Opinion ID: 2658241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: On-Campus Housing

Text: As a condition of its approval of AU‟s 2000 Campus Plan, the Commission required the University to make on-campus housing available for two-thirds of its full-time undergraduates and 85% of its full-time freshmen and sophomores. At 17 the time of the hearings on the proposed 2011 Campus Plan, AU‟s on-campus residence halls accommodated approximately 3,749 students. Even so, AU still did not have enough existing on-campus housing to fulfill the requirement that it make such housing available to two-thirds of its undergraduates.22 Moreover, some of the students living in on-campus housing were not undergraduates. In its 2011 Campus Plan, AU proposed to discontinue a 497-bed dormitory located on the Tenley Campus while adding sufficient student housing on the Main Campus for 1,300 students (resulting in a net increase of 803 beds on campus). AU envisioned the increase in beds to be achieved in three phases of construction. In the first phase, 510 beds would become available at the new North Hall and an addition to Nebraska Hall (an existing dormitory) by the fall of 2013. Because of the simultaneous loss of student housing on the Tenley Campus, the result at this point in time would be a net increase of only 13 beds. In the second phase, however, another 590 beds would become available on campus by the fall 2016 semester with the opening of three new student residences on the planned East Campus. The addition of these beds would enable AU to achieve its goal of 22 The reason AU did not achieve this housing goal is not entirely clear to us from the record, but it appears to be related to the fact that undergraduate enrollment exceeded the University‟s projections. 18 making on-campus housing available to 67% (i.e., two-thirds) of its undergraduates. The University also committed to make on-campus housing available for 100% of its freshmen and sophomores by the fall of 2016. Finally, in the third phase, a new 200-bed dormitory known as South Hall would be constructed adjacent to an existing dormitory complex on the Main Campus. AU did not have a timetable for this project, however. The Office of Planning generally agreed with AU‟s residential construction proposal. It specifically recommended retention of the condition requiring AU to make on-campus housing available for 67% of its undergraduates (at least by 2016), but with the added requirement that the housing provided to satisfy this availability condition actually be reserved for undergraduate use exclusively. Along with the ANCs, which supported comparable conditions, the Office of Planning emphasized that AU was not yet in compliance with the undergraduate housing availability condition of the 2000 Campus Plan, and ANC 3D recommended freezing enrollment until the on-campus housing capacity was built so as to ensure that AU could handle any increase in student enrollment. AU opposed the latter recommendation and pointed out that the 67% housing requirement would effectively limit its ability to increase undergraduate enrollment. ANC 3D also called for the new student housing to be located at the 19 core of the campus to avoid objectionable conditions for neighbors bordering the University. Westover Place, representing many of such neighbors, voiced the same request. The Commission concluded that AU‟s student housing program was “an important means of limiting the potential for objectionable conditions related to the number of students.” It found that “the University [currently] was providing on campus housing for 59% of its full-time undergraduate population,” and that under its proposed Campus Plan it would “maintain a supply of housing sufficient to make on campus housing available” for 100% of the freshmen and sophomores and for 67% of all undergraduates beginning with the opening of East Campus in the fall of 2016. In the interim, the Commission required AU to “continue to make on campus housing available to” 85% of freshmen and sophomores and 59% of all undergraduates. Because the Commission agreed with AU that “the 67% housing requirement effectively serves as a cap on undergraduate enrollment,” it declined to follow ANC 3D‟s recommendation for an enrollment freeze pending AU‟s fulfillment of that condition. 1. The Availability of Undergraduate Housing on Campus 20 Petitioners assert that the Commission erred in basing its decision on a factual finding that AU “was providing on campus housing for 59% of its full-time undergraduate population.” This finding was incorrect, they argue, because the testimony and other evidence at the hearing established that AU does not use all of its dormitory capacity for undergraduates and that non-undergraduates reside in some of the campus space. In actuality, AU houses only 55% of its undergraduates on campus. These facts appear to be undisputed. The error, petitioners argue, is material and renders the Commission‟s decision arbitrary and capricious. We are not persuaded by this contention. The Commission was not under any misimpression as to AU‟s on-campus housing. The Commission‟s order makes clear that it was addressing not actual usage but capacity. In its conclusions and in the conditions it imposed, the Commission consistently spoke in terms of AU‟s duty to maintain a supply of housing sufficient to make on-campus living “available” to the specified percentages (59% until 2016, 67% thereafter) of undergraduate students. As this represented a continuation of the availability condition imposed on AU when its prior Campus Plan was approved, availability rather than actual usage was the pertinent question. And it appears AU did have dormitory space on campus for 59% of its undergraduates, even though fewer than 59% took advantage of it. 21 On the other hand, we agree with petitioners that the Commission neglected to address the specific recommendation of the Office of Planning that AU actually devote its on-campus housing to the specified percentages of undergraduates. Clearly the Commission did not require that any particular proportion of undergraduates must live on campus, and it may have had good reasons to refrain from doing so.23 But the Commission did not provide those reasons or focus on the disparity between the number of student beds available on campus and the extent to which those beds actually are allocated to undergraduates. Indeed, it remains unclear how the Commission envisions the undergraduate housing availability requirement to work: for instance, whether AU must make housing available to undergraduates first and then may assign other students to whatever unfilled space remains.24 Because the Commission did not “provide a reasoned basis for any disagreement” with the Office of Planning recommendation that the on-campus 23 AU does not currently require any student to live on campus. We express no view as to whether it would be impermissibly intrusive into the “details and mechanics” of running a university for the Commission to require a specified percentage of undergraduates to reside in on-campus housing. See President & Dirs. of Georgetown Coll. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 837 A.2d 58, 77 (D.C. 2003). 24 The Commission heard testimony that there was unmet demand for undergraduate housing on campus and that the risk of the new residence halls becoming filled with non-undergraduate students is therefore low. Yet in reality, non-undergraduates fill a significant number of on-campus beds. How this could (continued…) 22 housing (or a specified portion of it) be occupied solely by undergraduates, it must rectify this omission by addressing the recommendation on remand.25 2. The Housing Requirement as a De Facto Freeze of Undergraduate Enrollment Petitioners take issue with the Commission‟s decision not to freeze student enrollment pending the provision of additional on-campus housing for two-thirds of AU‟s undergraduates. Petitioners argue that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in trusting AU to adhere to an undergraduate housing availability condition it had violated in the past and has yet to fulfill. We confronted a similar argument when we reviewed the Commission‟s approval of AU‟s 2000 Campus Plan. In that case, although the Commission agreed that University-related offcampus parking had been a persisting problem despite AU‟s ameliorative efforts, it was satisfied to require AU to continue to use its “best efforts” to address the problem.26 We rejected the contention that the Commission erred under the (continued…) occur if AU has been making on-campus housing available to two-thirds of its undergraduates would seem to call for some elucidation. 25 Glenbrook Rd., 605 A.2d at 34 (D.C. 1992). 26 Spring Valley, 856 A.2d at 1178-79 (D.C. 2004). 23 circumstances because the “best efforts” requirement was unduly permissive. We concluded instead that it was “entirely reasonable for the Commission to state a general condition and to leave „the details and mechanics‟ of its enforcement to the University.”27 The circumstances under consideration are not entirely comparable, however. When the Commission approved AU‟s 2000 Campus Plan, it imposed a specific requirement that housing be made available on campus for two-thirds of the University‟s undergraduates to mitigate the impact on the community of anticipated increases in enrollment (up to an approved cap). There had been no similarly specific, pre-existing requirement applicable to off-campus parking when the Commission decided to trust AU to continue using its “best efforts” to address the problem. While AU‟s past failure or inability to fulfill the undergraduate housing availability requirement is troubling, the Commission has discretion to continue to trust that the University will timely comply with the on-campus housing requirement if, after due consideration of the arguments presented, the 27 Id. at 1180. 24 Commission decides that the evidence, including the University's noncompliance under the 2000 Plan, does not warrant imposition of an enrollment freeze. We recognize that approval of a campus plan is primarily a prospective exercise; it should not, ordinarily, take on a punitive character. “[S]ome flexibility” is needed for campus plans, inasmuch as university officials cannot be expected to “predict with specificity” the campus‟s future circumstances and development.28 Moreover, AU has “ample incentive”29 to comply with the enrollment and housing conditions imposed by the Commission so as not to jeopardize its further processing applications for future campus development projects envisioned in the 2011 Campus Plan,30 and to avoid the imposition of other penalties.31 We note that in 28 Georgetown Residents Alliance v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 816 A.2d 41, 49 (D.C. 2003). 29 Spring Valley, 856 A.2d at 1179. 30 In addition to the projects discussed in this opinion (the relocation of the law school, the East Campus, and North Hall), the 2011 Campus Plan proposes a number of other new projects that apparently will require further processing in the future, including the construction of South Hall; the expansion of the chemistry building (the “Beeghly Addition”); additions to the Multipurpose Gymnasium; replacement of the Sports Center Annex; the installation of new bleachers at Reeves Field; an addition to the Kay Spiritual Life Center; and the enclosure of the Butler Tunnel under the Sports Center Garage. 31 The Commission‟s order further states that No special exception application filed by the University for further processing under this plan may be granted (continued…) 25 approving the Campus Plan, the Commission required the University to submit an updated report on “the supply of on-campus housing and the number of full-time undergraduate students” with any future construction request. Even so, we think that the Commission‟s rejection of the ANC‟s “enrollment freeze” recommendation calls for more explanation than the Commission has provided in its order. AU did not adequately account for its inability to comply with the housing requirement of its 2000 Campus Plan, but as previously noted, the reason appears to be related to the fact that undergraduate enrollment exceeded the University‟s projections. If that is so, AU‟s argument against a freeze on enrollment—that it would be unnecessary because the on-campus housing requirement will operate automatically to keep a lid on the undergraduate student population—is less than wholly persuasive. In light of this record and (continued…) unless the University proves that it has consistently remained in substantial compliance with the conditions set forth in this Order. Any violation of a condition of this Order shall be grounds for the denial or revocation of any building permit or certificate of occupancy applied for by, or issued to, the University for any University building or use approved under this plan, and may result in the imposition of fines and penalties pursuant to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Civil Infractions Act of 1985, D.C. Official Code §§ 2-1801.01 to 2-1803.03 (2001). 26 notwithstanding AU‟s incentives to comply with the enrollment and housing conditions on the approval of its current Campus Plan, we conclude that on remand the Commission should give further consideration to the concerns regarding AU‟s past noncompliance raised by the ANC, the Office of Planning, and others, and explain more fully why it does or does not agree with the recommendation for a temporary freeze on undergraduate enrollment pending the availability of oncampus housing for two-thirds of the University‟s undergraduates.