The Public Hearing convened in Room 220 South, 441 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, pursuant to notice at 9:30 a.m., Sheila Cross Reid, Chairperson, presiding.
Mary Nageihout, Esq.
CONTENTS
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
(9:36 a.m.)
CHAIRPERSON REID: Good morning. The hearing will please come to order. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the June 13th Public Hearing of the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the District of Columbia. My name is Sheila Cross Reid, Chairperson. Joining me today is Robert Sockwell and Ann Renshaw, Rodney Moulden representing the National Capital Planning Commission, and representing the Zoning Commission is Herb Franklin. Copies of today's hearing agenda are available to you. They are located to my left at the door.
All persons planning to testify either in favor or in opposition are to fill out two witness cards. These cards are located on each end of the table in front of us. When coming forward to speak to the Board, please give both cards to the reporter, who is sitting to my right.
The order of procedure for special exception and variances cases are as follows: One, statement and witnesses of the applicant; two, government reports, including Office of Planning, Department of Public Works, etcetera; report of the ANC; parties or persons in support; parties or persons in opposition; closing remarks by the applicant.
Cross-examination of witnesses is permitted by the applicant or parties. The ANC within which the party is located is automatically a party in the case.
The record will be closed at the conclusion of each case except for any material specifically requested by the Board, and the staff will specify at the end of the hearing exactly what is expected.
Decision of the Board in these contested cases must be based exclusively on the public record. To avoid any appearance to the contrary, the Board requests that persons present not engage members of the Board in conversation.
Please turn off all beepers and cellphones at this time so as not to disrupt these proceedings.
The Board will now consider any preliminary matters. Preliminary matters are those which relate to whether a case will or should be heard today, such as requests for postponement, continuance or withdrawal, or whether proper and adequate notice of the hearing has been given.
If you are not prepared to go forward with the case today or if you believe that the Board should not proceed, now is the time to raise such a matter. Are there any preliminary matters?
All right. Does staff have any preliminary matters?
MS. PRUITT: Yes, Madam Chair. There are two—first, preliminary matters. You have a letter dated—request from Citizens Association of Georgetown dated May 24 requesting postponement; a letter from Citizens Association of Burleith dated May 22 requesting postponement; a letter from the applicant dated May 30 in opposition to this request. They are all in your package.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Excuse me. You are saying there is a request for postponement?
MS. PRUITT: There are two requests for postponement from two different citizens organizations.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Parties? Are they parties?
MS. PRUITT: No. You have not done party status yet.
CHAIRPERSON REID: No, no.
MS. PRUITT: They are requesting party status.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay, they are requesting party status.
MS. PRUITT: Correct. From potential parties.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. So we would have to first do the party status to determine whether or not they would have standing to request a postponement.
MS. PRUITT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON REID: What's the basis of the postponement?
MS. PRUITT: Time. It's actually—Let me pull up the request for continuance. If you look at Exhibit Number 38 and Exhibit Number 37, both of them are requesting basically postponement. They feel they need more time to work out issues and resolve them.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All right. First, I think we should just do the party status assessment and determine who has party status, and then from that we can continue based upon how that comes out.
MS. PRUITT: Madam Chair, you have seven requests for party status, if you look at the little tally sheet. They are also in your folder. That was dated June 13, the very last folder that you got.
You have a party status request from Hillendale, who is in opposition; Citizens Action of Georgetown in opposition; Burleith Citizens Association, opposition; Foxhall Community Citizens Association; Wormley Neighborhood Association; and the Cloisters in Georgetown. They all have submitted party status in writing, and their requests are timely.
CHAIRPERSON REID: And all in opposition?
MS. PRUITT: No. Only the ones I mentioned. The other two—It was a little hard to determine if they were in complete opposition or they weren't sure.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. So we know we have at least five?
MS. PRUITT: Seven.
CHAIRPERSON REID: No, no, five in—How many in opposition?
MS. PRUITT: Oh, correct.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Five? Okay. And the other two, we weren't—Okay.
MS. PRUITT: An actually, if you have your sheet right in front of you, all that information is on it.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Where is that sheet?
Right there, okay. All right.
The parties—The entities that have requested party status, are you being represented by an attorney? Can I have those persons who are representing these organizations come forward, please, who are representing the organizations for party status. All right, have a seat, please.
MS. DWYER: Madam Chair, on behalf of the applicant, could I just state for the record that we have no objection to six of the seven party requests. The only one we were going to issues with respect to is the Wormley Association. The others—
CHAIRPERSON REID: And what's the basis for that objection, please?
MS. DWYER: The Wormley Association has filed a request, and their issues concern property that is not within the campus plan. The Wormley School is a site outside of the campus plan boundaries. So the issues they raise have nothing to do with the campus plan, and the Wormley School project is not before this Board.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Let me start with that one. The Wormley School representative—who is that? Is there a representative from the Wormley School this morning? No? Wormley Neighborhood Association? There is no one here from the Wormley Neighborhood Association? Okay. So then that takes care of that one.
All right. Then—
MS. DWYER: With respect to the others, we have no objection. They seem to have met the filing requirements, and have issues that are germane to this proceeding.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. All right, now typically for you to be granted party status, it is predicated upon your demonstrating that you are uniquely affected. Typically, when we have organizations, which you are all organizations, that's kind of a gray area. How can the organization be uniquely affected, more so than other persons who are in that community? This is what we need to establish this morning. Start here.
MR. ANDREW: My name is Robert Andrew, President of the Foxhall Community Citizens Association, representing 875 homes in the area immediately west of Glover Archbold Park.
We have been part of the BZA quarterly meeting process mandated by this Board in 1990, and have been in continuous involvement in that process for the last decade. Does that answer your question, Madam Chair?
We have also been part of every single working group session that the University has held towards—
CHAIRPERSON REID: No. My question, sir, is how are you uniquely—How are you more affected than the other persons who live in that community? It is predicated upon your demonstrating that you have some unique situation.
MR. ANDREW: More than who? The associations before you, ma'am, represent every single neighbor around this university.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All right. Let me read this. Under Section 3106.3: "In considering a request for party status pursuant to Section 3106.2, the Board shall grant party status only if the person has clearly demonstrated that his or her interest would be more significantly, distinctively or uniquely affected in part or in kind by the proposed zoning action than those of other persons in the general public.
MR. ANDREW: Ma'am, if you take the one issue, for example, of the proposed 49 percent increase in graduate enrollment, my area of uniquely affected by that, including myself. Is that sufficient? I'm not—
CHAIRPERSON REID: How are you more affected than anyone else? Is there anything unique about your organization that makes you more affected than anyone else in the community?
MR. ANDREW: Well, the value of our properties in terms of—Ma'am, I don't quite understand the question. Sorry. We do represent a large portion of the general public.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Sir, I think it might be appropriate for you to state the location of residences with your organization in proximity to the University, those kinds of factors, which would be specific to the interest of your members to the University's intended efforts.
MR. ANDREW: We represent the homeowners in the area bounded by Canal Road, Reservoir Road, and Glover Archbold Park. That is all the homes immediately west of the University contained in Ward 2. We have been an association in existence since 1928. That's the area of interest. We have 875 homes to whom we can deliver newspapers by hand. We have another 410 condos and the like which have locked mailboxes we cannot deliver to, but we represent all of those homeowners.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Are all of you all similarly situated in that you feel that, because of the block of constituents that you represent, that you want to have party status to be able to speak on behalf of that particular organization, geographical—All of them are different? There's no overlapping? No overlapping in these—The area is not that large. So you all have distinctively different geographical locations than the others?
MR. ANDREW: Yes, ma'am. They are, in fact, shown on the latest Office of Planning map for neighborhood interests. Office of Planning could provide you their map showing where all of these named neighborhoods and associations that are represented here today. John Farnsmith could bring that to you. That is laid out in the neighborhood planning process.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. So, basically, we'll discuss that—
MR. ANDREW: And the comprehensive plan.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Basically, it's a geographical—It's a geographical type of—
MR. ANDREW: Yes, ma'am, to the west, to the north and to the east. The groups you see here before—of the university—represent those geographies.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Do any of the others of you have anything different or any other unusual circumstance or anything that is distinctive about your entity that is the reason why you're asking party status? Your name, sir?
MR. BPAUN: Madam Chair, my name is Charles Braun, and with Dr. Stan Talpers we represent the Hillendale Homeowners Association.
The Hillendale planned unit development was created by the Zoning Commission some 20 years ago. It's a gated community. It is one entrance, an exit on 39th Street, as well as an emergency entrance and exit on 39th Street.
It is uniquely affected by traffic on Reservoir Road, because the main way in and out of Hillendale to the rest of the city is via Reservoir Road. Other groups are affected by Reservoir Road, but not to the same degree, because their geographic location is different. They're not gated, and they have more access to the city's streets than we do.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. And everyone else is basically because of the geographical proximity to the University. Is that correct?
MR. ANDREW: Yes.
MR. CROCKETT: Madam Chair, Don Crockett for the Georgetown Residents Alliance. I understand that, before I walked in, you indicated there wasn't an application on file from our organization.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Who said that? We have Georgetown Residents Alliance?
MS. PRUITT: Yes, it's on there.
CHAIRPERSON REID: And you're representing them? I was asking who was being represented by counsel, and no one said anything.
MR. CROCKETT: We will—Georgetown Residents Alliance will be represented by counsel.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. All right now, so then that's one represented by counsel. Then we have five other organizations. All right. Now our problem is, when we have so many different entities asking for party status, then the cross-examination is what becomes very labored.
What I'd like to know is do each of you intend to cross-examine each witness?
MR. BRAUN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Is there a way that you all could perhaps—If your concerns are similar, can you combine your questions and have one person proffer the questions to the witnesses, because it will take forever to have so many people doing the cross.
If we give you the party status, let's try to compromise here; because quite frankly, I don't think that—I think there are too many people for party status, but trying to accommodate, if you would try to combine your questions and have one person or two people to do the cross-examination, you will receive all notices and all submissions and materials germane to this case. But I just don't think that it is in anyone's best interest to allow six peopleto cross-examine each of the witnesses. That's just too much.
MR. BRAUN: Madam Chair—
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Excuse me. If among you, there was a representative of each group at the mediation sessions and other pertinent meetings with the University, we would appreciate your indulgence of the Board by trying to pool your responses, where necessary, into single groups of questions rather than separate restatements of the same issues. It would certainly speed up the hearing.
MR. BPAUN: Madam Chair, I'm Charles Braun from Hillendale. There have been discussions between—by e-mail between the different organizations, and I think it's understood that different organizations have different issues, and that, for example, Hillendale is not concerned with number of students. It's concerned with north campus traffic, and it's focused on that and the helicopter pad; and that's all.
Other people are focused on other things. So there has been informally by e-mail a fair amount of consultation and parceling up of the issues. It's not perfect, but it's already been done, because we don't want to stay here any longer than you do.
CHAIRPERSON REID: So in other words, you all have made some attempt to try to consult with each other.
MR. BRAUN: That's been done, yes.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Well, it goes without saying that any questions that are proffered should not be repetitive or duplicated. Am I hearing you say that there will be different ones questioning different witnesses and not all questioning the same witness? I can't have six people questioning the same witness.
If your concern—If you are the one who is concerned about the—Did you say helicopter pad?
MR. BPAUN: Helicopter pad and north campus traffic.
CHAIRPERSON REID: —and north campus, and you're asking those questions of the traffic—I guess, the traffic report or DPW, whatever, then are you saying that that would basically suffice, and there would not be five other people coming up and asking questions of the traffic report?
MR. BRAUN: If somebody else is asking questions of the traffic consultant, it might be relating to the main campus—more likely to be relating to the main campus than the north campus. I think it divides up by issues rather than—I mean, we're not—There was no advance explicit requirement to do this. So we haven't done it, but the issues have been divided up to a considerable degree.
I mean, I'm not planning to ask questions of many of the witnesses, because they don't have anything to tell on the issues that I'm here to express our concerns about.
So I think—I mean, I understand your concern, although I'm not here as an attorney for my association—I'm here as a representative of the association—I am an attorney, and I have appeared before this body before as an attorney when the membership of the Board was different.
I think this is just an unusual situation where the University is ringed by different neighborhoods, and they have their own different associations and different rules and different representatives. T realize that's inconvenient, but there is an effort—there has been an effort not to have undue duplication.
CHAIRPERSON REID: The purpose of—The primary purpose of your asking for party status—is it so that you can cross-examine? Is that the primary reason why you are requesting the party status?
MR. BRAUN: No, not for Hillendale. It may be so for the others.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. And yours is?
MR. BRAUN: We are concerned about traffic and the helicopter pad. We have already put into the record by submitting to DPW—We hired our own traffic consultant. We produced a report. We're here to express our concerns.
Incidentally, if it's necessary on the issues that concern us, we may also need to crossexamine and should not be denied the right to do so, but we are here to present an affirmative case. We realize that won't come until the next session, the next public hearing after we've had a chance to hear the University's case and digest everything that we learn today, but we're not here primarily to cross-examine.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All right, thank you. Just one second. Let me just confer.
By consensus, the Board has decided that, while this is not an idea situation for us, it is probably prudent to allow the parties that have requested party status to be granted party status, because there is some little confusion as to how this procedure should be done.
Nonetheless, we can proceed, but we will have to be very vigilant about the questioning and moving things along, and we ask that you be cooperative with us and not get into trying to be a Perry Mason and to ask a lot of lead questions to build up to a question. Just ask what you have to ask. Cut straight to the chase, get it over with, and get the question out, and let's move it along.
That's what we have to do in order to try to get through this case in a reasonable amount of time.
MS. PRUITT: Madam Chair, could I get a motion on those who will be granted party status, and so we can vote?
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes. The Wormley Neighborhood Association representatives—have they come in? Okay. All right, then could someone put a motion on the floor, and then we can vote on this and move on?
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Madam Chair, I will move that the six neighborhood associations whose representatives are present today be granted party status, that the Wormley Neighborhood Association whose representative is not present today be denied party status for lack of appearance.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Second?
BOARD MEMBER RENSHAW: Second.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All in favor? Opposed?
MS. PRUITT: Staff would record the vote as five to zero, motion made by Mr. Sockwell, seconded by Ms. Renshaw, to grant party status to six of the seven parties requested, with Wormley Neighborhood Association being the only one denied party status.
MS. SCOLARO: Madam Chair, may I ask a question, please?
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes.
MS. SCOLARO: On cross-examination—Oh, I'm sorry. Patricia Scolaro. I'm President of the Burleith Citizens Association. We, too, caucused, and we also hope that we will use good judgment in questioning. We have—and please depend on us, that we will listen to what the other person has asked and try very hard not to ask the same or similar questions.
I do have a question about cross-examination. Do we have to do it as the person speaks? Can we do it as a group? Could we do it when we have our opportunity, whenever that's going to be, sometime in July to cross-examine? Does it have to be done immediately as that person speaks?
MS. DWYER: Madam Chair—
CHAIRPERSON REID: Wait just one second, please. Yes?
MS. DWYER: Madam Chair, we had discussed with staff that, as in other cases, we would present the witnesses as a panel with cross-examination afterwards of all the witnesses. That was our plan today. So it would be at the completion of the direct case. All the witnesses would be brought back, and that way we avoid questions being asked of an early witness that would be addressed in later testimony.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes, by the panel, because, as you said, sometimes if one person speaks and then you have questions, it may be that that question will be answered by one of the subsequent witnesses that are going to speak with the applicant's presentation.
So once the panel is done, then we will allow cross-examination of each witness that has been presented.
MR. CROCKETT: Madam Chair, Don Crockett. I would have no objection to that if we had three and four member panels, but they have a long witness list.
CHAIRPERSON REID: How many do you have, Ms. Dwyer? How many do you have?
MS. DWYER: We have nine witnesses. In a meeting with staff we have agreed to complete our case within two hours. So we're going to be very focused in our testimony.
CHAIRPERSON REID: One panel, nine witnesses?
MS. DWYER: Right. Nine witnesses, one panel.
CHAIRPERSON REID: What were you saying, Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: I'd prefer to take them three at a time. I think it would probably go better that way, if we did. You've got groups. You've got traffic consultants, and you've got various other types of people.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Why don't we split in half? You know, do five and then let them cross-examine those five, and then do the other four?
MS. DWYER: The only problem is that some of the later witnesses, again, might be still answering questions in the first five.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Same problem.
MS. DWYER: It's proven to be much more efficient in other cases to do it as one panel.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes, I see.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Madam Chair, if they present as a single panel and, for the sake of witness cross, we break the panel into its pertinent subsets, then we might be able to more effectively deal with the large number of parties, say if the people responding to transportation issues would be crossed at one time.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Maybe we could break it down like Mr. Sockwell is saying, by issues. For example, you have different people who would testify on different things.
Now, obviously, the traffic portion, traffic—your traffic consultant portion is just one or two people?
MS. DWYER: Yes, although there's some overlap, because the physical plan, obviously, discusses existing and proposed traffic circulation. For cross-examination we will try to bring back a panel of the three or four who are discussing maybe the physical aspects of the campus plan, another three or four who are discussing academic mission, and if it turns out that one of them is asked a question that someone sitting in the audience needs to answer, they can just come forward.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. So repeat that. We've talked about so many different scenarios. I think that we're getting somewhere with the last one.
MS. DWYER: We will present our direct testimony as one panel.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay, and that's how many people?
MS. DWYER: That's nine people within two hours. Then for cross-examination we will bring three to four witnesses at a time on specific issues, such as traffic.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Oh, I see what you're saying, for cross-examination. That's not what he was—That's not what I was saying either.
MR. CROCKETT: Madam Chair, it's just a lot of notes that you have to take, and I do this for a living, and when a witness is through, you've just heard his testimony and you've taken your notes and you' re ready to cross-examine.
If then you have to go through another eight witnesses and the whole thing before you come back, it's very disjointed. I would prefer, really, anytime to cross-examine the witness after he has testified before going on to the next witness. This is the way it's done in all other situations.
MS. DWYER: Madam Chair, if I may just put on the record, for this Board and these proceedings the way it is done is the way that we've described, which is the way the other campus plan cases were handled and even the recent case that Mr. Crockett participated in for St. Mary's.
The experience of this Board has been, as I said earlier, that later witnesses are then—You get into a situation where you're asking so many cross-examination questions of one witness that are, in fact, answered by a later witness.
CHAIRPERSON REID: You know, I think that, Ms. Dwyer, we do it different ways, but you're right. As to the other campus plans we have done—I don't know if we had so many people, though.
So as not to—So as to eliminate perhaps some of the cross-examination questions, if we can't do it, you know, half and half because of the fact that there might be some information, then maybe we should just go ahead and allow you to do your whole presentation within the two hours.
You have two hours to do it. Is that the timeline? Have we gone over the timeline yet? Okay, we'll go over the timeline and just allow you to finish it, and then—I'm sorry you have to take copious notes and then do the cross-examination of the panels. That seems to be the most expedient, maybe not ideal, but the most expedient way to handle it today.
So the timeline?
MS. PRUITT: Well, actually, you still have to deal with the request for a continuance—I mean, you asked for a postponement from Citizens Association of Georgetown and Burleith, now having been granted party status.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Burleith—Which is Burleith? Okay, now the basis for your asking for a postponement was due to additional time for mediation?
MS. SCOLARO: Yes, it was. We started with what—in all good faith, with the mediation process, and you have to understand that the people who were involved from the communities were all volunteers. Probably everybody, most of them, had a job and needed additional time, because they were working on their own time for all of these efforts.
From the very first day of mediation until we met a second time, three weeks had passed. By that time, it was—- we were heading into the Memorial Day weekend, and we just didn't feel there was enough time to get all of the information that we needed.
The mediation—What they refer to as mediations became three two-hour sessions of a rather large group of people. To my way of thinking—I attended all but one—it was presentation and not necessarily mediation.
So we felt that we did not have enough time and enough information at that point to continue on.
CHAIRPERSON REID: So your organization feels that with additional time you may be able to come to some resolution of some of the problems or issues or some meeting of the minds. Is that what your anticipation is?
MS. SCOLARO: My feeling, my personal feeling is that, if the mediation had been conducted as it was originally presented to us, we might have been able to reach, from my point of view, some resolution or some agreement on some issues. But to my knowledge, I don't recall that there was anything that was really agreed to or came out of mediation.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All right. Excuse me.
So the other one was the Georgetown Citizens Association.
MS. DOWNS: I'm Barbara Downs, President of the Citizens Association. We, too, had felt that there wasn't enough time to complete a thorough discussion of all the issues in the mediation process, and we asked for more time. But now, since the mediation has been completed, such as it was, I don't think we really have any objections to going ahead.
CHAIRPERSON REID: So you're withdrawing your request for postponement. Is that what you're saying?
MS. DOWNS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON REID: So we have only one request for postponement. Okay. You're saying that you did want to ask for postponement due to the need for additional time for mediation, but now you don't think that—
MS. DOWNS: Now I don't see any point.
The mediation process has been completed, and I don't see any point in asking for additional time.
MS. PRUITT: Madam Chair, just for a point of reference, because when we got these requests I did talk to someone from OP, since the Board and staff has not been involved in the mediation process, nor should we be.
I did find out from them that OP has completed their mediation process, and they have no more intent—There's no intention of reopening it. As Ms.—I'm sorry, Downs?—has indicated, the process, as they see it, is over with, not to say that additional mediation can't be done. It just is not going to be done under a formal setting.
So additional conversations and negotiations certainly can carry on, particularly since we have two hearing dates scheduled. But at this point my understanding is that OP will not be doing anymore formal mediation.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. And Ms. Dwyer, you are in opposition to the postponement?
MS. DWYER: Yes. Right. In our letter, we stated that, in fact, the mediation process had ended, and that the University in that process had put a compromise proposal on the table which the organizations were then taking back to take positions on.
While it certainly doesn't rule out between now and the next hearing further discussions, there's no need to delay today's hearing on the basis of mediation. In fact, the ANC-2E has already taken a position and has voted to support the campus plan based on what the University proposes.
So we feel that we're all ready to go forward today, and that there's no basis or purpose to be served by delay.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Thank you very much. So in regard to the request for postponement, Board members?
MS. ZARTMAN: Madam Chair, there is one other element that might affect your decision. My name is Barbara Zartman. I am an ANC Commissioner in 2E-04.
We have questioned with Corporation Counsel the legitimacy of the vote taken by the ANC in that a majority of the Commission met before the public meeting and developed their motion and agreed to support it in a private meeting before the ANC ever convened or the public had a chance to testify.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Wait, wait, wait, wait one second. The letter that was submitted to us from the ANC—Is that what you're referring to?
MS. ZARTMAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON REID: —states that there was a vote that was taken and that eight of the Commissioners, 100 percent, were present, and that the vote was five to three.
MS. ZARTP4AN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON REID: That was representatives of the ANC. So what are you saying? Are you saying that that didn't happen?
MS. ZARTMAN: It did happen. It was a rubber stamp meeting following up on a private meeting.
CHAIRPERSON REID: What does that mean?
MS. ZARTMAN: Corporation Counsel will clarify, as I had written requesting, but in conversations with Corporation Counsel they indicate that ANCs are not permitted to meet privately before a public meeting to pre-decide formally or informally any official business of the Commission.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Oh, I see. So you're saying that—Okay. Here's where I'm confused. Ms. Renshaw, perhaps you can clarify for me.
My understanding is that for the ANC to be able to take a vote they have to have a—
BOARD MEMBER RENSHAW: A quorum present.
CHAIRPERSON REID: —a quorum present.
BOARD MEMBER RENSHAW: That's correct. They have to debate the case in public. It must be done in a public meeting.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All right. This is indicating that there was a special town meeting.
MS. ZARTMAN: Correct. At the time that letter was written—
CHAIRPERSON REID: Is a special town meeting a public meeting?
MS. ZARTMAN: That meeting was legitimate, we believe.
MS. PRUITT: Madam Chair, excuse me, just maybe help for clarification. In your package from the ANC they do include the notice, because the ANC has to give due notice of a meeting, and I believe Ms. Zartman is saying that was done. There was a quorum present.
Her issue is that there may have been a pre-executive meeting or something where—That's your interpretation. I just wanted—
MS. DWYER: Madam Chair, this is an issue between the ANC at this point in time and Corporation Counsel, an internal issue to the ANC that does not affect whether or not we go forward with today's hearing.
The position of the ANC when it's discussed at that point in the hearing process, any questions that Ms. Zartman may have about that or any advice Corporation Counsel wants to give can be done at that time, but it's not a basis for delaying today's hearing.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Thank you, Ms. Dwyer. Ms. Zartman, why are you bringing this up as a preliminary matter?
MS. ZARTMAN: Because if this hearing were to be delayed, there would be time for a proper, duly noticed public meeting and a valid decision from the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON REID: But there is no request for a postponement from you or from the ANC or from yourself. We don't have a request in writing.
MS. ZARTMAN: It's a factor that has developed, as you see from the date of my letter to Corporation Counsel, just late yesterday.
MS. DWYER: Madam Chair, again we object. If the ANC wants to hold another meeting, there's time between now and the next hearing to do so. There is no basis for delay, no request by the ANC for delay, and I think this is an issue that should not be a preliminary issue or a basis for postponement.
BOARD MEMBER RENSHAW: Ms. Zartman, when is your next meeting?
MS. ZARTMAN: Currently, it is not scheduled until the first of August, but we clearly have the ability to schedule a meeting between now and the July meeting.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Just a moment, please.
Okay. Ms. Zartman, the letter that you have submitted to Corp. Counsel basically lays forth some objection to some procedural aspects of the way that the ANC meeting took place. Nonetheless, there was not a request for it.
At this juncture, we're getting ready to take a vote on the request for postponement, and again we do not have a request from you—a formal request from you for a postponement, and you are representing the single—you're the single member district commissioner. You're not representing the full ANC.
MS. ZARTMAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON REID: As such, the ANC has party status automatically, and they can put forth a motion, but I don't think that you can put forth a motion before this body as a single member district representative. I don't think so.
MS. ZARTMAN: I think the point I was making was that, if the vote was illegitimate, it is vacated. The ANC does not have a position and does not have party status.
CHAIRPERSON REID: No, no, no. No, that's not true. The ANC still has party status, notwithstanding the fact that a vote was or was not taken, but the party status is automatic. Now when we get to the segment of this proceeding that pertains to ANC, then we could raise this issue. Then if you want to challenge—At that point, if you want to challenge the position of the ANC, it could be done at that point. But that has nothing to do with what we are about to do now, and that is to vote as to the request for postponement from a party in the case.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Madam Chair, if I might state, at the time that the Advisory Neighborhood Commission is called upon to testify, should such issues have been raised to the extent that it cannot be assumed that their approval of the project is legitimate, then their great weight would be discounted, but that doesn't change their party status. It just means that they wouldn't have an effective position.
MS. ZARTMAN: Thank you for clarifying that. On the St. Mary's case I thought, because the ANC had not taken a position, we were not given party status.
CHAIRPERSON REID: No, you were not given great weight. In other words, if you haven't taken a position, there is—Party status is automatically granted. I think that right now we should proceed on, Ms. Zartman, and if in fact you want to challenge the ANC's position—now in that this is a two-day case, if there's something that we find that it is not—we cannot resolve today, then perhaps we could perhaps postpone that segment until the next hearing, which would then give you an opportunity to try to resolve that, and we can get a more definitive response from the ANC or response to your letter in which you were challenging their position.
Maybe that might be the more prudent way to proceed rather than taking the ANC report today.
BOARD MEMBER RENSHAW: Madam Chair, I just want to thank Ms. Zartman for bringing this to our attention, although we are not going to take it up at this time. She did say, and you were in a little mini-conference there, that the ANC's next meeting is August 1, but there may be the possibility of the ANC at the request of Ms. Zartman to call a special meeting, at which time this matter could be addressed.
Also, perhaps Ms. Zartman would bring back some of the information from this day's hearing.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Given the circumstances which you have brought to our attention today, perhaps they could arrange to have a special meeting to address this issue prior to our next hearing date. But I didn't hear you say August 1st. That would be much too long. Okay.
In regard to—
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Madam Chair, just let me ask one question of Ms. Zartman. Since you didn't make the statement in your letter, I assume that you were not present in that pre-meeting.
MS. ZARTMAN: Correct.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. In regard to the request for postponement from the Burleith Citizens Association, is there a motion to—
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Madam Chair, I move that the request for postponement from the Burleith Association be denied.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON REID: All in favor? Opposed?
BOARD MEMBER RENSHAW: Opposed.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Thank you very much. Now we'll proceed with the—
MS. PRUITT: May I call back the vote just now, though? Staff would record the vote as motion made by Mr. Franklin, seconded by Mr. Sockwell to deny the postponement. Ms. Renshaw in opposition. So it was four to one to deny.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Then now, Ms. Pruitt, can you give us a timeline?
MS. PRUITT: I have one question of the Board. Because we do have two hearings, has the Board determined how long they will meet today and when they will break for lunch? Then maybe we could let everyone know, so we can sort of plan around that or at least try to tentatively plan around that. Then we can go into the individual time frame.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Let's look at the timeline first. The applicants have two hours.
MS. PRUITT: Well, in the past, particularly on campus plans, on the first hearing of the day we usually deal with the applicant's presentation, the Office of Planning report, any other government reports and, if so, if we get to the point timewise, ANC report. That would be today, which means—which then also indicates that we've given the—the applicant will get two hours, which means that parties in opposition cumulatively also get two hours to present their case when it comes time, with organizations having five minutes and individuals having three.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Okay. Well, it's 10:25. If we allow them two hours for the applicant, I would think that perhaps that might be a good break point for lunch, at 12:25, and then come back for the cross-examination; because if we get into cross-examination, we're going to have to stop and come back. So that might be a good point. Let's say 12:30. At 12:30 lunch for half an hour?
MS. PRUITT: That's your call. That's why I'm asking.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Forty-five minutes. So we'll reconvene at 1:15 and then go up until—as long as we can. Basically, we're going to stop at around five o'clock, depending on how far we get to a good stop point, but around that time.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN: Madam Chair, I assume that at 1:15 there could be questions from the Board of the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes. Yes, the Board members can—Well, I guess it would be better to wait until after, unless you had something pressing that you really wanted to ask and you wanted to ask right away. Then you can go ahead and ask that question, but we can have the questioning to start after we come back from lunch, if everyone is in agreement to that. Then we can move forward.
MS. PRUITT: Just to reiterate then, the applicant will—We'll start with the applicant's case in a few seconds, and that will probably take us to about 12:30, plus/minus. We will break for 45 minutes and reconvene at 1:15, at which time the Board will start with questioning, followed by cross-examination from parties, and then we'll move on to OP report, and we also have a report from DPW.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Is there an OP representative?
MS. PRUITT: I believe Mr. Fondersmith—Yes. So, yes.
CHAIRPERSON REID: What about DPW?
MS. PRUITT: We have—I believe, yes. Okay? So now that—and I just want parties to understand that you all, all six people who were granted party status have two hours to present a total case.
CHAIRPERSON REID: I thought it was five. MS. PRUITT: Six out of the seven, I understood. So it will be up to you all to determine how you want to break down that two-hour presentation.
MR. CROCKETT: I understood that it was just cross-examination today, that we're not presenting our—
MS. PRUITT: You aren't, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: This is on the next—Okay.
MS. PRUITT: Correct, just so that you have an idea of your time frame and can plan.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes. By the time we get done with the cross-examination—the Board members' questioning, the cross-examination, Office of Planning report, DPW report, the persons in support, that's about—Hopefully, we can get through all of that first segment, and then come back when we come back on the 18th of July, then start off with your giving your presentation.
MR. BRAUN: Madam Chair, there's one thing that wasn't clear to me. You said two hours for the opposing six parties, but then it was also said five minutes for each organization. And five minutes for each organization would give us only a half an hour and would place a limit on what we could do—anyone could do within the five-minute time frame.
MS. PRUITT: Mr. Braun, that's five minutes for organizations that weren't granted party status.
MR. BRAUN: Okay. That clarifies it.
CHAIRPERSON REID: In other words, you all will have cumulatively two hours, and then any other organization that does not have party status, which, hopefully, there are none, will get five minutes and then individuals three.
MR. BRAUN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Thank you.
MS. PRUITT: Okay. The only case on the agenda today is Application 16566, Application of Georgetown University, pursuant to 11 DCMR 3104 for a special exception for the review and approval of the University Campus Plan - years 2000-2010, under Section 210 in an R-3 and C-l District at premises bounded by Glover Archbold Parkway to the west, National Park Service along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and Canal Road to the south, 35th Street, N Street to 36th Street, and 36th to P Street to the east and Reservoir Road to the north, including Squares 1222, Lot 62, Lot 801, Lot 802, Square 1223,
Lots 85, 86, 804, 805, 807 through 810, 812, 815, 821, 824, 826, 827, 831, 843, 846, 847, 852, 853, 855 and Lot 857, Square 1226, Lots 91, 94-101, 104, 105, 803, 804, 806, and 811-815, Square 1248, Lots 122-125, 150- 157, 800-802, 804-806, 829-831, 834 and 835 and, finally, Square 1321, Lots 815 and 817.
All those planning to testify, could you please stand and raise your right hand.
(Witnesses sworn.)
MS. PRUITT: Please be seated. Proceed.
MS. DWYER: Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the Board. For the record, I am Maureen Dwyer with Wilkes, Artis, counsel for the applicant, Georgetown University. With me today is Paul Tummonds, also with our firm. The other witnesses I will introduce shortly.
My remarks will provide an overview of the testimony and evidence you are about to receive from the other witnesses.
Since the adoption of the 1958 zoning regulations, Georgetown University has submitted nine campus plans to the Board for review and approval. The campus plan boundaries include land owned by the University and devoted to University use for over 200 years.
In all respects, this plan is an update of prior campus plans. The changes represent further study of issues discussed in earlier plans, and the differences between this plan and the 1990 plan will be addressed by the witnesses. In summary fashion, they are the following:
One, a lower level of development on the campus than was approved in 1990. In fact, this campus plan proposes one million square feet less development on the campus;
Two, a focus on the University's academic mission and needs. The last academic building on this campus was built in 1980. This plan proposes three academic buildings which are very much needed by the University;
Three, a new partnership with MedStar to ensure that the hospital and clinical components of the medical campus get back on sound financial footing and return to the levels of service they provided the community back in 1995;
Four, a modest increase in the undergraduate enrollment cap, 389 students above the current cap, in order to provide the tuition revenue needed to carry out academic programs;
Five, a new housing goal, which means that in the year 2010 the University will be providing sufficient beds on campus to house 84 percent of its traditional undergraduate enrollment; and
Six, a reorientation of the campus back to more traditional design principles through the creation of quads and more active open space on campus for student activities.
Again, all of these issues will be addressed in detail by the witnesses.
At this time I would like to call your attention to several exhibits that have been filed. in the record, but first I want to make certain that everyone is clear that, as a result of facilitation, the University has agreed to reduce its projected enrollment.
When we filed our prehearing submission, we included a cover letter dated May 30, and attached to that letter was a memorandum dated May 22 which the University distributed to the community during facilitation.
As our letter and that attachment described, the University as a result of its interest in compromise with the community has agreed to do the following:
One, reduce its projected enrollment increase by 111 students, which means that the total increase under this campus plan would be 389 rather than the 500 as originally proposed. This means that the new cap would be 5516;
Two, the University further agreed to delay any increase in enrollment above its current cap until after the southwest quad project is brought on line or until the fall of 2003;
Three, the University agreed to strengthen its off-campus student affairs program; and
Four, the University agreed that as a condition of approval of this campus plan, it would continue to update the BZA in each further processing application on its progress.
We are very pleased that the ANC has voted to accept the University's compromise and has officially filed its vote in support of the campus plan.
The other exhibits that I'd like to call to your attention are included in the book, this very large binder that we filed. For your convenience, we have also prepared an index to the exhibits, and this index might be helpful, since as the witnesses are speaking they may be referring to some of the exhibits.
The largest exhibit in this book is Exhibit 1, and that is the campus plan document. That is the same plan that was distributed to the community and discussed with the community at many, many meetings.
Another important exhibit is Exhibit 5, and that's the prior BZA order back in 1990 which approved the last campus plan. Again, where appropriate, the witnesses will be referring to this order.
Another important exhibit is Exhibit 12, and that's the letter agreement back in 1990 that established the quarterly meeting process. That was a condition of the Board's approval back in 1990, and as the witnesses will discuss, those meetings have continued over the last ten years.
Exhibit 13 is a chronology of the campus plan working group meetings. In addition to the quarterly meeting process, the University formed a small campus plan working group, and that exhibit includes the participants in that group, the chronology of the meetings, and all of the materials that were discussed at that time.
Exhibit 14 is a chart. What the University did during the campus plan working group is write down every question that was asked by the community and what the University's response was. No less than 125 questions have been asked and answered. In that exhibit are also materials that were distributed to the campus plan working group, including a housing chart that shows the University's compliance with its 1990 housing commitment.
Exhibit 16 through 26 are outlines of the witnesses' testimony.
I'd like to skip then to Exhibit 29. In that exhibit is a description of the off-campus student affairs program. Again, this was a program that was requested and required by the Board back in 1990, and I think the experience of the University and the community is that it's been a very effective program.
I would also like to ask you to turn to Exhibit 30. Again, this is a very important exhibit. What this shows are all of the renovations and improvements the University has made to its residence halls on campus.
All of the blue, green and white dots are residence halls that have been renovated and improved by the University over the last ten years. I think this map demonstrates the University's commitment to provide and retain its on-campus housing.
With that brief highlight of some of the exhibits, I am now going to turn to the witnesses. Again, for your convenience we've prepared a list of the witnesses who will be testifying and the order in which they will be presented, which is slightly different than the order we gave in our statement.
You will also note that we have eliminated two witnesses. Mike Barthoff and Steve Sher will not be presenting any direct testimony. They will be reserved for rebuttal, if needed.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Ms. Dwyer, just one question. In your representation of the letter of May 30 which was a response to the mediation, you used the term the University agreed to do certain things.
It is my belief that there was not an agreement, but that in the third paragraph the letter says the University is willing to do the following things, and there is a difference between 'agreed' and 'is willing to do.'
MS. DWYER: Well, what I hoped to convey in the letter is that the University has agreed to do this and to formally amend its campus plan, which it did. Whether the community accepts that and agrees as well is another question.
There wasn't a meeting of the minds in the sense of an agreement reached with the community, but it was an offer that the University put on the table, and it wanted to make clear when facilitation ended that this offer still stood.
So it formally amended its plan, and all of these are conditions that it will agree to include in any approval of this campus plan.
VICE CHAIRPERSON SOCKWELL: Okay. In concept, I understand what you mean now. Thank you.
MS. DWYER: All right. I would now like to call the first witness, who is Father O'Donovan, the President of Georgetown University.
FATHER O'DONOVAN: Thank you. Madam Chair and members of the Board, good morning. It is a pleasure to be with you here this morning to discuss Georgetown's proposed ten-year campus plan. We appreciate very much your interest in the University, our mission, and our tradition of citizenship and partnership here in the District of Columbia.
Since the approval of our 1990 campus plan, a great deal has happened at Georgetown. We have continued our tradition of academic excellence, earning top 25 rankings every year. We have become one of the ten to 15 most selective institutions in the country in terms of undergraduate admissions.
Our students continue to achieve distinction nationally, including more than 30 who have won Rhodes, Marshall, Luce or Mellon Foundation scholarships since 1990. Currently, 51 of our recent graduates serve in the Peace Corps.
Our Law Center ranks first in the nation in the number of graduates who go into public interest and public service law, and is regularly either first or second in the number of African American attorneys graduated, this year first.
Our medical school graduates continue to perform exceptionally well in their licensing exams and in the national residency matching program. But at the same time, like other world class universities with academic medical centers, we have experienced significant financial turbulence because of the rise of managed care, which limits reimbursements for patient care.
In the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, our medical center lost $218 million. As a result, we had to borrow $100 million, and our bond rating was lowered.
While our impending clinical partnership with MedStar Health, the local nonprofit health care organization that runs the Washington Hospital Center, will alleviate our risk of future clinically related losses, we still face substantial deficits on the academic side of our medical enterprise.
One measure of the fiscal pressures we have faced is that in 1999 the financial resources of the 15 institutions with which Georgetown competes for undergraduates increased by a mean of 10.7 percent, while our financial resources declined by 3 . 9 percent.
Looking at the future, we have limited ability to borrow money, because we are already highly leveraged; and we have limited ability to rise tuition, which right now is one of the highest in the country.
I make this point about constrained resources, because it is the context in which I hope you appreciate the strategic investments we have worked to make during the past decade. We have invested in new faculty and financial aid, because academic excellence is the core of our mission.
We have invested more than $25 million in information technology in the past three years, and on a necessity basis, not a luxury basis. We have invested significantly in our relationship with our neighboring community and the city as a whole. Please let me say a little bit more about that.
In the city: In the past decade we have become the largest provider of volunteer tutors in the D.C. Reads program, with more than 250 work-study students and volunteers working in 13 public schools and community sites throughout the District.
We funded several major youth enrichment programs that meet the needs of immigrant families, at risk youth, and college bound students at Ron Brown Junior High.
We made a founding $1 million investment in City First Bank, which provides community development assistance to the city's at risk neighborhoods.
Overall, we have assisted more than 20 public schools, including Hyde, Hardy, and Duke Ellington in our own immediate community.
Our multi-faceted efforts to strengthen ties with the neighborhoods in which our University is located is perhaps the single greatest change at Georgetown in the past decade, and it represents very large expenditures of money.
In the past decade we have spent $76 million to renovate dorms so that they didn't have. to be taken off-line for serious repairs, and are undertaking another $15 million renovation this summer. Exhibit 30 to which Ms. Dwyer pointed illustrates these sites.
We designed, gained approval for, and now have begun site work on a $140 million, 780 bed residence hall complex called the Southwest Quadrangle. This residence hall complex is 280 beds larger than we have originally announced, and builds upon the 303 beds we added earlier in the decade.
The Southwest Quadrangle necessarily includes substantial expenditures on an underground parking lot, so that we won't displace parkers, and on a dining hall, because our existing facilities can't handle 780 more students. We have developed fundraising and borrowing strategies to cover the $140 million price tag for this facility.
I want to emphasize again that this enormous commitment to providing on-campus residences for students comes at the same time that we have experienced more than $200 million in medical center losses.
In this decade we also devoted community resources to creating an Office of Community Relations, since renamed the Office of External Relations, to ensure that members of the community have a resource at the University and a voice within the University.
We created an Office of Off-Campus Student Affairs to ensure that students know our rules and our standards when they live off-campus, and we extended our student code of conduct to consider off-campus behavior.
Since 1990 we have held quarterly meetings at which community leaders and University leaders discuss important issues. We developed a bulk trash program, supported a measure to reduce the number of students' cars parked on the street, and initiated a hotline for members of the community.
I am proud to bring before you this record of achievement. When it comes to promoting academic quality and strong relations with our community, we have backed up our words with deeds and with dollars.
So it's a great pleasure to present our proposed campus plan for the next decade. We have developed this plan with rigor and care, seeking to project University needs accurately and to build on the progress we have made the past ten years in neighborhood relations.
We met regularly with representatives of the community for almost a year, providing detailed information and answering 125 questions promptly and responsively, and we have participated in facilitation meetings recommended by the Office of Planning.
I am grateful to Alan Brangman, Alice Boyer, Linda Greenan, and many other University leaders for their hard work and responsiveness.
Our 2000 campus plan has three interrelated and mutually sustaining goals. Those goals are, first, to enhance the academic excellence of the University in a time of increasing competition and fiscal constraint in higher education;
Second, to provide a physical and architectural environment on our campus that lifts the mind, builds community, and attracts students to the campus for intellectual pursuits as well as social and recreational activities; and
Third, to promote collaboration and community among the University and its surrounding neighborhoods so that all of us might realize our various goals and enjoy a common high quality of life.
There are a variety of ways that this plan realizes these goals, and you will hear more from other witnesses. Please allow me to mention some of the highlights.
First, this plan provides Georgetown with the opportunity to develop our first academic buildings on campus in more than 20 years. These include a new home for our outstanding School of Business, our first new building for undergraduate science since the 1960s, and the first performing arts center in Georgetown's history.
These new academic facilities for which we are seeking private funds are essential if we are to maintain our academic quality. It is somewhat amazing that we have not enhanced our academic infrastructure in 20 years. For our faculty, our students and our mission we simply must do so.
Second, this plan allows Georgetown and MedStar to build a successful partnership that protects the academic future of our Medical Center, while preserving a world renowned hospital that is a source of learning, life saving care, security and jobs in our community.
A new physicians' office building and new parking facility are the cornerstones of MedStar's proposal. The changes to traffic flow that we expect to occur as a result of our partnership have been studied carefully and discussed fully with the community.
As you may know, the D.C. State Health Planning and Development Agency, SHPDA, has carefully reviewed and just recently approved MedStar's certificate of need application to operate our clinical facilities.
Third, I think it's fair to say that this plan brilliantly integrates those new academic buildings and our 780 bed Southwest Quadrangle into our historic campus core and the surrounding community.
As you will hear later, we engaged the renowned architect, Robert A.M. Stern, landscape architects and transportation consultants to help us think through how best to use our limited geographical space without imposing upon the community.
This plan develops the back portion of the campus on the model of a village, creating new pedestrian walkways, beautiful quadrangles, river views, and enhanced green spaces. It will recenter student life and culture on our campus and create and even more welcoming environment for the many neighbors who enjoy strolling the grounds.
Finally, this plan recognizes and addresses the desire of neighbors who have asked us to reduce the number of students living in the community. It increases the number and percentage of undergraduates who live on campus, and dramatically reduces the number and percentage of students who live off campus.
Let me explain how. We are moving forward aggressively on the construction of the Southwest Quadrangle, and plan for it to house students in the fall of 2003. When that happens, 780 fewer students will live in neighborhoods like Burleith, West Georgetown, Foxhall and the Cloisters.
The total number of undergraduates living in these neighborhoods at that time will be about 430. This will provide an extraordinary opportunity for the local housing market to move towards families, and we certainly would be willing to do our part by encouraging faculty and staff to live nearby.
Our plan does propose giving us the potential for a modest enrollment increase, but we have tried to build into our proposal still further measures to address community interests.
We have compromised on our proposed increase to our undergraduate enrollment cap and are now asking for your approval to increase by 389 students over a ten-year period, not the 500 we originally proposed.
This campus plan calls for no increases, zero, above our current cap until the Southwest Quadrangle opens in 2003. Furthermore, once the Southwest Quadrangle opens, we are willing to phase in any enrollment increases at a rate of no more than 55 students per year.
As a result of these community focused proposals, the percentage of undergraduates living on campus will increase significantly from the current level of 77 percent, which is easily already the highest in the District. Under our plan, which we utilize the full phased in enrollment increase of 389, in the year 2010 no fewer than 84 percent of our undergraduates will live on campus.
At this moment in my testimony, I would like to tackle head on three questions that have been posed by critics in the community. The first question is: Has Georgetown fulfilled the housing commitments it made in the 1990 master plan? And the answer is, yes, we have.
Our housing commitment, which was contained in Appendix H, had several essential components, all of which we have implemented. First, we agreed to require all freshmen and sophomores to live on campus. We did that.
Second, we agreed to create an off-campus student affairs program. We did that. Third, we agreed to extend our code of conduct to all students living off campus. We did that. Fourth, we agreed to move graduate students off campus to make room for undergraduates. We did that. Fifth, we agreed to rehabilitate existing residence halls on campus. We did that. Sixth, we agreed to provide 925 new beds. on campus. We will have exceeded that by 150 beds, once the Southwest Quadrangle is completed.
I should emphasize that we did all of this, even though it was clear that our 1990 housing program was conditioned on financial ability, and especially the cogenerator project, which was blocked, as a matter of fact, in 1994.
The second question we sometimes hear is: How come you don't set a goal of having the capacity to house 100 percent of undergraduates on campus,as you did in 1990?
The short answer is that our new goal is to provide housing for 84 percent of our students for several reasons. First, this is a realistic goal. We know that in the year 2010 we will achieve it.
Second, this is a financially sound goal. Knowing how much the renovation and construction and renovation of residence halls have cost us over the last ten years, we cannot foresee having the financial ability to provide on-campus housing for 100 percent of our students.
Third, this goal takes into account the fact that we know that some juniors and seniors will choose to live off campus.
Fourth, this goal does not place us at a competitive disadvantage with those institutions against whom we compete for undergraduates.
Fifth, this goal recognizes that we now have in place a very successful off-campus student affairs program that addresses impacts from students living off campus.
A lot has changed in the last ten years. We certainly recognize that, and this is now a plan for the next ten years. Our new goal of 84 percent is realistic, financially sound, and higher than any other institution, easily. We are proud of that.
That brings me to the third question, which is: Why, in fact, is Georgetown proposing any increase to its enrollment cap, even this modest figure of seven percent over ten years?
The answer is that, as President of the University, I have an obligation to protect the fiscal foundation of this institution. It is my obligation to ensure that Georgetown has the option over the next decade for timely planning and prudent growth, if doing so is necessary to meet critical University needs.
Ten years ago, no one could have predicted to the BZA that at the end of the decade the information revolution would require Georgetown to spend $25 million, as I indicated earlier, on information technology. But we had to, and we did, and the modest enrollment growth that the BZA authorized in 1990 helped us to cover those urgent academic costs.
I am pleased to report that we have not yet reached the enrollment cap the BZA gave us ten years ago, and I hope that my successor is able to report the same to you or your successors in the year 2010. But it would be fiscally irresponsible of Georgetown, or any other university, to enter an entire decade of its existence without requesting the capacity to increase enrollment modestly if, in fact, serious academic and fiscal reasons emerge for doing so.
Those are my answers to those three questions, but I would like to leave you, too, if I may, with three questions. Do you support the mission of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic university in this nation, the oldest university in our city? Do you recognize the millions of dollars we have invested in renovating dorms, launching our Southwest Quadrangle, and creating new programs to address community concerns? Do you think a world class university is an asset for the city and the community?
I believe you do, which is why I was surprised to learn that the BZA denied our request to renovate St. Mary's Hall for our School of Nursing and for our information technology office. We were very disappointed to hear that a proposal endorsed by the Office of Planning and The Cloisters community was denied by the EZA. It was a real setback for our School of Nursing, a top 25 program that provides a great deal of indigent care in the city and may well lose some of the gifts that would have paid for the renovation.
I am hoping you will see the wisdom of that proposal, which is an element of the master plan before you. We have now lost one year in meeting critical academic needs in nursing and information technology, and we hope we will not lose more.
We ask you to support our mission, and we ask you to support our campus plan. We commit to you that we will continue to listen to and respond to the concerns of our neighbors.
We will continue working to educate students about their responsibilities as citizens. We will continue to work to hold students accountable for their actions. We will continue to develop new strategies for promoting the very best behavior among the smaller number of students who will be living in the community if you approve our plan.
This is something that the Georgetown ANG asked of us last week when they voted to support our master plan, and the answer is, yes, absolutely. We view our relationship as a partnership, and we will always do our part to listen and respond.
I would now ask that our Provost, Dr. Dorothy Brown, give her statement, which goes into greater detail about the academic focus of our 2000-2010 campus plan. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Thank you very much.
DR. BROWN: Thank you, Father O'Donovan. Good morning. I am Dorothy Brown, the Provost and the Chief Academic Officer of the main campus. I've had that responsibility for two years, but I've been a history faculty person at Georgetown since 1966 and a resident of Georgetown since 1975.
My task today is to place the bricks and mortar, the green space, the numbers of the master plan in the context of our academic strategic planning. I will talk about people, faculty and students, and our planning to support them.
This is the view from inside the university. In the strategic planning of the 1980s and Nineties, we built our faculty. We added more than 100 tender track lines, enabling us to reduce class sizes and to reduce teaching loads commensurate with our competition.
Overwhelmingly, we recruited faculty at the junior level. They have now become national leaders in their fields, and to retain them in an increasingly competitive environment, we are implementing a ten-year faculty compensation plan that is essentially a replacement model.
While, as Father O'Donovan emphasized, we are operating under fiscal restraints, it is imperative that we act to retain the faculty we have recruited and developed.
At the same time, by all measures, we have created a highly talented student body, entering the ranks of the most highly selective universities in the country. For the past 22 years, our financial aid policy has been need blind, which means we don't look at the ability to pay in our admissions.
It is also a policy to meet the full demonstrated financial need of our students. Fifty-five percent of our students receive some form of financial aid. Forty percent of our students receive Georgetown financial aid from our operating funds.
Our strategic planning is committed to the recruitment, retention of these high quality faculty and students, and now to accomplish this we must concentrate on their support in technology and facilities.
Technology, as you know, is transforming the landscape in teaching and learning and research. We have, as Father indicated, invested 25 million in the past three years in technology enhancements in classroom and infrastructure. We are now facing funding a five-year "austerity" technology plan that calls for an additional $24 million in operating funds in the next five years.
Our strategic plan, going to the board next fall, is now titled "Building the Future." We must now build the facilities to support faculty, students and programs. As Father O'Donovan noted again, we have not built a new academic facility since the Bond Intercultural Center in 1980. We have concentrated instead on construction and renovation of residence facilities, and with the completion of the Southwest Quadrangle, we will have provided 1,083 new beds since 1990.
We must continue to add student recreational and athletic space, but now it's imperative to meet our academic needs. For 20 years our survey data of graduating seniors has indicated that we need to strengthen our facilities and opportunities in the arts and in the sciences.
The Third Century campaign has garnered the funding for a new performing arts center. We have made some progress in fundraising for a new science center, where our need is greatest. It is also urgent that we provide first rate facilities for our increasingly competitive McDonough School of Business.
Plans for the renovation of St. Mary's will provide for more space for the School of Nursing, and importantly, will give us needed operational, laboratory and classroom space for technology.
To remain a leading American university, we must build these buildings. So to accomplish all of the above, to support our faculty and students, enhance technology, build new facilities, during a time of fiscal strain we must also develop additional revenue streams and retain flexibility in our planning.
Georgetown is heavily tuition dependent. Our tuition increase last year was the lowest in 25 years, and our increase for academic 2000-2001 is a modest 3.7 percent. Our tuition for next year at $23,952 places us among the highest cost of the selective colleges and universities.
To remain competitive, we must very carefully monitor and contain these tuition increases. In this master plan then, we ask for an enrollment increase of 389 traditional aged undergraduate students beyond our current cap.
As Father O'Donovan observed, we are still under the cap of our last master plan, but in the current financial reality and in the dynamic environment of American higher education, it would irresponsible to not seek this approved increase to retain flexibility in our planning.
We have also proposed added graduate enrollments. While we do not anticipate major increases in existing programs, with trends in new interdisciplinary programs, globalization and continued innovations in technology, we have to have the ability to respond programmatically.
At least half of the increases we propose would be in the distance learning area or in of fcampus locations. Additionally, to create revenue streams, two university committees are developing policies and strategies for enhanced revenue from technology transfer and partnerships. And, of course, we are in the midst of a $750 million capital campaign.
Many of these dollars are earmarked for specific projects like the Southwest Quadrangle or $63 million in financial aid. Finally, to keep our own house in order, we are looking very hard at reallocation of our existing resources.
In brief, we have a clear sense of our goals and what we need to accomplish them in this plan, and I'd just like to end on a personal note, informed by three decades of watching Georgetown and participating in academic planning and recruitment of faculty and administrators.
I've watched it be transformed from a very good undergraduate college and university to really now a leading American Catholic Jesuit university which does make significant contributions to local, national and international communities. It's worked hard. It's achieved much. It's a special place.
So I'll end with the beginning of our strategic planning, with our new University mission statement which captures that identity and anchors our planning. It's who we are and who we want to be.
Mission statement: Georgetown is a Catholic and Jesuit student centered research university. Established in 1789 in the spirit of the new Republic, the University was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding. We embody this principle and the diversity of our students, faculty and staff, our commitment to justice and the common good, our intellectual openness and our international character. An academic community dedicated to creating and communicating knowledge, Georgetown provides excellent undergraduate, graduate and professional education in the Jesuit tradition for the glory of God and the wellbeing of humankind. Georgetown educates women and men to be reflective, lifelong learners, to be responsible and active participants in civic life, and to live generously in service to others.
It's a mission we think is worth having and planning together for. Thank you.
MS. DWYER: Thank you. The next witness is Mr. Alan Brangman, and he is going to provide an overview of the physical plan, how the academic mission that you've just heard is implemented in the physical components of the campus.
MR. BRANGMAN: Thank you, Maureen. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. My name is Alan Brangman. I'm the University architect and Executive Director of Facilities Planning for Georgetown University. I reside at 211 South Oak Street in Falls Church, Virginia, and it's a pleasure for me to be before you this morning.
I'm going to change the dynamic of the meeting a little bit, because I need to get up and address you from the board. So if we have a hand mike—We don't? I need to speak very loudly then from over near the board.
MS. DWYER: No, we do have one.
MR. BRANGMAN: We do? Oh, great. Okay. It doesn't work. Okay.
MS. DWYER: And, Madam Chair, just for the record I'd like to qualify Mr. Brangman as an expert in architecture. He has previously appeared before you and been so qualified.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Yes. Ms. Dwyer, thank you very much. I think that most Board members are familiar with him, and are mindful of the fact that he has been before us many times. If there is no objection, then we will accept him as an expert witness again today.
MR. BRANGMAN: Thank you. We'll see if I can speak loud enough and you can pick me up on the recording. I'll try and make sure I project appropriately.
This morning I'm going to talk a little bit about Georgetown University and its campus plan for 2000. I wanted to first step back very quickly and give the Board a very quick orientation to backstop, really, the presentation that Ms. Dwyer has given with respect to what our limits are for the campus.
I would refer you to Figure 1 in the book, because it is a little different than the plan I have here with respect to what is currently our open space on campus, but it is essentially the same document.
The main campus, as you well know, is in Northwest Washington. It is on the west side of historic Georgetown. The campus exists on 104 acres. It is located in an R-3 district with one slight area of the campus being C-l commercial. The squares, as was mentioned earlier by Ms. Pruitt, are 1222, 1223, 1226, 1228 and then the larger area of 1321.
Georgetown's neighbors: Primarily we're surrounded by institutional, governmental and residential neighborhoods.
We currently had, as I mentioned, or have 1.4 acres. That's roughly about 4.3 million square feet of land area. We're allowed to develop to a 1.8 FAR, which has an allowable buildout of roughly 7.8 million square feet in round numbers.
Our southern boundaries are along WMATA owned land, Canal Road, Prospect Street, along to 35th Street, which is our first eastern boundary. We move north back along N to 36th, and north again to P and then all along a common border with Georgetown Visitation Prep School and also with The Cloisters community.
Our northern boundary is Reservoir Road, and then our western boundary is the Glover Archbold Park land.
As you've heard earlier, there were a number of our community members here who were petitioning for party status. The communities around Georgetown—and I will pass these photographs around for the Board to look at so that you get a little bit of idea of the extent of communities that border on our boundaries.
Those communities roughly are West Georgetown, which is located over in this area, Cloisters which is here, Burleith which is here; Hillendale which is here; and then Foxhall which is west of the campus location.
As you've heard mentioned before, Georgetown was founded in 1789. It is America's first Catholic college, and it has been a critical part of our neighborhood since that point in time. One of our original buildings, the Sherry building here, which was built in 1792 and also Old North which was built in 1795, are still critical components of our campus plan, as are many other historic and older buildings on campus.
The community has been increasingly more urban in nature over the years, has grown increasingly more urban, and the fact that those two buildings are still critical to our campus attest to the fact that Georgetown is very deeply rooted in its community beginnings.
The 1990 campus plan organized a new development type for Georgetown, and I'll move for a moment again to that original campus plan. The distinction between this plan and the plan that you have in the book under Figure 1 is that this shows the Southwest Quadrangle. In Figure 1 right now, what exists here is parking lot 3. So that is all just macadam and open parking space there.
In the 1990 plan we had proposed to develop a series of what's called podia buildings. These podia buildings, much like the Leavey Center, were earmarked to march down to the river in the center of the campus, basically changing the nature of the campus from what was an open ravine or the athletic green space that currently exists there now to a series of buildings that represented primarily mixed use facilities with parking on the lower levels, one floor of classroom and/or other academic support space, a roof that was to be either open space or athletic fields, and then either sides of those buildings, much like the Leavey Center which was the first podium, were to have either residential buildings or other academic or administrative support facilities.
As I mentioned, that was to become the center of Georgetown, the campus. That plan called for some 2.9 million square feet across the entire plan. That was the 1990 plan that was approved.
I mentioned Leavey Center as being the first of those podium buildings. That was completed in 1988. It primarily now still functions as our campus center. There's a dining facility in it. There is a conference center, hospitality center, offices for student affairs as well as the main undergraduate career center.
The 1990 plan also provided for—as you heard Father O'Donovan and Maureen speak to earlier, provided for the development of some nine buildings which this Board had approved. Seven of those buildings have ben completed to date. You can find those in Appendix D, and they primarily dealt with academic facilities, residential facilities, as well as some medical facilities.
Two of those have not been completed to date, one of which came before you late last year—actually, two which came before you late last year, one being—I'll skip to the new plan for a moment—the addition to the Leavey Center bookstore which the Board approved, and then the other was the Southwest Quadrangle which you have heard both Father O'Donovan and Dr. Brown talk about, which consists of the 780 bed residence hall, 800 car parking garage, 1200 seat dining facility, new bus maintenance facility, and the Jesuit—the new Jesuit community and administrative building.
When the Southwest Quadrangle is completed, the University will have added 1,083 beds to its housing stock. That will bring our total number of beds on campus in the fall of 2003 to 5,053. That's 89 percent of our traditional undergraduate population, will be living on campus at that point in time, and those numbers are recounted in Appendix E.
The University has also taken on a commitment for extensive renovation during the last ten years of our residential facilities, and again Father O'Donovan spoke about those.
We have put some $76 million into the upkeep of our existing residential buildings on campus, as well as we are spending $15 million in Harbin, which is getting its full refurbishment this summer and will be open in the fall. So that we are not putting any students into the community, and they will be back and that building will be completed in time for them to move into that for the fall semester. In 1992 Father O'Donovan had the vision to really begin to understand that the proposal that called for those podia buildings to become part of our future was probably not the direction that we needed to take our campus plan in.
He was involved in the commissioning of A.M. Robert Stern's office, an architect in New York, to come down, did an analysis of our 1990 campus plan, and began to look at other ways that we might begin to develop our campus rather than the creation of what I affectionately call aircraft carriers marching through the middle of our campus.
What came out of that was a series of planning goals that really moved back to the development of a more traditional campus plan scheme, and that is, in short, the development of quadrangles on campus, which would be more reflective of the Healy Lawn and the Copley Lawn and then also the Healy Quadrangle which, if you haven't been on campus, you should go, because those are very nice spaces.
The feeling was that we really needed to create more opportunities for space like that on campus.
Stern also happens to be the architect for the Southwest Quadrangle. So that is why you begin to see the development, again, of quadrangle development and the benefits that it brings to the campus plan, as we start to look at transitioning from what our 1990 plan was to what our future plan might be.
The plan also sought to organize those quadrangles based on the extension of the Georgetown grid through the campus. So as you look at the old historic grid of Georgetown and project those lines through the campus, both east-west and north-south, you begin to set up zones through the campus which then can become the planning basis for the placement of future quadrangles in the scheme, and also begin to develop a relationship for both pedestrian connection and for vehicular connection throughout the campus.
Georgetown University stands at a critical junction in its history. To maintain and improve its leadership position in higher education, Georgetown must expand its Catholic and Jesuit tradition for scholarship, service and faith and its 200 year record of achievement to meet the rapidly developing demands of the 21st Century.
Many of the goals that you've heard bQth Father O'Donovan and Dorothy Brown talk about this morning—excuse me, Provost Brown talk about this morning are also plans—or excuse me, concepts that we have tried to make sure that we've kept endeared in the master plan as we begin developing our campus plan.
Some of those are: To secure the University's position as a premier Catholic and Jesuit academic institution; to realize the University's potential as a global resource; to increase the University's contribution to research and discovery; and to extend the University's commitment to excellence in teaching and its focus on spirituality and service.
In our current environment, the continued success of our academic program is compromised by the lack of sufficient facilities in both quantity and quality. Many of you have heard me speak before, as I did when we were here for St. Mary's, that typically we are housing two to three faculty members and, in some cases, four faculty members, tenured faculty members, in one office, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what you would find with many of the institutions that we compete with.
It also makes it very difficult for us as we recruit faculty members to try and commit to spaces that they can have for both research and teaching, when we simply don't have the facilities on campus to be able to provide them with adequate space.
To fulfill the University's academic goals, the campus plan must be able to accommodate development in research, curriculum planning and delivery, information management and communications. We have to alleviate conditions of overcrowding and insufficient suitable space for existing and future academic programs.
We must provide facilities that allow Georgetown to continue to attract and retain the rare faculty who combine the finest scholarship with demanding teaching and a sincere concern for their students.
In developing the 2000 campus plan, the University has employed the following principles:
One, to provide academic—excuse me, adequate and appropriate space for existing and future programs; two, to reinforce and enhance the campus image based on its historic roots; three, to create a pedestrian campus; four, we must provide for rational vehicular circulation on campus; five, to preserve and enhance vistas within and to and from the campus; six, to preserve and enhance the University's sense of community; seven, to develop a plan sensitive to community concerns; and finally, to create a campus that provides an environment for sacred space.
I'd like to refer you to Figure 3, which is the first representation of the future campus plan, and I'd like to just take a moment to walk through that plan.
In the new master plan, we are proposing to add 1.2—1.3 in round numbers—million square feet to our existing campus facilities. That's roughly about a 36 percent lot coverage, which is about a four or five percent reduction below where we were in the 1990 plan.
There are essentially four new buildings in this campus plan, as proposed: A new science building, new business school, a new administrative and academic building, and a new physician's office building.
There are also six, possibly seven, additions in renovations in this plan, depending on how you count St. Mary's, but we are doing additions or proposing to do additions to the Leavey Center, to Lauinger Library, to Walsh which is an academic building, to Dahlgren Library, to Lombardi Cancer Center, and to the Ryan Administration Building which will become the performing arts center.
We are also proposing two major athletic renovations and additions to the campus, one being Harbin Field which will be converted into a multi-sports facility, the other being McDonough Gymnasium which will be converted to a convocation center. Then finally, two parking facilities, structured parking facilities, one on Lot A and one on Lot B.
All of this brings our FAR count to roughly 1.41, which is significantly below the allowable.
I'd like to, for a moment, just step through the campus plan so that I can show you where the new buildings are being proposed in the plan. The first, starting at the southeast corner and will move northwest, is a roof addition to the Walsh Building. This is an academic building. It is primarily the home for fine arts.
The faculty that are there now—The fine arts faculty, sculpture, painting, drawing, currently do not have studio space, typically which would be research space for them. So we've proposed a small addition to the roof of that which would provide lab space, studio space with north light to allow them to have the appropriate type of research space that type of faculty should have.
The second is roughly about 100, 000 square foot addition to Lauinger Library. This is primarily stack space and, as is the case with this, as you'll see with other additions that we propose in these buildings, any parking that is displaced by the building of this will have that parking added as part of the basement floors of that building.
The Southwest Quadrangle I mentioned already. It is located at the terminus of Prospect Street and Tondorf Drive. This is a 780 bed residence hall, the dining facility, the new Jesuit community.
To the west of that is a new softball field for women's sports. This is in order to meet our Title IX compliance requirements. There is also with that, just below the Southwest Quadrangle, a Canal Road entrance configuration which will allow for left turns out at a signalized entrance and left turns in during non-rush hour in the morning.
This is all new roadway as well that comes down to the south and western part of the campus, which is being done as part of the Southwest Quadrangle plan.
Just north of the Southwest Quadrangle is Harbin Field. This is actually—If you go back to, again, Figure 1, you'll see that Harbin Field currently is located about here. We'll be moving north when it becomes a multi-sports complex for football, lacrosse and soccer.
We are also proposing to build permanent seating, which for the first time on Georgetown's campus we will have a structured seating facility with about 60,000 square feet of fieldhouse facilities below that.
This project, in conjunction with McDonough—This will actually allow for the renovation of McDonough to take place, because all of the coach's offices, the locker rooms, the training facilities, laundry facilities and the like will move out of McDonough and into the lower levels of the multi-sports complex.
This will accommodate roughly about 4500 seats on campus, which is about 13-1400 more than what we can accommodate in that facility right now.
McDonough, which is to the west of that: We'll add a small addition on the back end of McDonough, about 15,000 square feet. We will go into the original structure, lower the basketball floor about a story and a half, gut the entire building, and then build back bleachers within the shell of the existing facility to allow for roughly about 65-7500 seats possibly, and that will become our new convocation center or newly renovated convocation center, and also will be—for the majority of our basketball games, we'll be able to plan home again on campus, so that our students won't have to go over to the MCI Center, and we can actually enhance our campus life on campus with that.
To the east of the Harbin Field, this is the Ryan Administration Building which used to be the original gymnasium for the University, if you can believe that. It's a two-story structure which was converted back in the 1960s to an administrative office building.
We're going to gut that, remove the floor that was put in, turn it back to a two-story space. That will become a black box and experimental theater, and then there will be an addition of roughly 25,000 square feet where we will be adding a 350 seat proscenium stage building.
As Father O'Donovan said earlier, for the first time this will be the first real performance venue that we will have on campus, and again we think that this will enhance our student life on campus and provide another opportunity for students to remain on campus for activity rather than going off.
To the north of Harbin Field, this is in the existing plan the baseball field. In the future, that will become the site for a new business school which will develop a quadrangle again in the scheme of moving forward with the Stern plan.
Then to the east of that will be the new science facility which will house chemistry and biology in that new facility, which will also then create a new quadrangle adjacent to the ICC, Rice and the corner of the Leavey Center.
On top of the Leavey Center we still have the ability to add an additional three floors above the bookstore addition that we're doing now there. So that tower will probably end up being student activity space immediately adjacent to the student activity tower that's on top of Leavey.
To the north of Leavey is the medical center. Right now—and you'll hear some discussion perhaps later from John Green about the new proposed physician's office building. Cover Cogan currently exists here, which is shown on the existing plan here. That building will be demolished, and the new physician's office building will be put in its place.
North of that there's a proposal for structured parking, and the north of that there is also a placehold for a future academic or administrative office building for the main campus.
All the way at the top of the plan, we are also proposing to do structured parking on what is currently a surface lot at St. Mary's. Then the other two placeholds in the plan are the addition above Lombardi Cancer Center, if needed, and then also an addition to the Dahlgren Library, if needed.
As I mentioned, that represents all of the building that we'll be doing in this master plan. It's a little over 1.2 million square feet. There are also other opportunities that come about as a result of doing the Southwest Quadrangle, as a result of doing the new business school and the new science center.
The current dining facility which serves this portion of campus, which is primarily residential down in this area, is in New South. When the new dining facility opens, New South will be decommissioned as a dining facility. That space will be turned into student activity space as well.
Students have been clamoring over the last couple of years that they need an additional student center to augment the facilities that we have in the Leavey Center.
When chemistry and biology move out of Rice and when chemistry moves out of White Gravenor, those spaces will be renovated into additional office space for, in the case of Rice, the sciences that will remain in that building, computer sciences and physics and the science library. The space in White Gravenor will be renovated to additional classroom and administrative space for some of the departments that remain in that area.
Then finally, when the new business school is built, the undergraduate school that currently—for business is located, and the Dean's office is located in Old North. That will be turned back over to other academic space as well, which will allow us to move some of the departments out of the ICC and relocate some departments from some of the other areas of campus in order to meet one of those critical needs that we've got in some of those buildings, which is allowing those departments that are in those buildings to spread out and get a little elbow room.
Again, this is the bulk of the plan. Very briefly, I just wanted to touch on the uses that are proposed under the plan.
This is the existing land use document for the campus. What we have done primarily is move from a more global zoning category, which I believe you have also seen in some of the presentations that you may have gotten from other universities in attempt to try to make it more understandable, since there were three campus plans coming forward this year.
We are all using the same type of zoning categories, academic, administration, residential, campus life and athletic, medical/health care, and then commercial.
We are primarily the first three categories. We have very little commercial space on campus. It's primarily Wisemiller 1789 on the corner of 36th and Prospect Street. The balance of the campus are those other uses.
Generally, so that you understand the comparison between what we are proposing now and what we were doing before, academic/administrative space is a combination of what used to be the educational category and the educational mixed use category. So those have been collapsed into one category, as well as the educational support.
The medical/health care has been a collapsing of medical, hospital and clinical with the medical support and parking. It all came under that category, and then resident/campus life is a collapsing of the recreational and residential into one category.
The only differences on the future plan between what is currently existing and what we propose in the future: St. Mary's previously was mixed use. Under the plan now it is administrative and academic office use.
The New South is a combination of residential and also administrative space. That's where my offices are. In the future we would propose that that would go again to one use, which would be the residential and campus life category.
Then—Actually, I think those are the only major changes with respect to land use for the plan.
So that brings to a conclusion all of the space and change that we are proposing in the new master plan. As I mentioned, it is significantly less than what was proposed under the 1990 plan.
MS. DWYER: Mr. Brangman, could I ask you just to address one more point, and that is the circulation on campus, the difference between the north and south.
MR. BRANGMAN: I'm sorry, going too fast. Thank you, Ms. Dwyer.
I'm going to go back a moment to the previous drawings, because they are a little easier to read in that respect.
Currently, we have seven entrances, main entrances, on campus, actually eight, although we do not use the historic Healy entrance as actively as we use the others. There are gates. We keep the gates open, but it is basically a restricted traffic flow for that area.
Prospect Street entrance under the new plan will remain open, and under the Southwest Quadrangle plan will remain open. This is Tondorf Drive, which is the main service and circulation spines for the campus. It goes all the way from the southern portion of the campus to entrance 1, and there's entrance 2, entrance 3, and entrance 4 on Reservoir. Then we also have a minor exit-only right next to the Cloisters. Then the other entrance onto campus is the Canal Road entrance, which I spoke of earlier.
There are—In the current configuration there are gates at either side of the Leavey Center on the east and on the west. We did these as part of the 1990 campus plan in order to restrict through-traffic on campus at the request of our neighbors. Those gates are still operational. When you hear us refer to North Campus and South Campus, it's generally with respect to the fact that it's separated at the Leavey Center by those gates.
In the new campus plan we are proposing to turn the campus into a more pedestrian area in the heart of the campus. So as part of the redo of Harbin Field as well as the development of the quadrangles, Tondorf Drive will no longer go all the way north through the campus, but will shift to the west and over to a new north/south service road and access road which will sit between Yates, the power plant and then the new business school and the Leavey Center.
This will still be gated under this plan. That will not change. There will still be a gate over on the east side of the Leavey Center, although as I mentioned, all primary traffic will be going north/south on this center roadway up to what we call Lombardi Circle.
The other change under this plan is that we are proposing to provide a loop road form entrance 4 across the new research building, Dahlgren Library and the Lombardi Cancer Center into Lombardi Circle, and then further east along the Leavey Center and then north up through entrance 1.
We are currently looking at a study to determine whether or not we'll do one-way traffic in from entrance 1 and loop out through 4 or in from 4 and loop out through 1. That's one of the things that we're looking at as part of some of the conversations that we've been having with the community.
The other piece of this is that there will also be a service-only roadway all the way over on the west side of the campus. It only exists currently down to about the bottom of Yates here and up to McDonough, and we are proposing to connect that so that our service vehicles, landscape vehicles in particular, maintenance vehicles for servicing the campus will be able to use this road in order to get back and forth between north and south and not have to interfere with other service vehicles, as vendors who are coming from outside, taxicabs and parkers who need to get up to the Leavey Center from the south entrance.
These will also be gated at both ends, north and south, just below the loop road connection and just above the new Canal Road entrance down here, again in order to make sure that we don't have traffic that is communicating from Canal Road up to Reservoir Road.
The pedestrian portion of the campus in here—this will all be turned over to pedestrian traffic. Servicing will be done by spines that come in off of that main road, but the intent again is to try and turn this portion of campus, which is very hectic right now with that main service drive coming through, into a more pedestrian environment like the front lawn is, so that the students will effectively be able to walk freely within that entire portion of the campus, meeting one of the goals, as I had stated, under the master plan.
MS. DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Brangman.
I will now ask the next three witness to come forward and to be as brief as possible in their testimony. The next witness is Ms. Linda Greenan, the Assistant Vice President for External Relations. She is going to discuss the community meeting process that has taken place.
She will be followed by Jeanne Lord, who heads up the off campus student affairs program.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Did you say your next three?
MS. DWYER: Yes. My third witness should be up here, Mr. John Green.
CHAIRPERSON REID: Then after these three there's one more panel.
MS. DWYER: One more panel.
MS. GREENAN: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Linda Greenan, and I am Assistant Vice President for External Relations at Georgetown University.
My office serves as the University's liaison to the city as well as to the local community. I report to the President of the University through the University's Chief of Staff.
The office was created in 1994 by Father O'Donovan to provide an ongoing mechanism for the community and the University to communicate and to provide a way in which the community's concerns could be voiced and acted upon.
Last year I purchased a home at 3835 5 Street and, therefore, I am a resident of Burleith. Iwas going to talk a little bit about some of the efforts that my office makes with respect to city-wide matters, but because we are running a little late, I'll skip over that, but just to say, to give you a sense of it, that one of the things that my office recently did was to work with our School of Business which provided a year long technical assistance program to just about every community development corporation in the city.
That's the other type of function that my office serves. The primary office that my office serves is to work with the immediate community. In that regard, my office coordinates the quarterly community meetings that were mandated by the BZA in connection with our 1990 campus plan.
These meetings began in September of 1990 and have resulted in approximately 40-some meetings since then. The meetings are open to 14 different community neighborhood associations that surround the University, all of whom take turns hosting the meetings.
The University maintains the mailing list, which consists of right now about 250 individuals, although attendance is typically more around 25 to 30 individuals representing different organizations around the community.
Representation from the University at these meetings generally includes myself, the University architect, the Assistant Dean of Students, and the Executive Director of Facilities.
The agenda for these meetings—again, this is the quarterly BZA meetings—is set by the community, and ranges anywhere from issues that are relevant to BZA matters, such as upcoming cases or things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the BZA such as a report on our capital campaign. In short, whatever the community wants to discuss in these meetings, we do.
These meetings are also attended by the Georgetown Current, which is the local community newspaper that publishes once a week. They generally always write an article following the meeting. So the larger community is thus kept informed of our meetings and the various issues affecting the community.
The BZA quarter meetings served as a model in the development of our community working group on our campus plan. In June 1999 I wrote to the 14 community groups and asked them to appoint two representatives each to serve on the community group.
All organizations but two, ANC-3D and Wesley Heights, responded. In addition, a representative from the Office of Planning attended nearly every meeting and, similar to the BZA quarterly meetings, the Georgetown Current had a representative or had a reporter at every meeting, again writing an article about all of the meetings, thus keeping the larger community informed.
A record of both the BZA quarterly meetings and the community working group meetings can be found in your appendix there.
We began in September 1999, and met eleven times over an eight month period. The community was kept fully informed as the plan was being developed. In fact, throughout that period of time the plan was being developed, and actually helped to shape some aspects of the plan, such as increasing our student activity space.
During this time we responded to 125 questions and provided additional requested information in the form of attachments to the Q&A matrix and/or separate handouts. This matrix is attached to the binder in Tab 14.
In March, at the suggestion of the Office of Planning, we began discussions about entering into facilitation. In mid-April, with the prospect of facilitation beginning soon, we gave up our May BZA hearing date with the expectation that facilitation would yield consensus on two of the major issues, one being housing/enrollment, the second being traffic on Reservoir Road.
Facilitation began in mid-May and concluded after four meetings. With respect to the two issues, the meetings resulted in the formation of a community task force, including DPW, to identify and address area-wide traffic issues along Reservoir Road; and as you've heard earlier, the University suggested a proposal with respect to housing and enrollment which reduced our enrollment goal, delayed the implementation of that goal until the Southwest Quadrangle is occupied in the fall of 2003, and committed to a phasing in of any new enrollment over that period of time.
While this proposal was not accepted by the community groups participating in the facilitation, it was adopted as part of ANC-2E's resolution, which I believe you have in front of you.
As you know, the BZA approved the Southwest Quadrangle project in 1999. Therefore, it is part of our existing plan. When this project is completed in the fall of 2003, 780 new beds will be added on campus, resulting in an overall increase of 1,083 new beds under the existing plan.
At occupancy, we will be housing 90 percent - close to 90 percent, 89 percent, of our traditional undergraduates on campus. If the BZA were to authorize the 389 increase and if we were to reach that number, we would be housing 84 percent of our undergraduates on campus by the end of 2010.
Thus, 84 percent would be a minimum percentage at which we would reach—which we would reach, and is substantially higher than any university in the city. It is our strong opinion that, with the Southwest Quadrangle, we will have more than fulfilled our housing commitment stated in the 1990 campus plan.
In fact, given that the cogeneration facility was stopped because of community pressure, we question any obligation on our part to such a commitment, the cogeneration facility being a precondition of that commitment. I would point out that the Office of Planning, in connection with the St. Mary's BZA hearing, concurred with this opinion.
Nevertheless, as stated by Father O'Donovan and Dr. Brown, we have increased our on-campus housing, and we will do so by a substantial amount come fall of 2003.
In this regard and in ways that other University witnesses will discuss, the University has worked hard to be a good neighbor. We are constantly reaching out to inform, to listen, to respond. I'm extremely proud of my work and the work that my office does on behalf of Georgetown University, and extremely proud of the work of my colleagues in this regard. the BZA quarterly meetings we work as a team. We regularly meet internally to consider carefully, literally, everything that we do that will have an impact on the community, and always with a view to how we might be able to mitigate any such impact, often at great financial cost to us.
As you will now hear from Jeanne Lord, these efforts extend beyond what I have described, and I'm proud to say what she will discuss is often discussed outside of the University as a model of town-gown relations. Thank you.
MS. LORD: Thank you, Linda. Good morning. My name is Jeanne Lord, and I'm the Assistant Dean of Students at Georgetown University. Like Dr. Brown, my family and I have lived within a few blocks of the University for over 20 years now.
CHAIRPERSON REID: What is your title again?
MS. LORD: Assistant Dean of Students.
I thank you for the chance today to talk briefly, and I will abbreviate my remarks, about the work that we do in the Office of Student Affairs at Georgetown.
The function of our office is to enhance the educational mission of the University, and we do that by providing opportunities for students to learn and grow outside the classroom. Father O'Donovan and some other of the witnesses have already touched on some of this in their testimony, but I'd like to just go briefly through a couple of things that we do.
We have an Office of Volunteer and Public Service that allows our students to work in public service projects internationally, nationally and locally, and it's this local work, the opportunity to reach out and get to know people in the District of Columbia that's so meaningful to so many of our students.
They participate in Habitat for Humanity. They work with children in Best Buddies. They even have a group they sponsor called GU Melody, which provides music lessons for low income students in the District of Columbia, and this is extraordinarily important to them in their time at Georgetown.
Father O'Donovan also mentioned our Center for Minority Educational Affairs and the tremendous work that they do in tutoring programs and to literally shepherding some students from the seventh grade through preparation for college. This is an enormously successful program and has been conducted virtually single handedly by one professional person, Tom Bullock, in that office with help from Georgetown students.
Again, this is, for some of our students, some of the most meaningful part of their time, the most meaningful work they do while they are at Georgetown.
We also have a very energetic and vital Office of Student Programs which, as the name suggests, runs—helps students run the newspaper, student organizations, drama, musical groups, that sort of thing.
Clearly, they do this because this is an important part of education for students while they are at Georgetown. But it's also in part in response to the oft repeated request from the community that we provide opportunities for our students to become involved in things on campus, that we make our campus a vital and attractive place for Georgetown students.
I hope you can hear from what I've said and from the testimony of some of my colleagues that our students are deeply committed to public service, to co-curricular activities, and to academics.
I will say that I have met some truly extraordinary young people in the time that I've been in Georgetown; but, of course, they are also college students. They are young people, and they face the same kinds of challenges and concerns that people their age face everywhere.
So an important part of our responsibility is to help them meet these challenges successfully. In addition, many of these students live in the community as our neighbors. So it's important that. we educate them, we encourage them, and we expect them to be thoughtful and responsible young people.
Father O'Donovan recognized this in 1990 when he created the Office of Of f Campus Affairs, and at that time he acknowledged that Georgetown has a responsibility to its neighbors and strives to be a constructive, responsive, helpful neighbor and a valuable resource.
That commitment is as strong, if not stronger, today than it was ten years ago. We've developed a strategy to carry out this mission, and it's a three-pronged approach that consists of education, accountability, and responsiveness.
The first prong is education, and that starts the week that students—that first year students arrive at Georgetown. When they arrive on campus in the fall, they are given a student handbook which is sort of their guide to life at the University.
This year for the first time on the cover of that handbook will be an ethos statement, which articulates our expectations of our students at Georgetown. The ethos statement reads in part that membership in this Georgetown University community carries with it high expectations regarding the ways in which each person will act, both within and beyond Healy Gates, which is our way of saying to them that we expect as much of them when they are out in the community as we do when they are on campus or sitting in a classroom.
Another significant part of our educational outreach to students is an off campus orientation which, I believe, is the only program of its kind in the District of Columbia. It's a mandatory program for sophomore students which exposes them to information about local laws and ordinances, safety, what days trash is collected in the neighborhood, issues of that sort.
The information which is in this program will be reinforced this year for the first time in our newly reconstituted Office of Of f Campus Housing, which is going to be located in the Auxiliary Services Department.
This is going to serve two functions. One—and this is very important—is to have a wide range of housing available to students so they know of things that are directly outside the area surrounding the University. The second is to provide a series of lectures which will reinforce the kinds of information that we present to them for the first time or the second time in the off campus orientation program.
We also publish a guide to off campus living, periodic newsletters, and a variety of different fliers and pieces of information to reinforce this information.
An extremely important part of our educating our students at Georgetown, too, is our alcohol education program. This also begins during their first year in the residence halls. There are a number of programs that I won't go into in detail right now.
We have in addition programs for students who are recognized as having some sort of problem with alcohol or substance abuse, run both by health education in our office and by the Department of Psychiatry in the hospital, and these are programs that are available to all of our students, should the need arise.
The second part of our off campus program is accountability. In 1990 we instituted a weekend hotline which allows people in the community to call us on Friday and Saturday nights to report concerns. In 1996 in response to community requests, we added what we call an on-site person who a
