photo by Olaf Zerbock
LOTS of Bloomingdale residents have shared the following concerns/allegations:
“To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing as a united community of residents, homeowners, neighbors, and stakeholders in and around the Reservoir District development—where EYA is actively building and marketing homes—as well as in adjacent neighborhoods who have a long-standing stake in this project.
We are alarmed by the developer’s ongoing efforts to dismantle key promises made to the community—promises that were fundamental to the original mixed-use plan, used to gain community support, and central to EYA’s current marketing strategy to buyers.
The master developer, Jair Lynch Real Estate Partners, is seeking zoning changes that would dramatically reduce the amount of retail and public space, undermine the inclusion of a full-service grocery store, and strip away the very elements that made this development viable and desirable in the first place.
Here is what’s happening in Zoning Case No. 13-14E:
• The developer is seeking to reduce required ground-floor retail from 74,000 sq ft to just 26,000 sq ft across both buildings — a 64% reduction.
• This is not just about losing a grocery store. It’s the loss of dozens of potential storefronts, hundreds of jobs for community members, and a critical piece of neighborhood infrastructure. These are real jobs—cashiers, clerks, managers, delivery drivers, and service staff—that would be filled by local residents. Every square foot eliminated represents fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for economic mobility in our neighborhoods.
Parcel 2:
• Currently zoned for 15,000 sq ft of retail (exclusive of a grocery store)
• The developer is proposing to reduce that to just 5,000 sq ft — a two-thirds cut
• This drastic reduction removes the potential for multiple small businesses that serve the daily needs of residents—cafes, dry cleaners, pharmacies—and along with them, dozens of good jobs. These lost businesses represent lost wages for local workers.
Parcel 4 (grocery site):
• Originally approved for a 49,000 sq ft full-service grocery store
• The developer’s latest revision shrinks this to as little as 10,000–15,000 sq ft, with no firm grocery tenant committed
• This is far below the footprint required to host a full-service grocer. Without adequate space, we risk ending up with a convenience store or no grocery at all, and the many jobs that come with full-service grocery operations—stockers, butchers, cashiers, managers—are simply eliminated.
• These revisions are being marketed as “compromises,” but they are only compromises with the developer’s own diluted proposals—not with the expectations of the community or the standards approved by zoning.
Developer’s Misleading Communications
The developer is deliberately creating confusion to ram these changes through. It’s a calculated move to avoid scrutiny, and it borders on regulatory manipulation. The community is also deeply concerned about the lack of transparency in how Jair Lynch Real Estate Partners is presenting parcel-level changes. By selectively distributing information across multiple filings and redefining parcel boundaries and square footage allocations, the developer is deliberately obfuscating the true impact of its proposals. This approach makes it unnecessarily difficult for community members—and even zoning officials—to determine what exactly is being requested, how it deviates from the original entitlements, and what the long-term consequences will be. For instance, while the developer proposes a reduction in grocery store square footage, which could be acceptable under certain design efficiencies, it is simultaneously failing to guarantee that the “freed-up” space will be reallocated to retail rather than converted into additional residential units. If the square footage removed from the grocery store is not redirected toward other community-serving retail uses, this is not a neutral trade-off—it is a quiet erosion of the development’s public value. The simplest way to frame it is this: we as a community understand it’s challenging to secure a 49,000 sq. ft. grocer. We urge you to allow flexibility for a grocer at or exceeding 20,000 sq. ft., but the remaining ground-floor square footage should stay designated for retail, as currently zoned and promised. Furthermore, there is enough detail and minutiae contained in Parcel Four and Parcel Two that frankly, they should be addressed in separate hearings.
Elimination of the Public Plaza:
The developer is also requesting to eliminate the MU-11 plaza requirement, which would remove the obligation to include a large, publicly accessible civic gathering space. The justification offered is that a public space already exists across the street. This argument undermines the entire point of mixed-use development and should not be entertained. Each parcel was approved with specific commitments, and this proposed removal directly contradicts those obligations.
A Rush to Silence the Public:
In a troubling procedural move, the developer has requested to advance the next zoning hearing to July 31—likely before transcripts from the most recent hearing are even made public. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to limit community engagement and cut short the public’s ability to respond or propose amendments in good faith.
Our Investment — And Our Standing:
We are not outsiders or passive observers. The residents now speaking out are the very individuals who spent over a decade participating in meetings, supporting zoning approvals, and advocating for this project in the belief that the promised benefits would materialize.
Many of us have purchased homes nearby—or even within the EYA development itself—on the basis of these specific commitments:
• Walkable, neighborhood-serving retail
• A full-service grocery store
• A vibrant public plaza
• A truly mixed-use development that adds lasting value to the surrounding community
These features are not ornamental—they are central to our quality of life, our property values, and the long-term success of this neighborhood.
Legal Consequences:
Should these elements be stripped away while homes continue to be marketed using them as selling points, this raises serious concerns:
• False advertising
• Material misrepresentation to homebuyers
• Breach of public trust
We are actively exploring legal options, including a class action lawsuit on behalf of current and future residents, homeowners, and community members. Both EYA and Jair Lynch Real Estate Partners will be held accountable for any attempt to quietly abandon binding commitments that secured community support and zoning approval.
What We Are Asking:
We urge the Zoning Commission to publicly demonstrate that it stands with the community that helped make this project possible. Specifically:
• Oppose the reduction of required retail space from 74,000 sq ft to 26,000 sq ft
• Support the restoration of the original grocery store size and require commitment to a full-service grocery tenant
• Reject the removal of the publicly accessible plaza requirement (MU-11)
• Postpone the July 31 hearing until all hearing transcripts and public comments are available for fair consideration
• Encourage the developer to follow through on early verbal commitments made during the PUD process, including consideration of hyperlocal retail formats not typically reflected in conventional feasibility studies
This is a defining moment.
Will the Zoning Commission allow a vision of walkable, vibrant, amenity-rich urban living to be gutted before it is even realized? Or will you enforce the commitments that made this development possible—and protect the trust that residents, buyers, and neighbors placed in the process?
We neighbors, and stakeholders, are watching — and organizing.”
The office of zoning replied:
“Your submission cannot be accepted to the record. The hearing for the ZC 13-14E concluded on Thursday evening – July 17th, 2025. The record is closed except for requests made by the Commission. The record is open for specific requests as follows:
• By 3 PM on July 21st: additional requested information; and
• By 3 PM July 28th: parties can respond to additional information.”
Neighbors then wrote multiple questions:
“Dear Zoning Commissioners,
I am submitting the following questions on behalf of concerned residents regarding the proposed modifications in ZC Case No. 13-14E – Reservoir District (formerly McMillan). We hope these questions can be addressed during the hearing or in the public record, as they speak to significant changes affecting equity, transparency, and the long-term vision for this project.
Questions Regarding the Proposed Modifications:
Why is the pedestrian bridge being removed?
Why are all affordable and senior housing units now located in one building (Parcel 2 East)?
Are there fewer total housing units in this revised proposal than in the original plan?
Are there fewer affordable housing units in this revised proposal?
Does the revised configuration alter access to light and air for future residents of either building?
Does the consolidation of affordable units into a single building alter the design quality, amenities, or services provided to those residents?
Will the East building (senior/affordable) have the same architectural design and finishes as the West building (market rate)?
What is the current design of the new Parcel 2 East building? Can we see updated drawings or massing?
How do the new Parcel 2 changes affect adjacent parcels (e.g., Parcel 1, Parcel 4)?
Why weren’t these major changes more clearly disclosed to the public during the review process?
What public benefit is being offered in exchange for the requested zoning relief?
Is this modification consistent with the equity and integration goals of the original PUD?
Who is evaluating whether this updated plan continues to meet the requirements of the original PUD approval?
Has any analysis been done to understand the long-term social and economic impact of physically and economically segregating residents into separate buildings?
What financial incentives or tax benefits might the developer gain by concentrating all affordable units into one building? (e.g., Low-Income Housing Tax Credits or related tools that encourage segregation of unit types)
Does removing the pedestrian bridge impact fire code, ADA access, or emergency response planning? If not required, why remove a feature that supports connectivity?
How will long-term maintenance and property management differ between the East and West buildings? Will both be maintained equally? Who will be responsible?
Has any racial or economic impact analysis been conducted to assess how these changes align with DC’s Comprehensive Plan and equity policies?
What precedent does this set for future PUD applicants who may seek to roll back public benefit commitments after securing approvals? How is the Commission ensuring accountability in this and future cases?
Why did the Vision McMillan Partners quietly revise the description of the grocery store and retail space on their public website? Earlier versions listed “approximately 60,000 SF of retail, including a grocer.” The updated version splits this into “46,000 SF grocery” and “30,000 SF neighborhood-serving retail,” suggesting a possible change in scope. Was this change made in response to project redesigns, and why was it not clearly communicated?
How would Zoning’s permission to reduce the Reservoir District’s retail space by up to two-thirds from the initial approval be transparently justified and documented in the interest of the Ward 5 community?
Please provide a list of participants at the July 16 Zoning Commission meeting.
Did the Bloomingdale ANC representative participate in the July 16 meeting? If not, does the Commission consider Ward 5 adequately represented?
Can you provide the full transcript of the July 17 meeting, including what Ward 5 residents said during public comment?
Please include Zoning Commission comments or reflections on public testimony, if not already part of the transcript. Minutes are also requested.
Please request that developer Jared Lynch provide documentation of grocer interest in the proposed 22.5K SF grocery space.
Can the developer provide evidence of active marketing efforts and lease offerings made to attract a grocer since the prior offer was withdrawn?
If future reductions in retail space occur, how does the Commission plan to ensure transparency about negotiations and pricing? Would Zoning consider opposing further reductions?
Regarding the proposed elimination of the public plaza, what is the process for reviewing that request and assessing its justification?
Does the Zoning Commission believe the amendments now under review remain consistent with the Mayor’s stated vision for a mixed-use project that serves the Ward 5 community — particularly given the lack of an existing grocer?
When was the Commission first made aware of Jair Lynch’s intent to seek changes to the retail/grocery components? Please provide documentation of that communication.
Has EYA formally agreed to these changes? Can documentation be provided to confirm their support?
What marketing strategies and pricing adjustments were made to attract grocers? The narrative that “no grocers called” raises concerns that insufficient effort or unfavorable pricing may have been a factor
Does the Commission view the revised grocery plan as a deviation from the original public benefit used to secure approval — and if so, what steps will be taken to hold the developer accountable?
Lastly, we respectfully request that answers to these questions be shared publicly and submitted to us by 3:00 PM ET on Monday, July 28, 2025”
Stay tuned.