Opinion ID: 2658241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Density and Scale of the East Campus

Text: To begin with, petitioners contend that the Commission did not address adequately the concerns about the proposed density and scale of development on the East Campus. On the contrary, the Commission acknowledged the ANC and Office of Planning recommendations that the density be lowered (e.g., that the planned number of student beds be reduced), and it explained with reasonable particularity its conclusion that the high density of the East Campus as proposed by AU would not result in objectionable conditions for neighboring properties. We do not agree with petitioners‟ complaint that the Commission failed to consider the availability of alternative locations for student housing to further reduce the density of the East Campus, as was urged by the Office of Planning, ANC 3D, and petitioners.35 It was not the function of the Commission to consider all the possible alternatives to development of the East Campus; its only task was to evaluate whether “the proposed site will become objectionable to neighboring properties.”36 Similarly, AU was “not charged with considering every option that any party in 35 Relatedly, petitioners assert that the Commission “erroneously permitted” AU to “refuse[] to explore alternatives.” But in developing its Campus Plan, AU had investigated alternative locations to meet its housing needs. 36 Glenbrook Rd., 605 A.2d at 32 (citing 11 DMCR § 210). 33 opposition might conceptualize.”37 In point of fact, moreover, the Office of Planning and ANC 3D did not provide detailed alternative proposals; they merely asserted the desirability of locating more student housing at the “core” or “center” of the University campus without working through all the practical questions that their preferred alternative would raise. And while Westover Place and another neighborhood group proffered a private consultant‟s “alternative framework” for more intense residential development in the campus core, the Commission did consider that proposal and found it flawed.38 Its decision was amply supported by the record and therefore not arbitrary or capricious.39 37 Id. (quoting Don’t Tear It Down, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Dev’t, 428 A.2d 369, 379 (D.C. 1981)). 38 The Commission explained that the “alternative framework” supported by Westover Place and another neighborhood group “did not take into account important factors such as financial feasibility, the need for changes to roads and infrastructure, the current use of some of the sites identified as potential locations for new student residences, or the University‟s program requirements, and did not consider the East Campus as an appropriate site for student housing.” 39 Petitioners also object that the Commission found that Westover Place “already borders some high-density developments” without making detailed factual findings about the characteristics of those nearby developments. We do not agree that detailed factual findings respecting the apartment buildings next to Westover Place were necessary to support the Commission‟s determination that the proposed East Campus would not be out of character with its surroundings. In evaluating whether the proposed East Campus would be likely to lead to objectionable conditions, the Commission properly considered the overall character of the neighborhood; but for the purposes of this proceeding, it reasonably could do so in general terms without describing and analyzing the (continued…) 34