Opinion ID: 2658241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Vehicular Traffic

Text: The impact of AU‟s 2011 Campus Plan (including, but not limited to, the East Campus development) on vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the Main and Tenley Campuses was a contested issue in the proceedings before the Commission. The Commission received conflicting expert reports and opinions, which it summarized in its order. Gorove/Slade, the consulting company hired by AU to model the traffic impact of its Campus Plan, opined that the Plan would have minimal impact on the surrounding transportation network—no intersections would “reach unacceptable levels of delay”—given a long-term downward trend in the level of vehicular traffic in the area and the positive effects of AU‟s on-going Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) program.43 The Department of 42 Glenbrook Rd., 605 A.2d at 34 (D.C. 1992). 43 AU‟s TDM program employed a number of approaches to reduce vehicular traffic to and from campus, including a free shuttle service, carpooling (continued…) 41 Transportation generally endorsed the Gorove/Slade methodology, assumptions, and projections, as well as AU‟s TDM strategies, and agreed that the Campus Plan would result in “minimal vehicular impacts.” The Office of Planning, noting inter alia that the AU campus is adjacent to major arterial and connector streets and is well-served by public transit, was supportive of AU‟s TDM efforts. In contrast, ANC 3D and its consultant, Nelson/Nygaard, criticized Gorove/Slade‟s methodology and recommended that additional TDM measures be employed to avoid objectionable traffic conditions, notably including the imposition of a peak hour auto trip cap.44 Petitioners too criticized the Gorove/Slade study, disputed AU‟s assertion that vehicular traffic to and from the Main Campus had been declining, and claimed that the impact of the 2011 Campus Plan on traffic would be greater than AU and Gorove/Slade had projected. (continued…) and ride-sharing plans, and inducements to use public transportation and bicycles. AU‟s transportation impact study credited the TDM program with having achieved a decade-long decline in vehicular traffic at the Main Campus of nearly 4% a year. As part of its 2011 Campus Plan, AU planned to institute enhancements to promote the TDM program and monitor its effectiveness. 44 A trip cap is essentially an enforceable limit on the number of automobile trips that students and staff are allowed to make to and from campus. ANC 3D proposed that “any year where AU‟s population generates more than the approved maximum number of auto trips, AU should be required to further increase [its] TDM program and identify to the Zoning Commission and to the community how [it] intend[s] to reduce this number in the future.” 42 The Commission stated that it found the Gorove/Slade methodology credible “notwithstanding the objections raised by the parties in opposition,” and it concluded that approval of the 2011 Campus Plan is not likely to create objectionable conditions related to traffic. The Commission conditioned its approval on AU‟s continued implementation and improvement of its TDM program, saying that it was “not persuaded by ANC 3D‟s unsubstantiated claims that the TDM strategies would not be effective.” The Commission declined to adopt the peak hour trip cap recommended by the ANC, noting that AU had “proposed an array of measures also designed to limit vehicular trips to the campus, as well as methods to monitor their effectiveness.”
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
It was discovered at a relatively late stage of the hearings, in October 2011, that Gorove/Slade had utilized data from a discredited government traffic study in making its traffic volume projections.53 This led petitioners and ANC 3D to voice additional concerns about Gorove/Slade‟s report. AU did not initially respond to these concerns, but during its deliberations the Commission requested additional information about traffic issues from the parties. In its response to this request, AU stated that according to Gorove/Slade and the Department of Transportation, the data from the withdrawn study that Gorove/Slade had used did “not have any (continued…) 52 On the other hand, we are not persuaded by petitioners‟ complaint that the Commission improperly rejected ANC 3D‟s trip cap recommendation by ignoring traffic issues related to the TDM program and improperly crediting AU‟s representation that the program would be improved. The Commission addressed the issue with sufficient precision, albeit concisely: it took specific cognizance of the trip cap proposal, found that ANC 3D had not substantiated its claims that the TDM strategies would be ineffective, and explained that a cap would be unnecessary because other measures (including the several elements of the TDM program) would limit trips. The Commission‟s findings regarding the need for a trip cap were based on substantial evidence in the record, Gorove/Slade‟s expert opinion that there was “no basis” for it. We think the Commission provided an adequate response to the ANC‟s concerns in this regard. 53 It appears that the study had been prepared for the General Services Administration regarding the future development of the Department of Homeland Security‟s Nebraska Avenue Complex. The GSA reportedly had questioned the analysis in the study and commissioned another firm to redo it. 46 material impact” on its conclusions. Gorove/Slade itself submitted a response addressed to other traffic concerns raised by the Commission. ANC 3D and petitioners also made submissions, in which they reiterated their original concerns. Petitioners now complain that they and ANC 3D were afforded no opportunity to cross-examine AU‟s expert about the factual assertions in AU‟s post-hearing submissions. However, we do not agree that the Commission acted improperly. Neither petitioners nor ANC 3D requested an opportunity for further crossexamination or otherwise objected to the post-hearing procedure. In that respect alone, this case is unlike Glenbrook Road (on which petitioners rely), where we held it error to deny a request to cross-examine an expert about new matter in his rebuttal testimony.54 Indeed, for that reason, petitioners‟ claim is not even properly before us.55 Furthermore, as in Glenbrook Road, we are confident that petitioners were not prejudiced by not having been afforded an opportunity for further crossexamination. The experts already had been cross-examined extensively on almost 54 Glenbrook Rd., 605 A.2d at 43 (D.C. 1992). 55 See Fair Care Found., v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Ins. & Sec. Reg., 716 A.2d 987, 993 (D.C. 1998) (“We have long held that we will not review a procedural claim that was not adequately raised at the agency level.”). 47 all of the issues raised in the post-hearing submissions.56 And even if the posthearing submissions from AU and Gorove/Slade did introduce some new information or opinion, all parties were on an equal footing, unlike in Glenbrook Road—neither AU nor petitioners were able to introduce additional oral testimony, and the parties had the opportunity to respond to each other‟s submissions. Especially given that petitioners did not request an opportunity for further crossexamination, we do not see any impropriety in the procedure that was followed.