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

Heading: Magnitude of the Enrollment Cap Increase

Text: On appeal, petitioners claim that the Commission misapprehended and underestimated the significance of raising the enrollment cap to 13,600 students when it characterized this as only a 13% increase in the total student population. With the law school relocation, petitioners argue, the new cap will permit a much greater increase in the number of students living and studying on campus—the area 10 that is of concern to the surrounding community. Because the Commission disregarded this fact, petitioners contend that its decision to permit the student population to grow to 13,600 was arbitrary and capricious. We think there is merit to petitioners‟ claim. Factoring in the law school‟s move to Tenley Circle, AU sought permission to increase the ceiling on the number of students attending the University on campus from 10,600 to 13,600 students. That is an increase of not 13%, but of over 28%.17 The Commission did not acknowledge, and it appeared not to appreciate, that the projected increase in on-campus enrollment was of this magnitude, and thus it did not adequately confront petitioners‟ fundamental concern that an influx of as many as 3,000 additional students in the campus area would cause objectionable conditions for neighboring properties. On remand, the Commission must address this concern. Beyond that threshold, petitioners argue that the Commission erred in addressing two specific concerns about the off-campus impact of an increase in student enrollment. These concerns related to the expanded presence of AU and the behavior of AU students in the surrounding community. 17 Cf. Spring Valley, 856 A.2d at 1177 (comparing the maximum numbers of students allowed on the Main and Tenley Campuses in the old and new plans). 11 2. Expansion into the Community and Displacement of Local Businesses As to the first of those impacts, petitioners and ANC 3D argued that lower enrollment caps were needed to limit AU‟s expansion and purchase of private property off campus, which they feared would result in the loss of neighborhood businesses (particularly small retail businesses serving the local community, such as neighborhood food stores18). They urged the Commission to consider the effects of such expansion into the surrounding neighborhood as an objectionable condition arising from the size of the University permitted under its campus plan, and therefore to be a proper subject of a conditional approval. The Commission, however, declined to address this issue on its merits, stating that AU‟s “use of offcampus property” was “beyond the scope of this proceeding.” Petitioners now argue that the Commission misapprehended its legal authority and that displacement of local business threatened by a proposed campus growth plan is a cognizable objectionable condition that the Commission should have considered. 18 As an example, SVWHCA cited AU‟s conversion and division of a neighborhood grocery store into a mail-sorting facility and a pizza restaurant aimed at students rather than neighborhood residents. 12 We express no view as to whether petitioners‟ concerns about AU‟s expansion into the surrounding neighborhood might call for the imposition of a lower cap on student enrollment or other restrictions on AU‟s campus development plans. But we agree with petitioners that the Commission should have addressed that issue on its merits. It is true that the requirement of special exception approval for campus development “does not restrict a university from owning and using property beyond the campus borders, so long as that use is consistent with the applicable zoning restrictions for that site.”19 The permissibility of off-campus development does not depend on whether a university or a private party owns the property; “zoning controls use, not ownership.”20 Here, however, the question the Commission was asked to consider was not AU‟s right to acquire and use property off campus for University purposes, but only whether such expansion attributable to AU‟s proposed on-campus growth would lead to objectionable conditions for the surrounding community. We have recognized that “resident displacement” 19 Watergate West, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 815 A.2d 762, 767 (D.C. 2003). For example, in a Commercial District, university uses are permitted as a matter of right. 11 DCMR § 701.6 (b). 20 Watergate West, 815 A.2d at 767 (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 from a university‟s “expanded presence” in the vicinity of its campus can, in principle, constitute an objectionable condition justifying the Commission‟s imposition on a campus development plan of “reasonable measures . . . to stem the tide.”21 It is conceivable that AU‟s expansion and acquisition of property in the neighborhood of its campuses could become an objectionable condition, and that limiting student enrollment might be a reasonable measure to prevent that from happening. Because this issue was raised by an ANC, the Commission should have addressed it substantively and with appropriate particularity in deciding whether to approve AU‟s request to raise its cap on student enrollment. The Commission should do so on remand. 3. Student Behavior Off Campus Another concern relating to the size of the AU student population raised by the ANCs and others was off-campus student behavior and the adequacy of AU‟s efforts to limit it. Neighbors complained of off-campus undergraduate residences 21 George Wash. Univ. v. District Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 831 A.2d 921, 933 (D.C. 2003). 14 that generated persistent problems of excessive noise and trash, as well as other student conduct having a disruptive impact on the surrounding community, such as underage drinking and noisy late-night social activities. AU reported that “from six to ten „problem addresses‟ [off-campus student housing] emerge each year” and “require intervention” by the University. The Commission found that AU oversees off-campus student residences and actively communicates its expectations for student conduct in the community. AU had implemented a number of measures since the approval of its 2000 Campus Plan to manage and deter off-campus student misconduct. These measures included a recent amendment of the student code of conduct to allow the University to bring charges against students for off-campus misbehavior; improved procedures and commitment of resources and personnel to receive, track, and respond to neighbors‟ complaints and intervene effectively; improved collaboration with the police; and the establishment of relationships with landlords and realtors. The sufficiency of AU‟s efforts to prevent off-campus student behavior from becoming an objectionable condition was contested. ANC 3D charged that there were “unprecedented problems stemming from students‟ behavior off-campus,” 15 that AU officials had not been “vigilant” in responding to the concerns of neighborhood residents, and that the University‟s action plan had been “ineffective and inadequate in protecting the neighborhood from disruptive student behavior off campus.” Similarly, ANC 3E stated that it believed the University was “unable or unwilling” to address these problems, and Westover Place asserted that AU had “failed to recognize or solve these issues in a meaningful or adequate manner.” The Commission acknowledged the foregoing concerns and noted that it was “sympathetic” to the neighbors who had described “serious issues that have arisen in the past due to student misconduct.” Ultimately, however, the Commission did “not find a systemic problem of objectionable conditions related to student conduct,” and it was satisfied that “the University‟s measures are appropriate to address student behavior consistent with the scope of the Zoning Regulations. Citing, in particular, AU‟s amendment of its student code of conduct “to enhance its effectiveness against misbehavior occurring off campus,” the Commission concluded that the 2011 Campus Plan was not likely to create objectionable conditions related to student misbehavior. Petitioners object to this determination, arguing that it is not based on substantial evidence and that the Commission improperly shifted the burden of proof to AU‟s opponents. 16 We disagree. The evidence allowed the Commission to conclude that only a small proportion of students and off-campus properties had caused problems, and that AU had made effective enhancements to its enforcement mechanisms to address those problems. Even ANC 3E acknowledged that “most students living off-campus are good neighbors, [but] there seem to be about 6 to 10 houses per year that create chronic disturbances.” Further, the Commission was entitled to credit AU‟s representations that it would in good faith continue to improve its strategies to control student conduct. Nor did the Commission improperly require the neighborhood representatives to prove there would be objectionable conditions instead of requiring AU to show that such conditions are not likely to arise. Without shifting any burden, the Commission reasonably could find that given the small proportion of students and off-campus properties generating complaints, and AU‟s redoubled efforts to curtail them, the anticipated increase in student enrollment is not likely to give rise to objectionable conditions.