Opinion ID: 1924704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Removal of Uncontested Provisions

Text: The CAG argues that the Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it omitted certain conditions that were included both in the Original Campus Plan and the proposed orders of the University and the CAG. [6] We agree. In Georgetown I, we specifically discussed the conditions that we deemed to be arbitrary and capricious and directed the Board to formulate appropriate conditions which are consistent with applicable legal requirements as set forth herein. [7] See Georgetown I, supra, 837 A.2d at 83. On remand, the Board removed the conditions that were uncontested in the original and remand proceedings. This court is troubled by the fact that the Board found the uncontested conditions necessary and supported by substantial evidence in the Original Campus Plan, but decided to eliminate them without explanation on remand. We find that the Board's failure to give any findings or reasons for the omission of the uncontested conditions to be arbitrary and capricious. Our decision in Levy v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 570 A.2d 739, 752-53 (D.C.1990), is applicable to the instant case. In Levy, the Board eliminated a condition on a motion for reconsideration in the same proceeding without explaining its findings. Id. at 752. We held that the unexplained elimination of the condition required reversal because the modified order's conclusion le[ft] the record in a state where the agency's action not only d[id] not rationally flow from the findings, but [were] contrary to them. Id. at 753. (internal citations and quotations omitted). We emphasized that our role was to assure that the agency has given full and reasoned consideration to all material facts and issues. Id. Similarly, we find here that the Board's failure to revisit its earlier findings which were supported by substantial evidence, or to provide an explanation, for not including the uncontested conditions in the Campus Plan on remand, left the record inadequate to reveal the basis for its decision and was arbitrary and capricious. See id. The University cites to Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens Ass'n, et al., v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 856 A.2d 1174, 1181-82 (D.C.2004), for the proposition that the Board has the discretion to eliminate conditions from a Campus Plan Order. But Spring Valley is a far different case from the one at bar. In Spring Valley, the court found that the Zoning Commission had the discretion to eliminate conditions from an earlier campus plan approved by the BZA. See id. Specifically, we concluded that the Commission was not bound by what the BZA decided in a separate proceeding on an application for approval of a different campus plan. Id. at 1181. In this case, however, the BZA reviewed its own decision and eliminated conditions that the Board previously found were supported by substantial evidence from the same campus plan, without explanation. Because the Board's failure to provide an explanation for its decision to eliminate certain uncontested conditions included in its Original Campus Plan order makes it impossible to determine whether the decision is based on substantial evidence in the record, we must remand the record to the Board so that the basis for the exclusions can be ascertained. [8] Accordingly, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the BZA's decision capping full-time student enrollment based on averaging the number of full-time students enrolled during the fall and spring semesters, and that averaging for purposes of establishing an enrollment cap flows rationally from the BZA's findings. Thus, we affirm the BZA order to the extent the parties have challenged that provision of the order. However, we again remand the case back to the BZA for an explanation as to why several uncontested provisions included in the Original Campus Plan were not included in the Revised Campus Plan. So ordered.