Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. Zoning Com'n of DC

• Citation: 155 US App. DC 233,477 F.2d 402
• Decision Date: 06 February 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-2103,72-2174.,72-2103
• Parties: The CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN, INC., Appellant, v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. The CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN, INC. and the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Appellants, v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

155 US App. DC 233, 477 F.2d 402 (1973)

The CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN, INC., Appellant, v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.

The CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN, INC. and the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Appellants, v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.

Nos. 72-2103, 72-2174.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued January 11, 1973.

Decided February 6, 1973.

Judgment May 8, 1973.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roberts B. Owen, Washington, D. C., with whom William D. Iverson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant in No. 72-2103 also argued for appellant in No. 72-2174.

Louis P. Robbins, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom C. Francis Murphy, Corporation Counsel, Richard W. Barton and David P. Sutton, Asst. Corporation Counsels were on the brief, for appellee, Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia.

Joseph M. Fries, Washington, D. C., with whom Charles R. Donnenfeld, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee, Georgetown-Inland Corporation.

Whayne S. Quin, Washington, D. C., with whom Norman M. Glasgow, John J. Carmody, Jo V. Morgan, Jr., and Charles J. Steele, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee, Maloney Concrete Co.

Franz M. Oppenheimer and Peter S. Craig, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellant in No. 72-2174.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.

BAZELON, Chief Judge:

This case involves the zoning of the Georgetown waterfront, an area of approximately 96 acres bordered by the Potomac River, M Street, N.W., Key Bridge and the Rock Creek Parkway. Since zoning began in the District of Columbia in 1920, this area has been zoned for commercial and industrial uses.¹ But the area seems about to undergo substantial changes and it is that possibility that brought this case before us.

I

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the professional planning agency for the District of Columbia, is charged with preparing a comprehensive land-use plan for the District.² In 1969, the NCPC adopted a plan which, in part, called for the waterfront area to be devoted to low-density residential and parkland uses.³ In 1971, the President called for immediate action to insure the preservation of the waterfront⁴ and, in response, on January 26, 1972, the NCPC and the District of Columbia contracted with a group of private planners for a $270,000 study of the Waterfront to prepare a development program implementing the NCPC's recommendations for the area.

In the interim, however, the intervenors in this suit⁵ announced plans to build major new commercial centers in the area which would be permitted by the present zoning.⁶ Seeking to ward off the threat to implementation of the comprehensive plan posed by new commercial development on the waterfront, the appellants herein petitioned the Zoning Commission to adopt an interim amendment to the Zoning ordinance, preventing major construction not in conformance with the NCPC's 1969 Comprehensive Plan recommendations until the completion of the pending study. When the Zoning Commission failed to respond, the appellants brought suit for mandamus to compel action by the Commission in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.⁷ That court found that it did not have the power to provide the requested relief since the Zoning Commission's action was not reviewable as a "contested case" under the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act.⁸ Finally, on June 29, 1972, the Zoning Commission did adopt an emergency amendment⁹ to the Zoning Regulations to preserve the status quo in the waterfront area until hearings could be held on the appellants' proposal for a two-year interim amendment downzoning the area to prevent its commercial development until the ongoing study was completed.

Hearings were held in August of 1972 and testimony was given favoring adoption of the interim amendment by the NCPC, its planning consultants and several citizen groups. The Zoning Advisory Council¹⁰ also supported the proposal. Opponents of the proposed downzoning included the intervenors, Georgetown-Inland and Maloney Concrete, as well as the Washington Metropolitan Board of Trade and a number of corporate and individual owners of property in the affected area. On October 4, the Zoning Commission revoked its emergency order and declined to adopt the proposed interim amendment.¹¹

Appellants then filed suit in federal District Court challenging the Commission's order on the grounds that:

1) the Commission acted unlawfully in rejecting the recommendation of the NCPC; and

2) the Commission\'s action was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The District Court denied appellants' motions for a temporary restraining order on October 12, and for a preliminary injunction on October 25. On November 9, this court entered an order restraining construction of the planned new commercial centers in the Waterfront area pending the District Court's final decision.¹² On November 20, the District Court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment¹³ and on November 24, this court issued an order, in effect, reinstating its restraining order of November 9. The District Court's grant of summary judgment was on the grounds that:

1) "The NCPC Comprehensive Plan is advisory only and not binding on the Zoning Commission," and that

2) there was no showing that the Zoning Commission\'s action was "arbitrary or unreasonable."

The instant appeal is from that decision.

II

The Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia is entrusted with the authority to adopt and amend zoning regulations which, among other qualifications, must "be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan." 5 D.C.Code § 413 (1967). The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) is required to "prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive plan for the National Capital and made related recommendations to the appropriate developmental agencies and to serve as the central planning agency for the Federal and District Governments . . . in order to advise as to consistency with the comprehensive plan. . . ." 1 D.C.Code § 1001 et seq. (1967). The NCPC is further empowered to "make a report and recommendation to the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia on proposed amendments of the zoning regulations and maps as to the relation or conformity of such amendments with the comprehensive plan of the District of Columbia." 1 D.C.Code § 1008(a) (1967).

Appellants suggest the requirement that the Commission's zoning regulations be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan" is a reference to the comprehensive plan that the NCPC is charged with preparing. But the courts of this jurisdiction have repeatedly held that term "comprehensive plan" in 5 D.C.Code § 413 is not synonymous with the comprehensive plan referred to in the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, 1 D.C.Code § 1001 et seq.¹⁴ The requirement that the Zoning Commission adopt zoning regulations in accordance with a comprehensive plan rather refers to the Commission's obligation to zone on a uniform and comprehensive basis.¹⁵ We cannot therefore accept appellants' contentions that the Zoning Commission was bound to follow the recommendation of the NCPC or that it may override that recommendation only by showing a compelling public interest in doing so.¹⁶

III

In reviewing the action of the Zoning Commission, we consider only whether "in denying the application the Commission was arbitrary and capricious, i. e. its decision had no substantial relationship to the general welfare."¹⁷ Although the Commission's actions are entitled to a presumption of validity, it must "put forward, or the court be otherwise able to discern, some basis in fact and law to justify the action as consistent with reasonableness."¹⁸ The Commission's challenged decision offered no reasons.¹⁹ The court in a case as complex as the one before us is hesitant to extrapolate the required basis from the record before the Commission without the benefit of the Commission's expertise and guidance. We therefore order the Zoning Commission to file a statement of the reasons for its decision within 45 days. We neither express nor intimate any position on the merits by this holding.

Two strands of doctrine apply to our review of administrative agency decisions. The first is the presumption of validity of an agency's actions. An agency such as the Zoning Commission is expected to apply its expertise in making decisions like the one before us and courts should not attempt to substitute their judgment for that of the agency to whose discretion those decisions have been committed by Congress.²⁰ Second, respect for an agency's expertise does not eliminate the need for judicial review of agency actions, and inherent in that albeit limited power of review is the need for an agency to spell out its reasoning.²¹ As Justice Harlan said in the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 792, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 1373, 20 L.Ed.2d 312 (1968):

The court\'s responsibility is not to supplant the Commission\'s balance of . . . competing interests with one more nearly to its liking, but instead to assure itself that the Commission has given reasoned consideration to each of the pertinent factors. Judicial review of the Commission\'s orders will therefore function accurately and efficaciously only if the Commission indicates fully and carefully the . . . purposes for which, it has chosen to act.

The case for requiring a statement of reasons from an administrative agency is a persuasive one. Those reasons may be crucial in order for the court to know what the agency has really determined, hence what to review. Courts ought not to have to speculate as to the basis for an administrative agency's conclusions;²² nor can a court "assume without explanation that proper standards are implicit in every act of agency discretion."²³ And, when faced with a complex problem, having...