North Shaw Moratorium Zone Approval Resolution of 2025

MURIEL BOWSER
MAYOR
September 24, 2025
The Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 504
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Chairman Mendelson:
Enclosed for consideration and approval by the Council of the District of Columbia is a proposed
resolution entitled the "North Shaw Moratorium Zone Resolution of 2025".
The proposed resolution would approve the establishment of the North Shaw Moratorium Zone, which
responds to the concerns of Shaw residents regarding the impacts of nightlife-re lated activity in their
comm unity.
Specifically, this rulemaking establishes a moratorium that prohibits the following for a period of three
years in the North Shaw Moratorium Zone: (1) new Retailer's Class CN and DN nightclub licenses; (2)
new Retailer's Class CT andDTtavernlicenses; (3) new Retailer's Class CX and DX multipurpose facility
licenses; ( 4) new entertainment endorsements for any on-premises licensed restaurant or tavern to offer
entertainment, a cover charge, or facilities for dancing; (5) modifications to existing entertainment
endorsements for any on-premises licensed restaurant or tavern to add entertainment, a cover charge, or
facilities for dancing; (6) a licensed nightclub, multipurpose facility, or restaurant or tavern with an
entertainment endorsement from transferring from a location outside of the moratorium zone to a location
inside of the moratorium zone; and (7) granting, within the moratorium zone, a change of license class
application for a Class CN, DN, CT, DT, CX (multipurpose facility), or DX (multipurpose facility)
retailer's license.
Establishm ent of the moratorium will help preserve peace, order, and quiet in the area; protect pedestrian
and vehicular safety; prevent the overconcentration oflicensed establishments; and mitigate detrimental
impacts on public safety. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Donovan Anderson,
Chair, Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board, at (202) 442-4423.
I urge the Council to take prompt and favorable action on the enclosed proposed resolution.
1
2 airman Phil Mendelson
3 at the request of the Mayor
4
5
6 A PROPOSED RESOLUTION
7
8
9
10
11 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
12
13
14
15
16 To approve proposed final rules of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board to
17 establish the North Shaw Moratorium Zone.
18
19 RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, that
20 this resolution may be cited as the "North Shaw Moratorium Zone Approval Resolution
21 of 2025".
22 Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 25-211 (b )(2) of the District of Columbia Official
23 Code, the Council approves the proposed final rulemaking of the Alcoholic Beverage and
24 Cannabis Board to amend Chapter 3 (Limitation on Licenses) of Title 23 (Alcoholic
25 Beverages) of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to establish the North
26 Shaw Moratorium Zone, which was transmitted by the Mayor to the Council on
27 September 24, 2025, and a notice of proposed rulemaking for which was published in the
28 District of Columbia Register on March 28, 2025, at 72 DCR 003502.
29 Sec. 3. Transmittal.
30 The Council shall transmit a copy of this resolution, upon its adoption, to the
31 Mayor , the Chairperson of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board, and the
32 Administrator of the Office of Documents and Administrative Issuances.
1
2
Sec. 4. Fiscal impact statement. 33
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the 34
fiscal impact statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act 35
of 1975, approved October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 36
Sec. 5. Effective date. 37
This resolution shall take effect immediately. 38
1

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND CANNABIS ADMINISTRATION
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND CANNABIS BOARD

NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
as submitted to the Council for its review and approval pursuant to
D.C. Official Code § 25-211

The Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board (Board), pursuant to the authority set forth in D.C.
Official Code § 25-351(a) and in accordance with 23 DCMR § 303.1, hereby gives notice of its
adoption of the following amendments to Chapter 3 (Limitations on Licenses) of Title 23
(Alcoholic Beverages) of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) to create a
new section 312, entitled the North Shaw Moratorium Zone. The rulemaking creates a new
moratorium zone that extends approximately six hundred feet (600 ft.) in all directions from
1909 9th Street, N.W., which is the location of Noah Noal DC, LLC, t/a Sound Bar, holder of a
Retailer’s Class CT license (ABRA License No. 122864).

Specifically, this final rulemaking establishes a moratorium that prohibits the following for a
period of three (3) years in the North Shaw Moratorium Zone:

(1) New Retailer’s Class CN and DN nightclub licenses;

(2) New Retailer’s Class CT and DT tavern licenses;

(3) New Retailer’s Class CX and DX multipurpose facility licenses;

(4) New entertainment endorsements for any on- premises licensed restaurant or tavern to
offer entertainment, a cover charge, or facilities for dancing;

(5) Modifications to existing entertainment endorsements for any on- premises licensed
restaurant or tavern to add entertainment, a cover charge, or facilities for dancing;

(6) A licensed nightclub, multipurpose facility, or restaurant or tavern with an
entertainment endorsement from transferring from a location outside of the
moratorium zone to a location inside of the moratorium zone; and

(7) The Board from granting, within the moratorium zone , a change of license class
application for a Class CN, DN, CT, DT, CX (multipurpose facility), or DX
(multipurpose facility) retailer’s license.

The Board notes that this final rulemaking replaces any emergency rules regarding the North
Shaw Moratorium Zone that are in effect as of the effective date of this rulemaking.

Procedural Background
2

On July 24, 2023, the Westminster Neighborhood Association (WNA) submitted a moratorium
petition (Petition) to the Board. 1 The WNA is a registered District of Columbia community
association located in the area near 9th Street, N.W. Petition for the Establishment of a
Moratorium Zone in the 1900 Block of 9th Street, at 4 ( Petition at 4). The petition requested a
moratorium zone within a 600 -foot radius centered at 1914 9th Street, N.W., which is the
location of 1914 LLC, t/a Kolben, holder of a Retailer’s Class CT license (ABRA License No.
116067). Id. at 4 -5. Specifically, the petition request ed a moratorium on the issuance and
transfer of restaurant, tavern, and nightclub licenses and off -premises alcohol retailers in the
moratorium zone, changes in license class to the affected license classes , and new entertainment
endorsements, increased occupancy, and increased hours to the affected license classes . Id. at
18. The petition also supported an exemption for hotels and restaurants without entertainment
endorsements. Id. at 18 -19. The requested period for the moratorium was 3 years. Id . at 19.
The Petition further request ed that the moratorium be called the “North Shaw & 9th Street
Neighborhood Moratorium Zone.” 2 The Petition request ed a pause on alcohol license
applications in the targeted area, a reduction in licenses, and changes to the zoning code. Id . at
2-3.3

The Petition filed by the WNA indicated that there are 23 alcohol licenses issued in the relevant
area. Id. at 6. The petition argued as a basis for its filing that licensees are contributing to a
negative impact on peace, order, and quiet and that there exist s an overconcentration of licensed
establishments in the area, as well as other appropriateness concerns.

The petition noted the occurrence of several violent crimes between 2021 and 2023, including
various stabbings and gun violence. Id. at 7 -8. It also contained reports of unruly crowds that
engaged in fighting that the Petition stated typically occurs when nightlife establishments have
been most active. Id. at 8 -9. This included an incident on March 13, 2022, where a reported
large fight involving approximately 60 nightlife patrons in the street occurred during the early
morning hours. Id. at 9. The Petition stated that there were also many complaints by residents of
nightlife patrons congregating in front of their homes and creating noise. Id . Residents also
expressed concerns about frequent “car parties” in the neighborhood. Id. at 11. The petition also
described persons consuming cannabis and alcohol, which created a rowdy atmosphere in the
streets when they occurred. Id. Moreover, the Petition stated, people engaging in such activity
played loud music outside, which disturbed nearby residents. Id . It should be noted that the

1 The WNA submitted a supplemental petition to the Board on February 8, 2024. In the supplemental petition,
WNA supported the inclusion of taverns and the adoption of the moratorium by emergency rule, which the Board
agrees with and has incorporated into this rulemaking. The WNA also proposed a different map; however, the
Board does not adopt the proposed map in this case because it is unclear at this time how nightlife in the
unincorporated areas contribute to the issues complained about by residents.

2 The Board designates the moratorium zone the “North Shaw Moratorium Zone” because the proposed name is too
long and the term North Shaw effectively communicates the area targeted by the moratorium.

3 The Board notes that some of the requests exceed the scope of a moratorium petition.
3

District’s open container law prohibits drinking in public, including in vehicles located in public
streets. D.C. Official Code § 25-1001(a).

The Petition also complained about trash and litter in the neighborhood. Id . at 12. Specifically,
the Petition stated, residents have found large amounts of litter in the street after heavy nightlife
activity, including trash, condoms, liquor bottles, broken glass, vomit, and other human waste.
Id. The Petition also complained that nightlife establishments have generated noise and
vibrations that disturbed residents in their homes. Id. at 13-14.

The Petition further discussed residential parking and vehicular and pedestrian safety. Id . at 15.
The petitioners complained that an influx of nightlife patrons in the neighborhood has made
parking difficult for residents and resulted in a high level of parking violations. Id. at 15- 16.
The petitioners further complained that the number of patrons in the neighborhood has made it
difficult to navigate the sidewalks when nightlife establishments have been active. Id. at 16.

First Hearing and Public Comment

On September 14, 2023, the Board held a public rulemaking hearing related to the Petition based
upon the Board’s finding that the petition satisfied the requirements of D.C. Official Code § 25-
352. Notice of the hearing was published in the District of Columbia Register on August 18,
2023, at 70 DCR 011149. The Board also received numerous written comments from members
of the public. A summary of the public comments relevant for consideration received during the
Board’s first Public Hearing related to this matter are as follows:

Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau

Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau wrote in support of the petition and asked to delay the
issuance of new licenses in the neighborhood until a decision was made regarding the
moratorium. Letter from Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau (Aug. 7, 2023).

Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1B

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B supported the moratorium petition and
requested that additional enforcement resources be directed to the community. ANC 1B
Resolution, 1 (Sept. 14, 2023).

Metropolitan Police Department

Captain Riley Hong of the Third District testified on behalf of the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD). Transcript (Tr.), September 14, 2023, at 8. He indicated that reimbursable
detail spots are not always filled and crime considerations merited granting the petition. Id. at 9.
He noted that the area attracts vehicles that rev their engines, drag racing, and illegal all -terrain
vehicles (ATV). Id.

4

Local Residents’ Comments

Local residents Alex Smith, Sudha Gollapudi , Paul O’Neill, Mattia D’Affuso, Amanda Toles,
Gonzalo Gomez, David Greer, Elizabeth Baker, Craig Brownstein, Paul Williams, Justin
Campbell, Tania Shand, Stergios Theologides, Reid Dunavant, Zoe Cordelia Lu, Andre Ory,
Leola Smith, Frank Chauvin, Krishna M. Kumar, and Pierson Stoecklein support ed the petition
for various reasons, including their experience s as residents. See Moratorium Rulemaking File.
Some of the reasons articulated by various residents included concerns regarding the negative
impact of the overconcentration of alcohol licenses, noise, crime, and public safety concerns
posed by patrons, and the litter caused by such patrons. Id. Mr. O’Neill blamed the expansion of
the Uptown Arts-Mixed Use (ARTS) Overlay zone for encouraging overconcentration. Id . Mr.
Williams noted that the buildings in the neighborhood were built to be residences and not
nightlife businesses. Id . Ms. Shand presented various studies that show a correlation between
the concentration of alcohol outlets and crime. Id . Ms. Kumar provided various crime statistics
related to the neighborhood that showed a high level of reported crime.

Behzad Khani

Behzad Khani owns two properties in the neighborhood. Tr . September 14, 2023, at 26 -27. He
supported the moratorium petition. Id . at 27. He complained about loiterers sitting on his
property and engaging in drinking, smoking, and other activities that have been detrimental to his
property. Id. at 28.

Tesfit Kiflu

Tesfit Kiflu owns Cloud Lounge. Id . at 32. He complained about public drinking in the
neighborhood. Id. at 32 -33. He support ed the petition generally but not restrictions on
transferring or selling businesses. Id. at 34.

Bill Spieler

Bill Spieler owns DC9 nightclub. Id . at 61. He stated that he opposed the petition because
moratoriums are ineffective and have not addressed the problems targeted by moratoriums. Id .
He also stated that moratoriums inflate the price of alcohol licenses. Id . at 62. He also stated
that vendors are selling alcohol out of coolers in the neighborhood. Id. at 63-64.

Shaw Main Streets

Alexander Padro, the executive director of Shaw Main Streets, testified in opposition to the
petition. Id. at 90. He testified that granting the petition would hurt businesses in the
neighborhood economically and harm “the largest cluster of Ethiopian and Eritrean American
businesses” in the region. Id. at 90. He indicated that issues in the neighborhood stem from
restaurants and taverns morphing into nightclubs. Id . at 91. He also stated that the moratorium
would not address the concerns the moratorium is meant to address. Id . Instead, he
5

recommended banning the use of outside promoters, enhanced security, business consultations
and training. Id. at 91-94. He also indicated that a local building owner should allow businesses
to remove trash through a local alley to address litter concerns. Id . at 94. He further stated that
there has been no reduction in property values. Id . at 94- 95. He also opposed calling the
moratorium the “1900 block of 9th Street, N.W.” moratorium zone. Id. at 95.

9th Street Association

Allan Ebert, the executive director of the 9th Street Association, which represents various
nightlife establishments, including Cloud, MK Lounge, Mirror, and Right Spot, id. at 114- 15,
complained that MPD is not stopping illegal alcohol sales on the streets, which contributes to the
negative environment in the area. Id. at 116. He said he does not believe the moratorium will be
effective. Id. at 118.

9th Street Nightlife Equity Coalition

The 9th Street Nightlife Equity Coalition (Coalition), representing several businesses in the
proposed moratorium zone, filed comments opposing the Petition. Position of the 9 th Street
Nightlife Equity Coalition, at 1 (Nov. 3, 2023). The basis of the Coalition’s opposition is (1) the
Petition was defective because it does not encompass a locality, section, or portion, but rather a
portion of a locality, which the Coalition argued rendered the petition defective under D.C.
Official Code § 25-352(b), which requires moratoriums to encompass “either a locality, section,
or portion” of the District, which are specifically defined areas under D.C. Official Code § 25-
101; (2) the information provided by the petitioners was too generalized because the proposed
area was smaller than the area encompassed by the information provided; (3) the proposed
moratorium was discriminatory because it targets an area where businesses are largely owned by
immigrants from Ethiopia and North Africa and will have a negative impact on the area serving
as a “Little Ethiopia” enclave; (4) any issues in the area have been a failure of the District to
provide appropriate policing and traffic management; and that (5) the proposed moratorium will
not address the issues that the community seeks to address. Id. at 1-15.

Westminster Neighborhood Association (Response to Coalition)

The Westminster Neighborhood Association (WNA) responded to the comments filed by the
Coalition. Westminster Neighborhood Association’s Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration,
Rehearing, and in the Alternative to Dismiss the Petition, 1 [ Opposition]. The WNA argued that
the Petition “ultimately identified the Moratorium Zone as a portion of the identified locality.”
Id. at 3. The WNA maintain ed that this limited area satisfie d the minimum requirements for
implementing a moratorium zone and the language of D.C. Official Code 25- 354(e) allowed for
an area smaller than a locality. Id . The WNA further argue d that sufficient race-neutral reasons
for creating the proposed moratorium zone, such as safety concerns , existed to justify the
moratorium. Id. at 7-8.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
6

In response to the Petition, public comments received, and consideration of the relevant statutory
and regulatory issues, on December 14, 2023, the Board adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to establish the North Shaw Moratorium Zone. The Board’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposed to adopt a moratorium that prohibited (1) new Retailer’s Class CN and DN
nightclub licenses; (2) n ew Retailer’s Class CX and DX multipurpose facility licenses; (3) new
entertainment endorsements for any on- premises licensed restaurant or tavern to offer
entertainment, a cover charge, or facilities for dancing; (4) existing entertainment endorsements
for any on- premises licensed restaurant or tavern to add entertainment, a cover charge, or
facilities for dancing; (5) a licensed nightclub, multipurpose facility, or restaurant or tavern with
an entertainment endorsement from transferring from a location outside of the moratorium area
to a location inside of the moratorium area; and (6) a license holder located within the
moratorium area filing a change of license class application for a Class CN, DN, CX
(multipurpose facility), or DX (multipurpose facility) retailer’s license.

Second Hearing and Public Comment

The Board held a second public hearing related to the proposed moratorium on February 29,
2024, based upon the Board’s intention to enact a moratorium different from the one initially
proposed. A summary of the public comments at that public hearing is as follows:

Metropolitan Police Department

MPD Captain Chris Moore indicated that the area operated as a large entertainment zone with a
high concentration of alcohol licensees that produces many inebriated people. Tr. , February 29,
2024, at 8-10. MPD indicated that it has concerns about providing appropriate staffing during
the night and has had trouble fulfilling reimbursable detail requests. Id . at 11. He indicated that
in the U Street area in the past year , MPD’s statistics show 7 homicides, 37 assaults, 720 auto
related thefts, the recovery of 104 firearms, and approximately 54- gun related arrests. Id . at 11-
12.
Westminster Neighborhood Association

The WNA provided additional testimony during the second hearing. The WNA supported the
Board’s decision to impose a moratorium but asked for some changes to the proposed rule. Id. at
14. The WNA requested that the Board include tavern licenses; enact the moratorium
immediately; and better define the outer limits of the moratorium. Id. at 14- 15. The WNA
believed including taverns was important because failing to do so would continue to drive people
to the neighborhood. Id. at 15.
Frank Chauvin

Frank Chauvin, a member of the WNA, supported the Board’s overconcentration finding. Id. at
30. He noted that it is difficult to attribute problems in the area to a single licensee. Id. at 30.
He advocated for taverns being included in the moratorium zone. Id . at 31. He noted that MPD
7

is not able to fully fulfill reimbursable detail requests by establishments on a regular basis. Id . at
32-33.

Ashleigh Fields (ANC 1B)

Ashleigh Fields represents Single Member District 1B07 within Advisory Neighborhood
Commission (ANC) 1B and testified on behalf of ANC 1B. She discussed the ANC’s resolution
supporting the imposition of a moratorium in the area. Id . at 65 -66. The ANC opposed the
imposition of the moratorium as an emergency. Id. at 66. The ANC indicated that businesses
needed time to address the needs of their businesses before the moratorium goes into effect and
have a chance to be informed about the impending moratorium. Id. at 66.

Additional Comments

Additional persons living in the community supported adding taverns to the moratorium. See,
e.g., id. at 34, 42, 61, 68. Thomas M. Abebe works in the nightlife industry and asked the
District to focus on reducing crime instead of instituting a moratorium. Id. at 45 -46. Abebe
Bekele owns a nightlife business in the neighborhood and believe d that the local nightlife
businesses are contributing to problems in the neighborhood and allowing the use of drugs inside
establishments. Id. at 51 -54. The Board also received additional testimony supporting and
opposing the moratorium during the hearing and by email similar to the comments described
above.

Response to Comments in Opposition Presented at First or Second Hearing
or in Written Comments

The Board in this section responds to various comments in opposition to the proposed
moratorium.

Bill Spieler

In response to Mr. Spieler’s and similar comments that moratoriums are not effective, the Board
is persuaded by testimony regarding the crime situation in the neighborhood that indicates that
the addition of more nightlife patrons would be detrimental to restoring crowd control and order,
and detrimental to reducing crime in the neighborhood when nightlife is active. The price of
alcohol licenses when a moratorium is enacted is not relevant to the matters under consideration .
Finally, if the North Shaw Moratorium is not effective, it may be revisited by the Board, and may
be abolished or modified in the future, if it is not having its intended effect.

Shaw Main Streets

In response to the comments made by Shaw Main Streets and similar comments made by others,
the Board reviewed the organization’s suggested reforms but the Board notes that it does not
have authority to enact proposals such as banning the use of outside promoters, requiring
8

enhanced security, and providing business consultants to businesses in the neighborhood as part
of a moratorium rulemaking. Therefore, the Board must consider using the tools it has to address
the concerns of residents. The Board has also concluded, based on the testimony and evidence
available to it, that the public order concerns outweigh any potential showing that nightlife has
not had a negative impact on property values in the area.

9th Street Nightlife Equity Coalition

In response to the comments made by the Coalition and similar comments made by others, the
Board notes that it has selected an area different from the one proposed by the WNA. The Board
is further satisfied that the information relied upon is not too generalized and that the negative
impacts stem from patrons frequenting nightlife in the moratorium area. The Board is also
satisfied that the proposed moratorium is not targeted at any race or ethnicity because it is based
on non-discriminatory and race -neutral factors, such as crime and other appropriateness
concerns. Moreover, the boundary areas chosen by the Board reflect the problem areas identified
by evidence and testimony in the record and do not extend further. Finally, the Board does not
agree that the geography of the moratorium zone must be a perfect circle, given the flexible
definitions of locality, section, and portion in D.C. Official Code § 25-101 and the Board’s
authority under D.C. Official Code § 25- 354(e) to tailor a moratorium to the relevant
neighborhood.4

Board Determination

The Board considered the oral and written testimony, resolutions and exhibits filed by the
Westminster Neighborhood Association, the 9th Street Association, the 9th Street Nightlife
Equity Coalition, and other witnesses and residents submitted as part of the two public hearings
held by the Board and in response to the notices of proposed rulemaking. The Board agrees with
the request to impose a moratorium, but has selected a different area for the moratorium zone
because the area selected by the Board encompasses the problem areas identified by the
testimony and evidence in the record, and that testimony and evidence does not support
extending the zone further.

The moratorium zone will extend approximately 600 feet in all directions from 1909 9th Street,
N.W. The street-line description in proposed 23 DCMR § 312.2 sets forth the actual boundaries
of the moratorium area.

Rationale and Additional Response to Comments

4 The issue of whether the Board can adopt a moratorium of various shapes and sizes is a matter of first impression
that has never been challenged to this degree in a moratorium proceeding. In light of the arguments made by the
parties, the Board finds its determination in this rulemaking a reasonable interpretation because District streets are
not laid out in perfect 600, 1,200, or 1,800 foot circles.
9

Pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 25- 351, the Board determined that it was in the public interest
to establish a new moratorium with restrictions for three (3) years, and in doing so, the Board
based its decision upon the appropriateness standards set forth in D.C. Official Code §§ 25- 313
and 25-314. In reviewing a moratorium request, the Board must “consider the extent to which
the testimony and comments show that the requested moratorium is appropriate under at least 2
of the appropriateness standards ….” D.C. Official Code § 25 -354(d); see also D.C. Official
Code § 25-351(a).

The relevant appropriateness standards include: (1) “[t]he effect of the establishment[s] on real
property values”; (2) “[t]he effect of the establishment[s] on peace, order, and quiet, including
the noise and litter provisions set forth in [D.C. Official Code] §§ 25-725 and 25-726; (3) “[t]he
effect of the establishment[s] upon residential parking needs and vehicular and pedestrian
safety”; (4) “[t]he proximity of the establishment[s] to schools, recreation centers, day care
centers, public libraries, or other similar facilities”; (5) “[t]he effect of the establishment[s] on
the operation and clientele of schools, recreation centers, day care centers, public libraries, or
other similar facilities”; (6) “[w]hether school-age children using facilities in proximity to the
establishment[s] will be unduly attracted to the establishment while present at, or going to or
from, the school, recreation center, day care center, public library, or similar facility at issue”;
and (7) “[w]hether issuance of [additional licenses] would create or contribute to an
overconcentration of licensed establishments which is likely to affect adversely the locality,
section, or portion in which the establishment[s] [are] located.” D.C. Official Code §§ 25-
313(b)(1)-(3), 25-314(a)(1)-(4).

Based upon the public comment related to the proposal, the Board is persuaded that the
establishment of a new moratorium described in this rulemaking in the selected area is
appropriate to preserve peace, order, and quiet; preserve pedestrian and vehicular safety; and
prevent the overconcentration of licensed establishments , in accordance with D.C. Official Code
§ 25-354(d). In particular, the Board is persuaded that the issuance of new nightclub, tavern, and
multipurpose facility licenses and entertainment endorsements will have a detrimental effect on
public safety in the area around the 1900 block of 9th Street, N.W.

The Board considered arguments regarding the impact of the moratorium on minority business
owners but is persuaded that the area suffers from significant issues regarding crime and public
safety that justify the moratorium. The Board further considered the argument that the
information justifying the moratorium was too generalized and did not specifically apply to the
limited area targeted by the proposal; however, this argument is not convincing based on the
specific negative impact evidence received by the Board.

In future proceedings related to the renewal of the moratorium, the Board may consider changes
in behavior and policing in the area, among other factors. The Board suggests that various
governmental and non-governmental stakeholders consult and work together to address various
problems identified in the Petition and by supporters of the moratorium. Discussions could
entail various initiatives to address quality of life issues, such as public drinking and illegal
alcohol sales in the streets; promoting the use of street facing security cameras by businesses and
10

residents; the provision of free parking, ride share, Metro rides, and other transportation options;
and community wide traffic and noise studies; staggering let out at establishments.

In imposing a new modified moratorium, the Board has been persuaded by public testimony that
taverns should be included. This means that the North Shaw Moratorium Zone will primarily
limit the issuance of new nightclub licenses, tavern licenses, multipurpose facility licenses , and
new entertainment endorsements to restaurants and taverns. This will allow for the licensing of
new restaurants without entertainment endorsements. These restrictions will help to ensure that
these new establishments are focused primarily on the sale of food and meals, which has not
been shown to relate to any of the identified problems. Additionally, many bona fide restaurants
generally close earlier than taverns and nightclubs; therefore, this exception to the moratorium is
not expected to exacerbate existing issues.

To help preserve the peace, order, and quiet of the neighborhood and address overconcentration
issues, the moratorium will preclude existing restaurants and taverns that hold partial
entertainment endorsements from adding entertainment, a cover charge, or facilities for dancing.
The moratorium will also prohibit a licensed nightclub, multipurpose facility, tavern, or
restaurant with an entertainment endorsement from transferring from a location outside the
moratorium area to a location inside the moratorium area. Furthermore, the moratorium will
preclude the grant of any class change application from a licensed establishment located within
the moratorium area for a nightclub, tavern, or multipurpose facility.

The Board rejects other proposed restrictions for various reasons, including the fact that some
restrictions could unfairly threaten the financial viability of businesses, some suggestions could
be deemed to have gone beyond the scope of D.C. Official Code § 25-351, and some were
sufficiently addressed by the restrictions selected by the Board or too tangential, or speculative in
effect to merit including as part of the rulemaking.

The Board selected a different location from the one designated by the Petitioner because the
data presented demonstrated that problems, such as crime, are concentrated in the area selected
by the Board and that a sufficient case has not been made at this time that any area not included
merits inclusion in the moratorium zone.

Response to ANC Comments

In reaching its decision, the Board gave great weight to the written recommendations of ANC
1B, as required by section 13(d)(3) of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Act of 1975,
effective March 26, 1976 (D.C. Law 1-58; D.C. Official Code § 1- 309.10(d)(3)), and D.C.
Official Code § 25-609.

11

The Board received a recommendation from ANC 1B on March 6, 2023, titled North Shaw &
Ninth Street Neighborhood Moratorium Zone Resolution and agreed with the majority of the
recommendations. The Board was persuaded by ANC 1B that the enactment of an emergency
moratorium immediately putting the rules into effect could unfairly prejudice current applicants.
As such, the Board is making clear that the emergency rules only impact prospective applicants
and do not impact applications filed with the agency on or before June 11, 2024; however, in
light of the extensive time the Board has publicly indicated that it would adopt a moratorium
there is no basis for delaying the adoption of the moratorium further by refraining from issuing
an emergency rule.

The Board disagreed with the ANC regarding the following recommendations. First, t he Board
did not agree with the ANC’s request to include off -premise licenses in the moratorium because
there is no indication that these type of businesses are contributing to the issues raised during the
moratorium proceedings. Second, the Board rejected the suggestion to prohibit the transfer of a
business from one location in the moratorium zone to another location in the moratorium zone,
because this is the Board’s standard practice in adopting moratoriums ; a transfer of locations
within the moratorium zone does not impact the final number of nightlife establishments ; and no
evidence in the record suggests any harm from allowing such a transfer to occur. And t hird, the
Board further rejected the proposal to bar changes in occupancy, square footage or hours, as this
could be detrimental to existing businesses.

Rulemaking Action

The Board voted on June 12, 2024, to give notice of its intent to take final rulemaking action to
adopt rules on a permanent basis in not fewer than thirty (30) days after the date of publication of
a notice in the D.C. Register. After that vote, however, the Board decided to make additional
revisions to clarify the geographic area covered by the moratorium and to respond to public
comments.

Based on the revisions, the Board voted on October 9, 2024, in a three (3) to zero (0) vote to
adopt the Notice of Second Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking. In this version of the
rulemaking, the Board made additional revisions to respond to public comments and to further
clarify the geographic scope of the moratorium zone.

The Board decided to make additional revisions, and voted on February 5, 2025, in a 5- 0 vote, to
adopt a Notice of Third Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking, which was published in the
District of Columbia Register at 72 DCR 6655 on June 13, 2025 and this version of the rules
maintains the language used in the prior issuance of these rules . No public comments were
received.

Board Action on Final Rulemaking

12

On MONTH DAY, 2025, the Board voted five (5) to (0) to adopt this proposed final rulemaking
for transmittal to the Council for its review and approval pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 25-
211(b).

On MONTH XX, 2025, the Mayor transmitted the proposed rules to the Council for its review
and approval pursuant to the North Shaw Moratorium Zone Approval Resolution of 2025 (P.R.
26-XXX). Unlike the Board’s other rules, rulemakings to establish or amend moratoria do not
require affirmative approval by the conclusion of the Council review period. See D.C. Official
Code § 25-211(b)(2).

In accordance with D.C. Official Code § 25- 211(b)(2), the proposed resolution and the se
moratorium rules were deemed approved on MONTH DAY, 2025, absent affirmative
disapproval by the Council. As such, the rules are now ripe for the Board to take final action.
Therefore, on MONTH DAY, 2025, the Board voted five (5) to zero (0) to adopt the rules as
final.

The rules will take effect five (5) days after the notice of final rulemaking is published in the
District of Columbia Register.

The rules establishing the North Shaw Moratorium Zone are as follows:

Chapter 3, LIMITATION ON LICENSES, of Title 23, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, of the
DCMR is amended by adding a new section 312 to read as follows:

312 NORTH SHAW MORATORIUM ZONE

312.1 No application for a new Retailer’s Class CN, DN, CT, DT, CX, or DX license
shall be approved or issued in the area extending approximately six hundred feet
(600 ft.) in all directions from 1909 9th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, the
specific boundaries of which are set forth in subsection 312.2. This area shall be
known as the North Shaw Moratorium Zone.

312.2 The North Shaw Moratorium Zone is specifically described as the area bounded
by a line as follows:

(a) Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Vermont Avenue, N.W.,
and T Street, N.W., and continuing northeast along the centerline of
Vermont Avenue, N.W., until the intersection of Vermont Avenue, N.W.,
and Florida Avenue, N.W.;

(b) Then continuing southeast along the center line of Florida Avenue, N.W.,
to the intersection of Florida Avenue, N.W., 9th Street, N.W., and V
Street, N.W.;

13

(c) Then continuing east along the center line of V Street N.W. , to the
intersection of V Street, N.W., and 7th Street N.W.;

(d) Then continuing south on 7th Street, N.W., until the intersection of 7th
Street, N.W., and S Street, N.W., and containing the premises on both
sides of 7th Street, N.W.;

(e) Then continuing west along the center line of S Street N.W. , to the
intersection of S Street, N.W., and 11th Street, N.W.;

(f) Then continuing north along the center line of 11 th Street, N.W., until the
intersection of 11th Street, N.W., and Vermont Avenue, N.W.; and

(g) Then continuing northeast along the centerline of Vermont Avenue, N.W.
until it connects with the starting point of the line set forth in paragraph (a)
of this subsection.

312.3 Any license application may be subject to additional review and measurement by
the Board or ABCA to determine if the moratorium is applicable.

312.4 No application for a new entertainment endorsement or change to an existing
entertainment endorsement to have or add entertainment, authorize a cover
charge, or offer facilities for dancing filed by a licensee under a Retailer’s Class
CR, DR, CT, or DT license shall be approved or issued in the North Shaw
Moratorium Zone.

312.5 Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Board from approving the transfer of
ownership of an establishment located in the North Shaw Moratorium Zone.

312.6 Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Board from approving the transfer of a
license from an existing location within the North Shaw Moratorium Zone to a
new location within the North Shaw Moratorium Zone.

312.7 A Retailer’s Class CN, DN, CT, DT, CX, or DX license, or Retailer’s Class CR,
or DR license with an entertainment endorsement, located outside of the North
Shaw Moratorium Zone shall not be permitted to transfer its license to a location
within the North Shaw Moratorium Zone.

312.8 The Board shall not grant a change of license class application from a license
holder located within the North Shaw Moratorium Zone for a Retailer’s Class CN,
DN, CT, DT, CX, or DX license.

14

312.9 The moratorium imposed by this section shall have a prospective effect and not
apply to any pending license or endorsement application that was filed with the
agency on or before June 11, 2024.

312.10 This section shall expire three (3) years after the date of publication of the notice
of final rulemaking in the District of Columbia Register.

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 409, Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone (202) 724-5524 Email: megan.browder@dc.gov
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BRIAN L. SCHWALB
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION
M
EMORANDUM
T
O: Martha Jenkins
General Counsel
Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration
FROM: Megan D. Browder
Deputy Attorney General
Legal Counsel Division
DATE: November 8, 2024
SUBJECT: Legal Sufficiency Review – North Shaw Moratorium Second Emergency and
Proposed Rulemaking
(AR-24-257 B)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Title 25 of the D.C. Official Code authorizes the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board to issue moratoria
on alcoholic beverage licenses “in any locality, section, or portion of the District .”1 Pursuant to that
authority, this rulemaking, issued on October 9, 2024, establishes the North Shaw Moratorium Zone. We
find it legally sufficient.
The Board first issued emergency and proposed rules establishing the North Shaw Moratorium Zone on
June 12, 2024, following the extensive public -comment process that Title 25 requires. 2 Although
emergency rulemakings must be published “forthwith” in the D.C. Register,3 that now-expired rulemaking
has not yet been published. This second emergency and proposed rulemaking was issued on October 9,
2024. It incorporates, as the Preamble notes, “revisions to clarify the geographic area covered by the
moratorium and to respond to public comments.” This rulemakin g’s Preamble also refines the prior
rulemaking’s discussion of a moratorium’s permissible scope.4 The Preamble for the previous emergency
and proposed rulemaking observed that a moratorium must comprise a “locality,” “section,” or “portion.”
This rulemaking’s Preamble agrees, but notes that this does not require a moratorium to “be a perfect circle,
1 D.C. Official Code § 25-101(a)(2).
2 See id. §§ 25-352—25-354.
3 Id. § 2-505(c).
4 This refined language incorporates recommendations that our Office recommended and you approved. Since this rulemaking
was issued prior to our legal sufficiency review, any revision recommendations from our Office were confined to the Preamble.

2
given the flexible definitions of locality, section, and portion in D.C. Official Code § 25-101 and the Board’s
authority under D.C. Official Code § 25-354(e) to tailor a moratorium to the relevant neighborhood.”
Since these rules are legally sufficient, I have signed the attached transmittal form, which approves the
attached text, so that the rulemaking may be published “forthwith.” If you have any questions regarding
this memorandum, please contact Joshua Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Counsel Division, at
(202) 442-9834, or me at (202) 724-5524.
M
DB/jat