Opinion ID: 1527345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Leased Space Condition

Text: Petitioners contend that the BZA failed to address an issue raised by ANC 2A as required by statute in deleting without explanation a condition requiring GWU to locate off-campus interim space leased for office and administrative purposes in commercial districts. In addition, they submit that because the BZA left a finding recognizing the need for the condition undisturbed after deleting the condition, the order is self-contradictory. We conclude that the agency failed to meet a material issue raised by the ANC by explaining its reasons for deleting the condition. Given the conflict between the factual findings and the BZA's conclusions, the deletion of the condition does not flow rationally from the facts established in the order. Moreover, the absence of analysis makes it impossible to determine whether the BZA based its action on correct legal principles. GWU currently leases 224,726 square feet of space, a majority of which is located outside the campus boundary within ANC 2A's borders. [19] The ANC opposed continued use of off-campus space except for short-term uses to accommodate dislocations caused by renovation or construction projects, arguing that GWU's use of substantial amounts of off-campus space in ANC 2A represents a de facto expansion of its boundaries and spreads the adverse impacts of the university beyond the campus boundaries. [20] The BZA's order addressed the leased space issue as follows: While the University seeks the widest possible latitude in its use of interim, leased space, the Board finds interim office and administrative leased space rightfully belongs in commercial districts. The Board acknowledges a condition to this effect is less restrictive than sought by ANC 2A and OP. However, to compel the University to seek leased residential space in commercial districts, an intended effect of OP's recommended condition, places the University at an economic disadvantage. Further the Board finds excluding all University interim leased space from the boundaries of ANC 2A inefficient in that it removes University leased space from physical proximity to the campus.... (emphasis added). In accordance with this finding, the BZA imposed a condition requiring that [a]ll off-campus short-term office and administrative interim leased space shall be located in commercial zones (Condition 15). GWU filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Board acted ultra vires in setting conditions more restrictive than the zoning regulations impose, pointing out that the University has a number of off-campus uses which exist as a matter of right in non-commercial districts. A revised BZA order set out a list of modified conditions which omitted former Condition 15. The BZA supplied no further reasoning or analysis beyond a preliminary summary of GWU's basic contention, expressed in general terms. The modified order did not revisit the BZA's earlier findings of fact. Intervenor GWU argues that the elimination of the condition rendered retention of the supporting finding of no moment. We disagree. In deleting the condition without withdrawal or explanation of its earlier finding, the BZA essentially left unaddressed ANC 2A's argument in opposition to the motion: that it is perfectly reasonable for the Board, as a condition for approving substantial expansion within the campus, to require GWU to refrain from placing office and administrative uses in the non-commercial districts outside the campus (even if some such uses might otherwise be permitted under the Zoning Regulations). Elimination of the condition without explanation requires reversal on two grounds: (1) the agency reached a conclusion unsupported by subsidiary findings of fact, leaving the record inadequate to reveal the basis for its decision, and (2) the BZA failed to articulate why the [ANC], given its vantage point, d[id] not offer persuasive advice under the circumstances, Wheeler, supra, 395 A.2d at 89 (citation omitted), as required by D.C.Code § 1-261(d). Indeed, the conflict between the order's findings and the modified order's conclusion leaves the record in a state where the agency's action not only does not rationally flow from the findings, cf. Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n, supra note 8, 426 A.2d at 334, but is contrary to them. Intervenors surmise that the deletion of the condition means that the BZA rejected ANC 2A's argument that the condition was reasonable, and struck the condition upon recognizing that the agency lacked power to impose such a condition, as submitted by GWU. On this record we need not reach the merits of whether the condition was beyond the BZA's authority. A court may not supply a rationale for the agency decision by conjecture from what it did. In Citizens Association of Georgetown, supra, we said: [t]he court cannot properly fill the gap itself by inferring findings on a party's objections through an inspection of the record, the agency's other findings, and the ultimate decision. 402 A.2d at 42. Rather, our function is to assure that the agency has given full and reasoned consideration to all material facts and issues. The court can only perform that function when the agency discloses the basis of its order by an articulation with reasonable clarity of its reasons for the decision. Dietrich, supra, 293 A.2d at 473. Accordingly, we must remand for an adequate explanation of the BZA's reasons for deleting the leased space condition which specifically addresses ANC 2A's argument that the condition was reasonable and not ultra vires.