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

Heading: Crediting AU’s Traffic Study

Text: Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to explain why it credited Gorove/Slade despite the expert evidence to the contrary, and that it thereby failed to give great weight to ANC 3D‟s concerns. We agree that the Commission‟s explanation of its decision regarding the impact of the Campus Plan on vehicular traffic does leave something to be desired. The merits of the opposing experts‟ views were well-explored during the hearings before the Commission, and there 43 was “substantial evidence on both sides” of the dispute.45 But the Commission‟s discussion of the diverging expert opinions on the traffic issue was quite cursory, and it was descriptive rather than evaluative. Other than noting that Gorove/Slade‟s methodology was “acceptable to” the Department of Transportation, the Commission did not explain why it found that methodology credible despite the criticisms leveled at it by the opposing parties‟ experts. “An agency fails to base its decision on substantial evidence in the record when it ignores material evidence in the record.”46 Moreover, an administrative agency‟s failure to explain why it rejects conflicting evidence may impair appellate review, for in determining whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, it is incumbent on the court to “take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts” from the weight of the evidence on which the agency relied. 47 The need for explanation is heightened where, as here, the subject matter is “technical 45 Johnson v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 912 A.2d 1181, 1185 (D.C. 2006). 46 Darden v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Empl. Servs., 911 A.2d 410, 416 (D.C. 2006). 47 Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951). 44 and complex.”48 And although we have said that, in general, the Commission “[a]s the trier of fact . . . may credit the evidence upon which it relies to the detriment of conflicting evidence, and need not explain why it favored the evidence on one side over that on the other,”49 this must be balanced against its statutory duty to “elaborate, with precision, its response to the ANC issues and concerns, articulating why [the ANC] does or does not offer persuasive advice under the circumstances.”50 For these reasons, we conclude that to fulfill its duty in this case, the Commission should have explained at least briefly, but with particularity, why it credited AU‟s study in light of, and despite, ANC 3D‟s substantial criticisms of it.51 On remand, the Commission should rectify this omission.52 48 D.C. Appleseed Ctr. for Law and Justice v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Ins., Sec., and Banking, 54 A.3d 1188, 1217 (D.C. 2012) (“The more technical and complex the subject matter, the more explanation the agency ought to provide for its decision.”). 49 French v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 658 A.2d 1023, 1035 (D.C. 1995) (quoting United Unions, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 554 A.2d 313, 315-16 (D.C. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 50 Neighbors Against Foxhall Gridlock v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 792 A.2d 246, 249 (D.C. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 51 Cf. id., 792 A.2d at 250 (noting with approval that the Board of Zoning Adjustment appropriately explained in “a lengthy portion of its opinion” why it was convinced by an expert opinion that was contrary to the position of the ANC). 45