COMPANY NAME Project Proposal Prepared for: Trenz Pruca, Title Prepared by: Urna Semper, Job Title March 15, 2015 Proposal number: 123-4567 REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Welcome 2 Acknowledgements 3 2010 Campus Plan How was the 2010 Campus Plan made? 4 What’s in the 2010 Campus Plan? 5 How is the 2010 Campus Plan affecting campus now? 7 2018 Campus Plan What’s at stake in the 2018 Campus Plan? 11 How is the 2018 Campus Plan being drafted? 13 Conclusion Closing 15 Opportunities for Engagement 16 REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 2 Dear Georgetown students, When I stepped foot onto the Hilltop as a freshman in the fall of 2012, I had no idea so much of my Georgetown experience had already been shaped by the 2010 Campus Plan. The Plan, contentious and largely reached without meaningful student input, has impacted every student at Georgetown in significant ways – and from the student parking ban to the construction of the Northeast Triangle Residence Hall to delayed renovations in Henle, it will continue to shape campus far beyond its expiration in 2017. Now it’s time for the 2018 Campus Plan, one that will chart the course of Georgetown for the next twenty years. We formed the Campus Plan Subcommittee in September expressly to prevent the mistakes of 2010 and ensure that this time, the student body is engaged, informed, and provided with a seat at the negotiating table. The stakes have never been higher. The University aptly named their main fundraising campaign For Generations to Come – and the 2018 Campus Plan is the truest manifestation of this sentiment. It’s up to us to protect the cherished traditions of the past and invest ourselves in Georgetown’s future. While this report is primarily informational, I hope that it, along with the other work of the inaugural Campus Plan Subcommittee, becomes a foundation for student engagement in a more equitable Campus Plan and a better Georgetown. There are two people in particular without whom this report would not exist: my Co-Chair Ari Goldstein and Student Life Committee Chair Enushe Khan. Ari has been the driving force behind this report. He is a tireless advocate for the student body and I know Georgetown has a bright future with him here. Enushe has lent us tremendous support, sharing advice and wisdom, picking up the slack, and offering assistance at all times. I would also like to thank all our sources and contributors for their willingness to generously share time and information. Co-chairing this Subcommittee has been one of the most rewarding, challenging, and worthwhile activities of my entire life. I’m proud of the work that we have done for Georgetown and I truly hope that you, the reader, gain from the information here. This has been an inspiring journey, and although it’s difficult to pass on the helm to another leader, I believe in our collective ability to make Georgetown a better place for generations to come. To all those who wish to join on this voyage, I encourage you to get involved, reach out, and speak up. Sincerely, Reno Varghese and the GUSA Campus Plan Subcommittee Ari Goldstein, Co-Chair ([email protected]) Reno Varghese, Co-Chair ([email protected]) Mary Hanley and Nick Suttle, Co-Directors of the Georgetown Student Tenant Association Connor Maytnier, GUSA Secretary of Housing and Campus Planning Richie Mullaney, GUSA Senator Jack Nalen, SAO Advocate Connor Sakati, member of the Freshman Executive Committee REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 3 Sources Lauralyn Lee, Associate Vice President for Community Engagement Stephanie Lynch, Assistant Dean for Residential Living Robin Morey, Vice President for Planning and Facilities Management Jamie Scott, Assistant Director of Community Engagement Joelle Wiese, Associate Vice President for Auxiliary Services Reed Howard, ANC2E Commissioner Abbey McNaughton, Vice-Speaker of the GUSA Senate Trevor Tezel, Student Body President Burleith Citizen’s Association Citizen’s Association of Georgetown The Hoya archives The Voice archives The Washington Post archives Other Contributors Tyler Bridge, Speaker of the GUSA Senate Matt Donovan, SAO Advocate Enushe Khan, Chair of the GUSA Student Life Committee David Lizza, member of the Student Master Planning Working Group Caroline Ritter, Vice-Chair of the GUSA Student Life Committee Adam Shinbrot, GUSA Senator REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 4 HOW WAS THE 2010 CAMPUS PLAN MADE? Background Every decade, the University has to submit and receive approval from the DC Zoning Commission on a ten-year Campus Plan. The approval process includes the involvement of several constituencies, most notably our neighbors, whose vision has often conflicted with that of the University on numerous issues related to campus life and presence in the neighborhood. As a result of these conflicts, the University was forced to litigate both the 1990 and 2000 Campus Plans, the latter of which took almost seven years to receive approval. So in 2010 administrators decided to engage neighbors in the planning process rather than fight them in court – resulting in a 2010 Campus Plan that was significantly shaped by neighborhood concerns and desires. Initial Proposal The University began drafting the Plan and engaging community members in the mid-2000s, but did not present a formal proposal to the neighborhood until spring 2010. The proposal was based on several guiding principles, including the growth of academic programs, a modernized medical center, and a fully residential main campus with high-quality academic and athletic facilities. In order to achieve these goals, it included plans for a residential complex with about 120 beds on what the University called “the 1789 block,” bounded by 36th, 37th, N, and Prospect streets NW, which would include graduate student and faculty housing, retail space, and underground parking. The initial Plan included a 40% increase in the graduate and professional student population – an additional 2,475 students by 2020 – and an increase of 104 nontraditional undergraduate students. It also included a roof over Kehoe Field, a GUTS shuttle loop and additional 700 parking spaces on campus, a taller chimney for the heating and cooling plant, and an expansion of the MedStar hospital. Neighborhood Opposition The Citizen’s Association of Georgetown (CAG) and Burleith Citizen’s Association (BCA) had been pushing for years for additional on-campus housing to reduce the number of students living off campus and to mitigate quality of life issues in the neighborhood. So they vehemently opposed the University’s initial proposal, which both increased graduate enrollment and lacked significant additions to on-campus housing. They felt the proposal failed to address major neighborhood concerns around noise, trash, congestion, and reduced property values caused by students living off-campus. “These students are rolling into our neighborhoods, and we're losing blocks that used to be residential,” said CAG board member Cynthia Pantazis as reported by The Hoya, in an attitude typical of neighborhood leaders at the time. “We’ve reached a saturation point… it is catalyzing the neighbors.” REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 5 Within weeks of the spring presentation, the CAG and BCA organized formal opposition to the University’s Campus Plan, including a “Save Our Neighborhood Fund” and “GU Relations Committee.” Signs saying “Our Homes, Not GU's Dorm” could be seen on front lawns across the neighborhood. The University’s response to a 309-question neighborhood questionnaire further infuriated neighbors, who found administrators’ vagueness insulting. The issue became a public battle. Neighborhood leaders presented a counterproposal, which, among other things, included 100% of undergraduate students living on campus. Results The University filed its initial proposal to the DC Zoning Commission on December 30, 2010. In a 6-1 vote in which student Commissioner Jake Sticka cast the sole yes vote, the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2E declined to support the University’s Plan, instead presenting a comprehensive list of concerns and suggested changes. After extended community negotiations in which the Washington Post and several city departments took sides, the Zoning Commission approved a significant but short-term agreement between the University and the neighborhood in 2012 that would last through the end of 2017. This agreement is referred to as the 2010 Campus Plan. WHAT’S IN THE 2010 CAMPUS PLAN? Community Relations The Plan led to the creation of the Georgetown Community Partnership (GCP), a forum for managing the 2010 Campus Plan’s implementation and the development of the 2018 Campus Plan. Co-chaired by University administrators and neighborhood leaders, with additional participation from students and MedStar officials, the GCP is also supposed to serve as a forum for building positive community relationships to avoid the hostility seen in 2010 in future negotiations. Enrollment Cap The Plan capped the main campus student population at 14,106, including an undergraduate enrollment cap of 6,675 and a medical student cap of 830. These figures will stand until January 2018 when the next Plan takes effect. Looking towards the future, the Plan mandated more consciousness around the University’s enrollment growth, including potential “movement toward satellite campuses as rapidly as possible” (2010 Campus Plan, 20). Graduate Housing The Plan stated that the University would issue a “Request for Information” or similar document by fall 2012 soliciting proposals for new graduate student housing outside Georgetown, Burleith, and most of Foxhall. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 6 Undergraduate Housing Undergraduate housing became one of the most significant issues in the 2010 Plan. After extensive negotiations, the Plan ultimately aligned “the University’s goal of developing an integrated living and learning campus” with “the community’s goal of as rapid a transition as possible toward a more residential undergraduate on-campus environment” (7).