Opinion ID: 2178314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Off-Campus Parking

Text: The 1989 Campus Plan called for American University to provide 2,490 parking spaces on campus. When the University submitted its 2000 Campus Plan, it proposed to increase that number to 2,959 spaces to satisfy the parking needs of students, faculty, staff, and visitors to the campus. The Department of Public Works advised the Zoning Commission that the University's proposal would be more than adequate to meet future parking demand on campus and would minimize parking spillover in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Supporting this assessment, the Commission made a finding that even at peak demand, 15 percent of the existing on-campus parking spaces and 78 percent of the parking spaces on adjacent neighborhood streets were vacant. The Commission concluded that the University's on-campus parking is available in sufficient quantity to serve the demand created by students, staff, and campus visitors and that the increase to approximately 2,900 spaces is sufficient to handle the increase in parking demand associated with new development over the term of the new plan. . . . Off-campus parking by students and other University-related drivers on nearby residential streets nonetheless remained a principal concern of petitioners and ANCs 3D and 3E. Joined by the Office of Planning, petitioners and the ANCs called upon the Commission to require American University to implement a stringent program, similar to programs in effect at other local universities, to eliminate University-related parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. To facilitate enforcement of such a program, petitioners and the ANCs recommended the use of parking stickers to identify vehicles belonging to students and other University-affiliated persons. In response, American University proposed to adopt a program to discourage off-campus parking that was modeled on a plan that the BZA had approved for use at George Washington University's Mount Vernon Campus. [3] Like the Mount Vernon Campus plan, American University's proposal did not mandate the use of parking stickers as a means of enforcement. The Zoning Commission found that University-related parking continued to be a problem in the vicinities of both the Main and the Tenley Campuses despite the University's ameliorative efforts. (The Commission did not, however, quantify the magnitude of this off-campus parking problem. [4] ) Concluding that the University must enhance its parking program so as to mitigate adverse impacts associated with off-campus parking, the Commission conditioned its approval of the 2000 Campus Plan on the University's adoption of a program similar to the Mount Vernon Campus plan. Specifically, Condition No. 7 in the Commission's Order reads as follows: 7. The University shall adopt the following program regarding enforcement of student, faculty, staff, and vendor off-campus parking: (a) The University shall use its best efforts to require all students, faculty, staff, and vendors servicing the campus to park on the campus and shall prohibit, to the extent permitted by law, students, faculty, staff, and vendors from parking on the streets adjacent to and surrounding the campus. The University shall use its best efforts to cause other University-related vehicles to park on the campus. To accomplish these purposes, the University shall have in place a system of administrative actions, contract penalties, and fines (which may be adjusted from time to time as needed), and/or termination of contracts for violations. (b) Construction employees, contractors, and subcontractors shall by contract be prohibited from parking on residential streets, subject to contractual penalties or termination. Visitors to the campus, including attendees of all conferences, shall be encouraged to use on-campus parking and, where feasible, notified in advance to do so. (c) For conferences and large special events, the Applicant shall work with area institutions in order to provide additional parking as needed. When the Commission voted to approve Condition No. 7, its Chairperson observed that the University would be accorded flexibility in choosing its enforcement mechanism. Perhaps for that reason, the Commission did not insist on parking stickers to identify University-related vehicles, as petitioners and the ANCs had recommended. The Commission did not explain in its Order why it rejected that recommendation, however. Nor did the Commission provide such an explanation when petitioners moved for reconsideration and reiterated their argument that Condition No. 7 would be ineffective if it did not require University-related vehicles to be identified. In its Order on Reconsideration, the Commission stated only that the issue had been fully reviewed during the course of this proceeding and appropriately addressed in the initial Order. Petitioners ask us to overturn Condition No. 7 on two grounds. We are not persuaded by petitioners' first contention, which is that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in imposing an off-campus parking plan without specifying the means by which it would be enforced. The absence of such prescriptive detail, such as the parking sticker regime that petitioners and the ANCs recommended, does not render the condition ineffective and nugatory as petitioners claim. The University has ample incentive to implement Condition No. 7, for the University remains subject to continuing oversight by the Commission and will face the prospect of serious consequences if it fails to fulfill its obligations. As the Commission provided in another condition of its approval of the 2000 Campus Plan, Condition No. 17: 17. No special exception application filed by the University for further processing under this plan may be granted unless the University proves that it has consistently remained in substantial compliance with Conditions 1 through 16 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 Civil Enforcement Act, D.C. Official Code §§ 2-1801.01 to 2-1803.03 (2001). See Foggy Bottom Ass'n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 791 A.2d 64, 74-75 (D.C.2002) (rejecting the argument that a traffic regulation condition was weak and unenforceable where, inter alia, noncompliance with the condition can be brought to the attention of authorities in connection with, for example, the renewal of the hospital's occupancy permit). We conclude 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. President & Dirs. of Georgetown College v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 837 A.2d 58, 77 (D.C. 2003) (holding that Board exceeded its authority by specifying in minute detail how University should enforce an off-campus student affairs program). There is force, however, to petitioners' second contention, which is that the Zoning Commission needed to explain in its Order why it rejected the ANC-supported recommendation that students and others affiliated with the University be required to have parking stickers in order to facilitate the enforcement of Condition No. 7. By statute, a government entity such as the Commission is obligated to give great weight in its deliberations to [t]he issues and concerns raised in the recommendations of an ANC. D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d)(3)(A); see Foggy Bottom Ass'n, 791 A.2d at 76. The statute is quite specific as to the government entity's duties in this regard. Great weight requires acknowledgment of the [Advisory Neighborhood] Commission as the source of the recommendations and explicit reference to each of the Commission's issues and concerns. § 1-309.10(d)(3)(A). Further, [i]n all cases the government entity is required to articulate its decision in writing. The written rationale of the decision shall articulate with particularity and precision the reasons why the Commission does or does not offer persuasive advice under the circumstances. In so doing, the government entity must articulate specific findings and conclusions with respect to each issue and concern raised by the Commission. Further, the government entity is required to support its position on the record. § 1-309.10(d)(3)(B). The Zoning Commission was mindful of its statutory obligations. We have no reason to doubt the Commission's statement in its Order that it carefully considered the objections and recommendations of the affected ANCs in formulating the conditions of approval of the 2000 Campus Plan. [5] The Order refers explicitly to the ANC concern that a stronger program was needed to ensure that students and other University-related drivers would not continue to park on neighborhood streets despite the University's policy to provide paid parking for them. Condition No. 7 is the Commission's direct response to this concern. In one respect, however, the Commission did not fulfill its statutory obligation. The ANCs expressed the concern that an enforcement mechanism needed to be specified for the University's off-campus parking program. To that end, the ANCs recommended that parking stickers be required for University-related vehicles. The Commission was obligated to articulate with particularity and precision why it did not find the ANCs' advice on this score persuasive. The Order does not do that; it does not even mention the parking sticker proposal. It would be premature for us to comment at this juncture on the merit, or lack thereof, of the ANCs' recommendation. We are not prepared to say that imposition of their suggested enforcement mechanism would be a legally unwarranted intrusion into the University's management prerogatives. President & Dirs. of Georgetown College, 837 A.2d at 78. Nor may we substitute our own discretionary judgment for that of the Zoning Commission or supply a rationale for the agency decision by conjecture from what it did. Levy, 570 A.2d at 753. We therefore remand this case for the Commission to address the ANCs' proposal with the statutorily-required particularity.