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). This included several requirements: • The University had to immediately require all transfer students under 21 to live on campus. • By fall 2015, the University will be required to house an additional 385 students on campus. • By fall 2016, the University must have moved all 65 students in Magis Row closer to campus, from 36th Street to 37th Street. The 16 townhouses on 36th Street will be repurposed into faculty and staff housing. • The University was barred from using additional property in Georgetown, Burleith, or Foxhall as student housing for the duration of the Plan. The Plan also included a long-term goal – although not a legal commitment – of housing at least 90% of undergraduate students on campus by fall 2025, which will entail new on-campus housing for 244 students beyond the additions made by 2016.

Campus Life As part of the Plan’s goal of “equaliz[ing] party polices for on- and off-campus parties” and moving more late-night social life onto campus, the University eliminated party registration for apartments and townhouses, moved forward with plans for a pub in designs for the Healey Family Student Center, began bringing food trucks onto campus at night, and generally loosened on-campus party polices (12). The Plan also restricted on-campus events to specific time periods, banning weekday performing arts events earlier than 7:00pm and athletic events between 4:00 and 7:00pm. An enclosure around Kehoe Field was approved and use of the field was banned before 6:00am and after midnight.

Off-Campus Life The Plan strengthened several programs intended to mitigate the effects on the neighborhood of students living off-campus. First, the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP), established in 2000 to restrict off-campus partying and respond to a 24-hour neighborhood hotline. Second, a late-night Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) reimbursable detail, established in 2007 to monitor the neighborhood and issue stricter citations. Third, daily trash pickup patrols around West Georgetown and Burleith, established in 2009. All three programs are paid for by the University. The Plan adopted stricter Code of Conduct policies for students living off campus. It changed the University’s policy to assert that “living off campus is a privilege, not a right,” with the stipulation that students who engage in serious or repeated misconduct will be banned from living off campus (12). Students are also now required to maintain rental properties according to the same standards imposed on property owners – including snow removal and yard maintenance. Violations of these property maintenance standards and of noise policy are now considered under the Code of Conduct. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 7

The Plan also enforced good landlord practices, addressing properties that had received three or more complaints over two years, and mandated a major, permanent reduction in the number of student group houses. Lastly, the Plan supported a mandatory orientation for students living off-campus, emphasizing “objectionable noise both inside and outside of buildings, illegal underage drinking, applicable rules and standards regarding proper disposal of trash and recyclables, restricted parking in the Georgetown, Burleith, and Foxhall neighborhoods, and University expectations that all students conduct themselves in a respectful and responsible manner as members of the local residential community” (12).

Transportation The Plan included significant changes to the Georgetown University Transportation System (GUTS), centered around the goal of “maximizing the use of the Canal Road entrance” and minimizing the use of residential streets by GUTS vehicles (14). This includes rerouting several buses and completely removing the Car Barn bus stop, to be replaced by a bus turnaround on campus near the Canal Road entrance. All GUTS buses except the Wisconsin Avenue shuttle will use the turnaround upon its completion. The Plan also mandated the installation of GPS devices in all GUTS vehicles. In order to relieve some traffic and congestion, the Plan required that the University install traffic control gates on Canal Road and create a left turn lane for westbound traffic on Reservoir Road. The main campus parking cap was frozen at 4080 (1380 parkings spots for the University and 2700 for MedStar), and the University committed to expanding access to Zipcar and Capital Bikeshare on campus. Most notably, all undergraduate students were banned from parking cars on streets in Georgetown, Burleith, or Foxhall.

HOW IS THE 2010 CAMPUS PLAN AFFECTING CAMPUS NOW?

Undergraduate Housing The University initially considered, among other options, a “satellite campus” elsewhere in DC to fulfill the 385-bed addition. But after vocal student opposition, including a fall 2013 referendum in which 93.27% of voters opposed the satellite campus, administrators agreed to abandon the option and instead find ways to build new housing on campus, fitting with their goal of creating a cohesive living and learning community and in order to meet requirements imposed by the 2010 Campus Plan. Administrators also instituted a third-year housing requirement in order to comply with these requirements.

PERMANENT CHANGES BY FALL 2015: The first new building as a result of the Plan will be the Former Jesuit Residence (FJR), which will go live in fall 2015 and feature 148 beds in a mix of apartments, suite-style rooms, and doubles. Empty since 2003, the building is being significantly upgraded to meet sustainability and ADA accessibility standards. The renovated building will REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 8

also include a large great room with open study space and a few rooms for Campus Ministry. In addition to the construction of the FJR, the University is planning on opening up two new townhouses on 37th Street and creating five new double rooms out of VCE common rooms.

TEMPORARY CHANGES FOR 2015-2016: In order to meet the 385-bed requirement, the University By fall 2015 FJR (+148 beds) is converting two floors of the Leavey Center Hotel into dorms for about 135 students next year, and converting New townhouses (+10 beds) about 90 doubles in Copley, LXR, Kennedy, McCarthy, New VCE doubles (+10 beds) and Reynolds into triples. These solutions will remain in place until the completion of the Northeast Triangle Leavey Center Hotel (+135 beds) Residence Hall.

New triples (+90 beds) PERMANENT CHANGES BY FALL 2016: The Northeast Triangle Residence Hall (NET) is By fall 2016 NET (+225 beds) scheduled for completion by fall 2016, and will include suite-style living for 225 students. The ground floor of the By 2025 Undecided (+244 beds) building will be an active multipurpose floor with study, meeting, and social space. With a green roof, the NET is Permanent Temporary slated to be the first LEED-certified residence hall on campus. The construction of the NET also involves the addition of a new ADA accessible ramp to the Reiss walkway from Red Square.

Green Space As part of its commitment to green space, the University is converting the parking lot between the FJR and Gervais into a lawn and usable green area. The University is also exploring potential options for converting the other parking lot on the south side of the FJR into an additional green space. In order to make the area more pedestrian-friendly, a combination of soft and hard controls will bar vehicles from entering Library Walk beginning in fall 2015, and the grade of the hill will be softened. The construction of the NET removes a significant green space on that side of campus, but it also makes some of the green space around the building more usable to students. Plans include green terraces on the east side of the building, outdoor seating at the south entrance, and a patio on the second floor.

Campus Life Although it wasn’t directly included in the Plan, the design and creation of the Healey Family Student Center was supported by the Campus Plan and further influenced by the 2012 Student Space Report. It opened in fall 2014, featuring 44,000 square feet of programming and social space that is supposed to serve as a hub of REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 9

student life on campus. The space includes the Bulldog Tavern, the Hilltoss, two dance studios, four music practice rooms, an outdoor terrace, and large spaces for studying and meeting. An additional effect of the Plan on campus life will be an increase in volume at Leo’s, Einstein’s, and Hoya Court. Campus dining facilities are already strained by the 4,400 students who hold meal plans, but well over half of the new 385 students living on campus by fall 2015 will be required to purchase meal plans as well. If the University builds new residential buildings as part of the next Campus Plan, the influx of students will further strain Leo’s, SaxaNet, and other critical infrastructure and systems on campus.

Off-Campus Life The Plan caused a focused shift in University resources towards off-campus law enforcement, as part of a larger effort to prioritize neighborhood wellbeing. The Office of Off-Campus Student Life became the Office of Neighborhood Life, and an additional staff member was hired under the Office of Student Conduct exclusively to handle off-campus conduct issues. SNAP hired an additional driver and adopted a new 100% response policy, as recommended by the GCP Safety and Student Life Working Group. This shift in enforcement resources has led directly to a higher number of student sanctions. The Student Advocacy Office (SAO) reported a 53% increase in the number of students seeking assistance between fall 2013 and fall 2014, in which increased sanctioning certainly played a role. And off-campus disorderly conduct incidents made up 30% of the SAO’s caseload last semester, which is disproportionately high for a single type of violation. When the late night MPD reimbursable detail, payed for by the University as part of the 2010 Plan, sanctions students, however, it can issue significantly stricter citations than SNAP. Issued to violators of the District of Columbia Noise Control Act of 1977, which bans noise louder than 60 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night in residential areas, the MPD detail’s 61D citations can result in a permanent arrest record and a fine, and are upgraded to a misdemeanor if a student loses their appeal. The implementation of the Plan included support for the creation of the Georgetown Student Tenant Association (GSTA), which works to protect the rights of student tenants in the neighborhood. The GCP has also worked with property owners and landlords to ensure compliance with basic business license (BBL) requirements.

Transportation The GUTS buts system is slated to undergo significant changes in the near future as a result of the Plan, most notably the construction of a bus turnaround in place of the current McDonough Gymnasium parking lot. Construction will finish in fall 2015 on the turnaround, which will feature bus shelters, benches, lighting, and a pedestrian plaza. The Wisconsin Avenue shuttle will continue to drop REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 10

off and pick up outside Darnall Hall, but the Dupont, Rosslyn, Law Center, and North Arlington shuttles will be rerouted to the turnaround. A jitney will ferry passengers between the turnaround and the hospital. Because of traffic on M Street and Canal Road, rerouting shuttles to the Canal Road turnaround will have a noticeable impact on trip length for the two million individual trips each year. “We have determined that our passengers are willing to deal with an additional 11 minutes between stops,” said Vice President for Planning and Facilities Management Robin Morey, as quoted by The Hoya, “and we are doing our best to limit increases in travel time to that amount.” According to test data from the Office of Transportation Management, the new Dupont and Rosslyn routes will be, on average, a few minutes faster than current routes during morning rush hour. The new Rosslyn route varies in timing throughout the evening rush hour, but the Dupont route will be noticeably longer during the evening rush hour. According to a survey administered by GUSA in 2008, only 32% of GUTS riders are students – the rest are faculty, staff, and MedStar employees, many of whom rely on GUTS five days a week – so the turnaround and route changes will have the largest impact on Georgetown community members.

Construction All the changes to campus caused by the 2010 Plan have resulted in a significant amount of construction, which has presented the University with financial and physical challenges. The immediate construction projects stemming from the Plan are costing the University $72.4 million: • Northeast Triangle: $46 million project costs + NET $46 million • Former Jesuit Residence: $22.4 million project costs + FJR $22.4 million • GUTS bus turnaround: $4 million project budget + GUTS turnaround $4 million

The construction of the Thompson Athletic Center is costing $61 Total costs $72.4 million million, bringing the current construction total up to $133.4 million, but that project is not a result of the 2010 Campus Plan. These significant costs incurred by the University have forced the delay of other necessary construction projects, most notably in housing. Major renovations are needed in both Henle and Village A, but have been deferred until at least 2017 because the construction of the NET and FJR is using up the University's “student housing” funding stream. The funding stream is larger than usual because of borrowed money to finance the new projects, but it will only make financing the necessary renovations more difficult once these projects are complete. Other delayed renovations include Reiss Science Building, Yates Field House, Kehoe Field, and Lauinger Library. Current construction across campus also inhibits ADA accessibility in a few key locations. The only accessible entrance to the Leavey Center was through the elevator in the Leavey Bridge, which has been closed to student use during construction of the NET. As a result, the only current accessible pathways into the Leavey Center are through the south and east entrances to Regents Hall, or through the north entrance to the Leavey Center Hotel, all of which present an additional burden to disabled students. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 11

Neighborhood Relations The GCP has significantly improved neighborhood relations from their flashpoint in 2010, in both its role as a community-building organization and as a consensus-driven decision-making body. The organization has hosted an annual Georgetown Community Fair and Tailgate for the past few years, and periodically brings students and neighbors together for joint trash cleanups. It remains to be seen how the GCP will further engage students, MedStar, the University, and neighborhood leaders as the Zoning Commission filing deadline approaches.

WHAT’S AT STAKE IN THE 2018 CAMPUS PLAN?

Background The 2018 campus plan will be a 20-year binding agreement between the University and our neighborhood – a legal affirmation of the University’s master plan that will tremendously affect campus life over the next two decades. Although there remain important differences in long-term priorities, University officials and neighborhood leaders are committed to using the GCP to work together around a shared vision. The Plan will have to address two goals laid out in 2010. First, the Plan will have to provide for swing space to accommodate renovations to existing on-campus housing without dropping below the 2010 Plan’s legally binding 385-bed addition. Second, the Plan will have to address the 2010 Plan’s goal of 90% of undergraduate students living on campus, and the associated addition of 244 beds, by 2025.

Neighborhood’s Vision Neighborhood leaders have not presented a formal proposal or list of concerns for the 2018 Plan, but consistent neighborhood concerns include mitigating trash issues, reducing transient noise, cracking down on partying and reckless behavior, and ensuring a strong SNAP and MPD presence. They may push for a reduced main campus enrollment cap and a long-term goal of 100% of undergraduate students living on campus, both of which emerged in discussions around the 2010 Plan. Neighborhood representatives in the GCP have also expressed concerns about MedStar’s transportation footprint on the surrounding community.

University’s Vision The University is engaged in an extensive master planning process to shape campus over the next two decades. These are the key principles in master planning as stated by administrators: • “Introduce new, high-quality green spaces and expand existing ones. • Organize strategic growth consistent with campus districts / typology. • Continue to develop a more residential living and learning community. • Create a pedestrian-friendly campus. • Improve transportation modes and means into campus. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 12

• Resolve issue of the use of Kober-Cogan site and surrounding grounds, for purposes consistent with the University and MedStar’s planning principles. • Address deferred infrastructure maintenance needs. • Establish an effective, efficient clinical footprint to address Georgetown’s academic and medical mission.” While master planning is distinct from the Campus Plan, the 2018 Campus Plan will draw much of its content from the University’s vision of its own future over the next 20 years. The University is exploring options for new on-campus housing to create swing space and meet the 90% goal laid out in 2010, including residential buildings on Harbin Patio, on top of the Leavey Center, and/or in place of the Reiss Science Building. A residential building on Harbin Patio would include around 250 beds and 130,000 square feet of living space. A residential building in place of Reiss would include around 156 beds and 204,000 square feet of living space, and would most likely be used for graduate student housing. The master plan also includes the addition of academic space, including a new academic building on the green space between Regents Hall and Harbin Hall, and potential academic additions on top of the Leavey Center or in place of Reiss Science Building. The plan also includes a “student life corridor” on Tondorf Road, which would replace the current facilities hub under Harbin Patio with retail shops, study space, and offices that directly serve students. Although many students have demanded a short-term fix for Kehoe Field, the master plan only includes a long-term renovation or replacement of Yates Field House and Kehoe Field that will depend heavily on financing. A likely option is the construction of a new recreational facility in place of Shaw Field, with tennis courts and Kehoe Field on the roof, and moving Shaw Field to the current location of Yates. Another option is relatively similar but includes the creation of an east-west access road at the north end of campus. Administrators have indicated that the University may propose an increase in the graduate enrollment cap for the 2018 Plan.

MedStar’s Vision MedStar Georgetown University Hospital is engaged in their own master planning process, which is related to but distinct from the University’s master plan. MedStar’s public proposals have so far included moving the north campus parking lot underground and replacing it with a large green space and a major new hospital wing. The proposals have not included changes to the status of Kober-Cogan, which is leased by MedStar from the University, but the building is widely expected to be addressed in the 2018 Plan. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 13

HOW IS THE 2018 CAMPUS PLAN BEING DRAFTED?

Within the Neighborhood Although they’re not formal representatives of the neighborhood, the Citizen’s Association of Georgetown (CAG), Burleith Citizen’s Association (BCA), and Foxhall Community Citizen’s Association (FCCA) serve as forums for neighbors to gather and express shared concerns or interests. They played a significant role in opposition to the University’s 2010 Campus Plan and may again play a crucial role in 2018. The Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2E serves as the formal representative body of the neighborhood. Although the Commission is dominated by neighborhood leaders, Reed Howard and Kendyl Clausen have served as student Commissioners since November 2014. The Commission deals with everything from parking to economic development, and its recommendations on the 2018 Campus Plan and related construction will carry great weight with the Zoning Commission.

Within the University Although there’s no institutional framework for student participation in the University’s master planning process, there is a Student Master Planning Working Group created by GUSA which is preparing a report on student priorities to present to the GCP Steering Committee at their April 11 meeting. The Working Group consists of Trevor Tezel, Omika Jikaria, Katherine Key, Dan Silkman, David Lizza, Mara Kelley, Megan Murday, Sam Greco, Curtis Crooke, and Owen Agho. Administrators also frequently engage student leaders within and outside of GUSA in more informal settings. There are numerous official but disconnected groups related to campus and master planning which have a limited degree of student representation. The Northeast Triangle Design Committee and Former Jesuit Residence Design Committee both have two student representatives, and the Designing the Future(s) initiative, which deals with academic master planning, has around 20 student participants. There are two student spots on the University Board of Directors’ Student Affairs Working Group.

Between the Neighborhood and the University Created in 2010, the Georgetown Community Partnership (GCP) is the formal body tasked with drafting the 2018 Campus Plan. A Steering Committee co-chaired by Ron Lewis (Chair of ANC2E) and Chris Augustini (Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the University) is the most important part of the GCP, bringing together community leaders and laying out a broad shared vision. Current GUSA President Trevor Tezel is the only student representative on the Steering Committee, to be replaced by incoming GUSA President Joe Luther in May. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 14

Beneath the Steering Committee, the GCP is made up of six working groups that deal with specific issues: 1. Transportation and Parking, tasked with mitigating University-related transportation’s impact on the neighborhood. • Co-chairs: Jim Sirinakis (Associate Vice President of Campus and Strategic Planning) and Hazel Denton (member of the CAG Board of Directors) • Student representatives: Michael Oliver, Ryan Shymansky, and Andrew Meshnick 2. Safety and Student Life, which deals with noise, SNAP, and other off-campus quality of life issues. • Co-chairs: Jay Gruber (Chief of GUPD) and Ed Solomon (Vice Chair of ANC 2E) • Student representatives: Trevor Tezel, Bridget Mullen, and Ryan Shymansky 3. Environment Landlord Initiatives, which deals with property maintenance, trash, and landlord accountability. • Co-Chairs: Robin Morey (Vice President for Planning and Facilities Management) and Jeff Jones (Treasurer of ANC 2E) • Student representatives: Nick Suttle, Omika Jikaria, Reed Howard, and Kendyl Clausen 4. Communications and Engagement, tasked with building positive University-neighbor relationships. • Co-chairs: Rachel Bridges (Director of Benefits, Services, and Communications) and Tom Birch (Vice Chair of ANC 2E) • Student representatives: Olivia Hinerfeld, Bethan Saunders, and Michelle Mohr 5. Data and Metrics, which uses data to measure the success of GCP initiatives. • Co-chairs: Ardoth Hassler (Associate Vice President of University Information Services) and Bob Avery (President of the FCCA) • Student representatives: Katherine Key, Kendyl Clausen, and Chris Kraft 6. Master Planning, which oversees neighborhood input in University and MedStar master plans. • Facilitated by third-party mediators from an auxiliary company • Student representative: Trevor Tezel

Timeline • Develop a conceptual plan by summer 2015. • Refine the conceptual plan and work out open issues with neighbors during the 2015-2016 school year. • Complete a draft plan by summer 2016. • Continue to refine the plan and engage additional stakeholders during the 2016-2017 school year. • Submit a final plan to the DC Zoning Commission by July 1, 2017. • Plan goes into effect on January 1, 2018. REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 15

CONCLUSION

Closing Letter A third-year on-campus housing requirement. A student parking ban. Delayed renovations. The pattern is clear: when students fail to organize effectively in the face of politically powerful neighborhood institutions, we end up with University agreements that accommodate neighborhood interests at the expense of students. It has played out time and time again, but we’re only now beginning to suffer the consequences of recent inaction.

Neighborhood interests are not naturally opposed to student interests. We’ve coexisted in the same community for over 200 years, and we all share similar concerns around noise, trash, and safety. But too often, neighborhood leaders have pushed excessive demands as solutions to reasonable concerns. CAG and BCA advocated in 2010 for a four-year on-campus living requirement, for example, and are likely to make another push in 2018. To demand that 100% of undergraduate students live on campus is both unprecedented and unreasonable, and it starkly illustrates the desire of many neighbors to push students away rather than find constructive or collaborative solutions to neighborhood issues. By simultaneously pushing for a total ban on student cars and new GUTS bus routes far away from residential streets, neighborhood leaders again displayed their disregard for student interests and inability to engage in reasonable dialogue. Excessive demands serve only to alienate students and polarize the community.

A lack of student engagement in 2010 granted disproportionate influence to the neighborhood, allowing these excessive demands to set the agenda. The University is now raising and spending almost $70 million on new housing projects requested by neighborhood leaders five years ago, diverting funding away from larger student priorities like renovating Henle, fixing Kehoe Field, and strengthening WiFi and tech infrastructure. How would you spend $70 million? Students weren’t asked that question in 2010, and organized student opposition to the most controversial aspects of the Plan came too little, too late. With no student voices at the negotiating table, it’s clear why we ended up with a Campus Plan that consistently placed neighborhood interests over those of students.

Let’s make this time different. The GCP has already improved student representation and community relations over the past few years, and the 2018 Campus Plan presents us with a unique opportunity to work together with neighbors and administrators to craft positive policy around shared goals. If students speak up now, we can ensure that the next Plan is more equitable than the last. So speak up – about your priorities, your opinions, and your vision for Georgetown – because the opportunity couldn’t be greater, the time couldn’t be better, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Sincerely,

Ari Goldstein Co-Chair of the GUSA Campus Plan Subcommittee REPORT ON THE CAMPUS PLAN 16

Opportunities for Engagement

1. Stay informed! Check out www.ourgeorgetown.com for more information, or follow the blog at masterplanning.georgetown.edu to stay up-to-date on the University’s master planning proposals.

2. Join your neighborhood association! It’s a great way to build positive student-neighbor relations – and when it comes time to negotiate, you’ll have input on the neighborhood voice. Find links to join at www.ourgeorgetown.com/neighborhood. • Citizen’s Association of Georgetown: $10 for an annual student membership • Burleith Citizen’s Association: $25 for an annual household membership • Foxhall Community Citizen’s Association: $25 for an annual household membership

3. Reach out to student representatives! In addition to your GUSA Senators, you can reach out to members of InterHall, the Freshman Executive Committee, the Campus Plan Subcommittee, the Student Master Planning Working Group, our student ANC Commissioners, or the student representatives on the GCP with your opinions, questions, or concerns.

4. Show up and speak up! Stay on the lookout for Hoya Roundtables, ANC meetings, administrator office hours, and the upcoming “Planning 302” University master planning session. Find an updated calendar at www.ourgeorgetown.com/act.