Yes.

Um and then others come from other parts of the city.

I mean River Terrace is across the river.

It is, but it's people were there representing their community and their interests there, especially around uh access and circulation.

They see this as a connection point.

Um roughly how many folks from Kingman Park or Rosedale have been at these meetings.

Umulatively, I would say we we've we've been engaged with thousands of residents today.

And what's that say that again?

Thousands of residents if you if you think about since uh since you know the timeline that you uh outlined April a year ago, um certainly, and then we've had just at these open houses uh over 300 people.

I would say if I had to guess, and I can follow up after this hearing, I would have to say I think most of them are from immediate neighborhoods, Rosedale, Kingman Park, uh River Terrace in and around the stadium.

And then have you met with every ANC that's either includes the state the uh campus or is adjacent?

Yes, at least once.

And civic associations?

I can't say for sure that all the civic associations, I can say for sure we're in the process of scheduling with all of them.

But you're reaching out to schedule them.

And if they reach out to you.

Yes.

Have any of the actual planned land uses changed since the council adopted the legislation last year?

So we I would say in large part, no, there haven't been significant changes.

We're developing the master plan aligned with what the council adopted in terms of the different districts.

We're really holding steady to that.

The rivering, you know, the buffer that's there by the river, what you know, more intense uses in and around the stadium, the sports plex being much more about open space and recreation, the Kingman Park District being about housing.

Will the um small area plan provide for more granular uses than would be the case with the future land use map changes?

So the future land use map would kind of set that framework, and then yes, more fine-grained design guidance, more fine-grained suggestions of uh about the kind of categories of zoning that would make the most sense in different parts along the 180 acres.

Do you expect that uh there will be standard zoning like W, excuse me, like MU mixed use or RA, or that there would be a special purpose zone, such as um St.

Elizabeth's or Southeast Federal Center?

It's a little too early to tell.

Um in general, it's we we try to use zones that um are in other parts of the city uh just for ease of understanding uh and clarity, but there may be some cases, especially as we get feedback uh from uh residents and other stakeholders about the kinds of character that they want to see, the kinds of uh building character and the experience that they want to have at the pedestrian level.

Some of that uh finer grain guidance can be helped by having a specialized zone.

But we haven't committed one way or the other at this point.

Okay.

But the um small area plan, I think you said we'll go into more detail with regard to design.

Yes.

So um we could amend the map to say high density and the small area plan would then show more articulation between, let's say, high density and moderate density.

Yes, the transitions will be really important.

And that's the transitions between those levels of density, that's something that is very appropriate for a small area plan.

I'm trying to remember, I think this was true with McMillan.

Maybe I'm wrong, uh, but that um the way the zoning commission has interpreted the land use map is that if there's moderate density that doesn't preclude, let's say a high high um high density building as long as the average for the site would be within what did I say, moderate density.

Yeah, you've characterized it appropriately.

So um there's flexibility.

That's right.

If we pick, let's say moderate or medium, and um we wouldn't have to, if there's going to be a 90-foot building, we wouldn't have to be all high density.

That's correct.

Uh so my understanding of the process is what you've proposed is um that the small area plan is the next step.

And through the small area plan, what you've proposed is a process of amending the comprehensive plan, as you know, I've thought maybe we just go forward with amending the comprehensive plan now.

Regardless, the next step is a small area plan.

The small area plan is going to be more granular in terms of design, heights, uh, height setbacks.

Maybe I'll say massing just to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

And then the next step after that would be somebody going to the zoning commission.

That's correct.

And I'm guessing it probably will not be a planned unit development, that it would be probably just matter of there'll just be zoning and it will be matter of right development within that zoning.

Text and map amendments to effectuate that, yes.

Yes.

Um I correct that it probably would not be a planned unit development.

Um more than likely not.

Um likely not, given kind of market conditions, but there wouldn't be a prohibition.

There's no action that would prohibit that from happening if that was the desire.

So let me see.

Uh I want to ask you about the garages.

Will the final design, maybe I shouldn't say final, will the design and siting decisions for the garages be part of the small area plan?

Ask the question one more time, please.

Will the design and siting decisions for the garages be part of the small area plan?

So I would say that's uh input into the small area plan, yes.

Well, and also an output from the small area plan.

Yes.

The small area plan will speak to that.

So when we had the legislation before us last summer, there was discussion about really we don't want, I think it's three garages.

We don't want the three garages where they are, and the commanders said they were open to one of the garages being moved closer to I guess closer to the southern end of the campus.

Um I'm not saying that's definitive, and I don't think we actually addressed that in the legislation, but that speaks to siting.

So the siting will be part of the small area plan.

Yes.

And then my recollection is that there was a controversy for a week about a month ago that these garages were all going to be like 90 or 120 feet tall.

Um actually 120 feet is like 12 levels?

That's a lot of garage.

Um I assume that the height will also be part of the small area plan.

Uh as part of uh the direction for where both the sighting and yeah.

Yes.

There's also been discussion about the possibility of another metro entrance or station.

Um will that be part of the small area plan?

So what we're gonna do in the small area plan is make because we the timeline that we're on, there's sets of decisions and investments related to transit that may not be decided at the point we release the plan for public intervention.

So that's correct.

We're gonna make sure that we don't do anything that could preclude those things.

So we're certainly in conversation with Wamada, and certainly in conversation with the District Department of Transportation to ensure that we don't uh create any uh there's no aspects of the master plan that would prohibit the necessary uh uh transit uh uh amenities and and that kind of thing that's necessary.

So to say a little bit more on that, uh my recollection when the legislation was before us, there was some talk about another station, a new station that would be at the northern end of the RFK campus, closer to Benning Road.

Uh that's also my recollection that the general manager of Wamata said that's really gonna be difficult to do because the tracks are elevated at that point.

Um but that's what you're saying the small area plan would leave flexibility for that decision to be made.

Uh yes.

I it's less about the land use.

It's more much more about the factors that you uh raise related to that, but the land use is not gonna preclude that or other options that that Wamada and Didad are thinking about.

Give me a second.

So I wanted to ask you about some of the testimony we got.

Um, maybe actually I was gonna ask this a minute ago.

With um on the small area plan, are you working or are are your um is your community outreach including the commanders?

Yes.

So it's not like you're going to come up with a small area plan that among other things discusses the siting and massing of the garages, and the commanders will be surprised.

They will not be surprised.

They've been partners along with this through from the beginning to the end.

What about St.

Coletta's?

So they testified.

Um it sounded like they feel left out of the process.

I I took the second round of the response to say that they've been a part of the process most, at least half of the meetings that we've had, they have been gracious enough to host us for our our um master plan meetings.

And so certainly have been at the table uh able to uh be a part of the conversations for that.

Um I understood that to be more about concerns about short and long-term funding for their work there.

But there's not any plan the master plan is not um, you know uh uh something that is going to, you know, disrupt um uh the the continued functioning there.

Well, I'm looking at the statement.

That is why we are asking council to ensure that any planning process for the RFK campus, especially the CBA, which I think means community benefits agreement, which doesn't make sense to me, includes enforceable pathways for community participation, but you're including them.

Yes.

Uh so there was also the testimony from Empowered DC.

I'll just ask the questions.

What exactly are the rules governing small area plans and future land use map changes?

So uh today what what um Mr.

Ruzi recounted related to the Ivy City small area plan is kind of the the impetus for uh this legislation is that providing more flexibility and being responsive to opportunities that exist to more quickly amend the comprehensive plan is something that we're seeking and in many ways can be a part of what we look at as part of the comprehensive plan rewrite.

The challenge with um uh the the challenge that we saw or I saw with trying to change the order of operations related to um uh land use changes um for the Ivy City uh for all of the small area plans related to Ivy City or all the small area plans that came after our 2021 plan uh is that we didn't have something like this in place that would allow something like this legislation that we're talking about today in place that would allow for those land use changes.

They could only come through a comprehensive plan amendment, or that they could only come through a rewrite process.

And so in many ways, the longer term vision around the rewrite process is that this is available, this kind of uh tool to um to use small area plans to amend the comprehensive plan would be now available.

Um and so that's something that we are looking at uh as part of DC 2050 to allow that to happen so that communities that do want to see that that's that's a tool that can be explored.

So part of the concern is that the only way to amend the comprehensive plan is to open it up and open it up completely and do that uh call.

You had a polite way of putting it.

I want to say cattle call for a open call.

Um that's what you want to get a you want to avoid.

So like for Ivy City, if you could have just done a discrete, let's amend the comprehensive plan to reflect these proposals that came out of the small area plan for Ivy City.

That's what you're looking for.

Yes, that's the direction that we're trying to go in.

This this legislation doesn't allow us to do it, but I'm just projecting for the more trying to do.

There might be a way to do that with the uh comprehensive plan rewrite.

That's right.

Uh I mean I've been quite clear that the comprehensive plan is adopted by act and the only way to amend it is by act.

And when we get small area plans are resolutions.

Right.

And so, you know, maybe just some language that says that the comprehensive plan can be amended.

And a focused in a focused way on the basis of a small area plan if recommended by the small area plan.

We would like to work with you to do that, Mr.

Chairman.

What exactly is OP's approach to assessing racial equity impact?

So one of the things Mr.

Jordan talked about kind of looking at demographics and really disaggregating by race, and that's something that we've been doing since 2021.

The comp plan was adopted.

We've been doing that as part of our existing conditions work for all of our place-based planning work.

So that's one key component of it.

Also really understanding who the demographics of who we're reaching out to in each of our place-based plans and really understanding where we we are not meeting the mark and reaching everyone.

So in this first phase of DC 2050, we were able to collect some demographic data where residents felt comfortable sharing it.

We're able to collect that demographic data and recognize that there were populations that we weren't reaching, and so we've been giving grants out to organizations that have trust built and relationships that they are bringing together those who haven't been engaged in DC 2050 so that it's representative of the demographics of the district.

So that's one piece of it.

Certainly we bring both of those pieces into the racial equity analysis for all of the development review reports that we submit to the Zoning Commission.

That's a part of the work that we're doing as well.

So then is it unfair to say OP has never documented its racial equity approach?

I think it's unfair to say it's never documented the racial equity approach.

To the points around the displacement risk, that is something that we have included and that's been a part of the uh deliberation around the future land use map of DC 2050 and identifying where there is displacement risk, high to low throughout the city by census tracts and really understanding where some of those pressures that Ms.

Peruzi was talking about can actually create more market pressure and for those who are severely cost burdened, even homeowners, those who and particularly severely cost burdened renters, understanding where we have to be very uh intentional about coupling any land use changes with investments to make sure that we're mitigating uh that displacement risk.

So that's been the conversation that we've been having with residents uh this year in particular as it relates to the future land use map.

Well, I'm gonna ask you about displacement in a second, but I was asking about racial equity assessment.

So I I guess the other piece that I would add is that we have a racial equity action plan.

We are in the process.

Yes, it's in writing.

Um we've had it.

It's from 2024 to 2026.

We're in the process of evaluating what we have made progress on, and we expect by the end of this calendar year to have a report on that so that by the time we get to uh oversight hearing um uh next year, we'll be able to share the results of that.

So you will be able to, or if you can't now, but it sounds like you can articulate your approach, including details of community engagement processes.

Yes, so Mr.

Uzi also asked, where is the anti-displacement strategy required by the 2021 comprehensive plan?

Before you answer, it occurred to me in the uh asking her and the other witnesses before you came to the table.

Um there's a lot of talk about displacement, but I don't think it's actually quantified.

So we talk about the harm without really knowing what what it is.

Um I'm just gonna toss that out before you answer.

And I will add that I is it displacement if all of the current homeowners in Kingman Park decide to sell their houses at 10 times what they bought and move?

I mean, we don't want to see that kind of change.

We like stable neighborhoods, but is it displacement when somebody sells their house at a profit voluntarily?

So uh it depends on whether those home This is a touchy subject.

It's a touchy subject.

It it depends on whether that homeowner was living in the house or if they had renters, right?

And if those renters are of means that they can find another suitable place quickly for their household, or if they are severely cost burdened, if they have or lower wealth, that's that's the challenge.

And that that's those are some of the ways that we measure uh displacement risk.

You're right that it's difficult to quantify, and we've been uh really reaching out to folks in different parts of the nation trying to figure out how they uh identify that.

Some of the ways that we've been uh noticing loss of available units is through conversations about the rental act, right?

About sets of investments that we've been uh putting resources in from the housing production trust fund into that um for the reasons that I think everyone on the council understands, um, those units are coming off and not available because of you know nonpayment and uh other issues, right?

And so that is something uh where we have been talking about it, but it is a challenge to kind of quantify those individual decisions that are made.

Some that are made uh uh uh in places of um uh uh you know ample wealth that come that the the example that you gave, and some which are not are less so and are are challenging and destabilizing for households.

Okay, I'm not quite sure what to say.

The um I'm thinking, so you mentioned renters.

So there could be neighborhoods where there are a whole lot of homes that are owned by individuals who rent, and so they're occupied by renters.

That's actually not a very stable neighborhood, right?

That tends to be a neighborhood that's in transition.

At least that's what we saw decades ago, that middle, I want to say work working class uh neighborhoods would uh the property owners would move out, but rent to tenants and there would be tenants in the houses.

Uh I'm just kind of you're looking at me strange like I'm making something up, but I seem to recall that that was at least the kind of transition we were seeing in cities after the second world war.

Well, I I guess because I'm thinking about a bit more of the current context, and that there are lots of long-term renters in the city, and they are sensitive to you know price shocks related to that, some more than others.

Um part of what we were trying to do in kind of mapping displacement risk and sharing that information with the future land use map for people to see is to make sure that people understood the different contours.

Not everywhere that there are renters is a high risk of displacement.

Some places there is a very high risk of displacement because of the other factors that I mentioned.

So where I really want to go with this is this line is um so is it fair if is it fair to have a policy that we don't want renters displaced?

And as a consequence, a property owner who may have seen their equity increase tenfold, uh say to that property owner, sorry, but you can't unlock that equity.

So we're prioritizing the tenant, no displacement, uh, over the property owner.

Um Mary Jones who uh bought the house in 1955 and now gosh, that's a long time ago.

Uh bought the house in 1975 and uh now wants to sell it and cash out the equity if she wants to retire.

All I would say is that's not uh, you know, that's not a tool that we've been using in the district, and we wouldn't propose to use that.

We have as an existing I mean when we talk about displacement, I asked you, is it unfair to if the whole neighborhood, this is extreme, but the whole neighborhood decides that they want to sell their houses and uh get the value, get the profit, and you said no, unless they're renters.

So now I'm saying to you, well, but is it fair then to say to the property owner, sorry, but you can't realize the uh capital gain because you uh you would displace a renter.

Uh I'll just say to clarify, I was saying, is there is is it displacement if I would say yes, there could be displacement risk that's burdensome for a renter who's living in a home where a homeowner wants to sell.

That could be.

Our data helps us understand a little bit more about those um different households and where that exists.

Um I'm I'm not here to represent around what's fair and what's not fairly.

Okay, I guess where I was really going was I don't know what we're I don't know what we're talking about when we talk about displacement.

We don't want to well, I I know this.

We don't want people displaced involuntarily.

We don't want that.

Um but beyond that, folks talk about displacement and it's not quantified.

I don't know what we're talking about.

So where where is the anti-displacement strategy required in the 2021 comprehensive plan?

It uh is underway.

We're still um working to refine it.

Um and I'll say it's underway.

One of the things that we released again was the displacement risk map.

Um we released that as part of the recent um community workshops and open houses that we had uh about the future land use map, and we were really careful to tie it and to provide uh a little bit more context around our thinking related to displacement.

We will continue to do that.

Um and I take your point that we need some clearer definitions about that.

And certainly our hope is that the forthcoming um preventing displacement uh uh report will help to do that.

Forthcoming when I will uh send you a note after this hearing about with a date.

Forthcoming this year, next year, this month.

I don't think forthcoming this month since we're most of the way through the month, but I commit to getting to getting you a date by um the end of the week.

Okay, and if I'm good, I'll ask you about it at the um over at your budget hearing.

But well, I should have it to you before now.

But I may not be good.

Um Mr.

Ruzi also testified about the environmental analysis.

Environmental analysis must be upheld.

We have witnessed systemic failure throughout DC government to uphold environmental laws.

The DC Environmental Policy Act is routinely ignored.

We should be strengthening environmental review requirements, such as by requiring cumulative impact analysis, not cutting basic environmental reviews.

How do you respond?

I would respond that um cumulative impact analysis that is uh uh at a frontier that we are um have been looking at and looking at peer cities and what they're doing as it relates to that.

Um and I would also say in this particular project, um you mentioned it uh earlier in the hearing that as part of the conditions of the federal transfer.

There is an environmental analysis that's required, and that will be of public record.

There's a notice of intent that's out, and uh all of that will be made public information.

What does that mean?

Notice of intent that's out.

So that's the intent for uh to do environmental analysis, no notice of intent to make the transfer and to do the environmental analysis that's uh required related to that action, that federal action.

And who's doing the analysis?

The analysis is happening, um, the the uh district is working with the park service as it relates to that.

And who's the lead agency, park service or district?

Um it's my understanding that it's being developed jointly, but I can give you the specific answer if there is one lead.

Okay.

Yeah, afterwards.

Staff's asking if you're good for another couple hours.

Ha ha ha.

Okay.

Um I don't think I have any other questions for you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Uh, there are a couple of things you were gonna you're gonna get back to us with.

Yes, the uh date for the anti-displacement and uh information about the lead agency related to uh the environmental analysis for RFK.

Yeah.

Um with that, let me close out the hearing.

This has been a hearing on Bill 26-625, RFK campus small area plan amendment act of 2026.

I want to thank all the witnesses who testified and again apologize that we started late.

The record in this matter will be open for two weeks.

That is, it will close at 5 p.m.

on May 5th.

That's Tuesday, May 5th, 2026.

The time is 657 p.m.

and this hearing is adjourned.