Campus Plan archive

Included in this document are both current and old postings to the Burleith Website concerning the proposed year-2000 Georgetown University campus plan. Latest information on the plan will remain posted on the home page or in the online Burleith Newsletter (accessible from the home page).

November 2, 2000: Submission and response

We include here references to HTML versions of the Georgetown University submissions filed on October 6 and the community response to those submissions. The University filing was in response to requests made by the Board at the September 5 hearing.

At the hearing, the Board also requested the community (and/or the ANC) to submit a statement of hat constituted "acceptable" student conduct. The community parties submitted such a statement by the October 6 deadline, but its legitimacy was questioned by the University, which contended that only the ANC was entitled to file such a statement. The ANC statement, passed by unanimous bote at the October 30, 2000 meeting, is linked below.

Unfortunately, it is not possible (in a finite time) to post all of the appendices or even all of the correspondence. What is given below is the full text of the University's cover letter and point-by-point table of responses to the BZA requests. Posted material from the community includes the responses to that material, plus a table filed as appendix D to the community response.

List of posted submissions

• University Cover letter and point-by-point chart.
• Community Response chart and table comparing Georgetown to its "peer institutions" in terms of percentage of undergraduates housed on campus.
• ANC 2E Statement on acceptable off-campus student conduct.

September 5, 2000: Status report

Note that the BZA has postponed decision on the plan, poending receipt of more information from the University. Next potential date for a ruling is November 8

The Board of Zoning Adjustment has held two hearings on the proposed Georgetown University campus plan, the first on June 13 and the second on July 18. No further hearings are planned. The record will remain open for written submissions, however, until July 28.

The hearing process did not go badly for the community. Testimony at the second hearing moved the Board to chastize the University for its inability or unwillingness to educate its students on proper behavior. University representatives were charged, in particular, to return to the Board only when they have developed a strong program to manage student behavior. The Board is expected to reach a decision by early September, but both the date and the decision depend on many factors.

The verbal scolding does not mean that tough action will follow. The Board, in making its decision to approve, deny or modify the proposed plan, must also take into account a very favorable ANC recommendation and generally supportive reports by the Office of Planning and DPW.

The deadline has passed for submissions from the public. For more information, call the BZA at 727-6311.

July 21, 2000: Community position (a brief summary)

Six community citizens associations are parties to the campus plan procedings, taking a position against approval as proposed. These six include all of the citizens associations in the vicinity of the University, except for Cloisters West Homeowners Association. The community parties are (west to east):

• Foxhall Community Citizens Association
• Hillandale Homeowners Association
• Burleith Citizens Association
• Cloisters in Georgetown Homeowners Association
• Georgetown Residents Alliance
• Citizens Association of Georgetown

Each community has its particular concerns and priorities, but all six communities support a single position on the plan. The position given here is written by Peter Pulsifer, and represents a Burleith perspective on the community stand. But it substantially represents what the communities have agreed to.

At the July 18 BZA hearing, the community parties were given two hours to present their concerns. Following is a brief summary of the principal issues.

Preliminary considerations

Importance of strong neighborhoods to the city (and to the University). Well-established and cared-for neighborhoods are the bedrock of the living city. Thriving neighborhoods provide more than just a good place to live for their occupants-and a solid tax base for the government-they reduce commuter traffic, reduce crime, provide an attractive destination for visitors, and promote long-term community connections that strengthen the civic fabric of the District. Georgetown University, for one, has greatly benefited from its proximity to strong neighboring communities, which give it both a higher quality of life and a recruiting advantage compared to some of its competitors.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for large institutions like Georgetown University and its competitors to coexist peacefully with residential neighbors. It's all too easy for pressures within the institution to overbalance concern for community needs. In the end, it is up to our government, through agencies like the BZA, to protect us.

Strong neighborhoods are not inconsistent with a strong University. Because community opposition to parts of the campus plan is sometimes portrayed as opposition to the University itself or to its students, we want to emphasize that all of our community organizations strongly support Georgetown University and desire its success as a top-ranked institution of higher learning. Our desire is to have a University of which we can be proud, attended by students of the highest academic caliber, who would after all be the best neighbors. We want the University to grow in excellence, as we know it can, while also recognizing the limits to its physical growth imposed by its location on a finite-sized campus within a densely populated residential community.

We support most of the goals of the plan, as articulated by Father O'Donovan. We certainly support the overall design philosophy and the rejection of the podia concept. We support the proposed infrastructure improvements and have no conceptual criticism of the new academic buildings. We strongly support the goal of reinvigorating campus life, as long as such improvements are primarily for the benefit of Georgetown University students.

Where we have concern is where the University, in its current or future operations, intrudes into the community and causes sometimes unintentional harm.

Bases for community objection

Recognizing the importance of preserving the livability of residential neighborhoods such as ours, DC law mandates that University operations not be objectionable to neighboring property because of "noise, traffic, number of students, or other objectionable conditions". Georgetown University has failed this test: Present University operations are objectionable to neighboring property, The proposed plan, while in many ways an improvement over the present plan, fails to address existing impacts (especially those of student impact and traffic), and we fear that some future operations in the proposed plan could make things worse.

One striking attribute of the proposed plan is the large number of unknowns even before execution of the plan is to begin. This has led to a great deal of conjecture, especially regarding impacts from number of students and traffic. For example, major development projects (Canal Road, Southwest Quadrangle) are underway and won't be completed for many years. The change in Medical Center operations due to the MedStar acquisition will begin next year with a massive reallocation of parking and be phased in over several years. Also significant are the changes in University administration in next two years (a new Dean-or "Vice President of Student Affairs"-starts this year and a new President in about two years). The current (1990) campus plan was completed in the waning years of the former University President's term, and this may be a significant reason why it was only partially fulfilled: only 20% of the gross square footage of proposed development in that plan was completed, most of it in a different form from originally approved.

Because of these unknowns and the consequence on the planning process, it might be more appropriate for the BZA to approve a more modest, five year campus plan instead of committing to the full ten years of the current proposal.

1. Opposition to any increase in the enrollment cap

The proposed enrollment increases are by far the greatest community concern. There is community opposition both to undergraduate and graduate student increases, but people are most upset about the increase of 389 students in the undergraduate enrollment cap. Neighbors, all of the local newspapers, and even the student press have all expressed opposition. (Copies of the newspaper editorials have been submitted for the record.)

The basic reason the Board should maintain the present cap is as follows. It is accepted by all parties that large numbers of students in the community cause a negative impact, because of behavior, housing and other issues. The many strenuous University efforts to mitigate this impact-described in testimony-have helped, but not solved the problem. It is therefore an unavoidable conclusion that increasing the cap will increase objectionable conditions in the community because of numbers of students. The Board cannot allow this increased impact.

It may be that opening of the SW Quadrangle will reduce the impact as promised; this is a matter of conjecture, and in any event the SW Quadrangle is outside the proposed plan. But there's no denying that an enrollment increase, particularly without on-campus housing, will make things worse than they would otherwise be. The question the Board must answer is, after the SW Quadrangle is completed, should the University then be permitted to increase its negative impact as prescribed in the proposed plan?

2. Traffic impact

Traffic is a second major concern, both on the north and south campus. To the north, concerns are about Medical center development exacerbating existing flow problems on Reservoir Rd. To the south, concerns are about special events in new facilities (the greatly expanded football stadium and basketball arena, and the theater).

Overall, the community is very unhappy with the poor state of knowledge about traffic conditions around the University and the limitations this places on the University's ability to respond to any problems that do arise. The Office of Planning has advocated a "spirit of openness" and sharing of information, but the fact is, there is no information to share!

3. Off-Campus operations

Off-Campus operations by the University in the community should be known, because of their close relationship to on-campus operations and their comparable impact on the community.

One example is the use of the Wormley School, which Georgetown University has attempted to develop as a "matter of right" with minimal public disclosure and in a different way from how it promised when it bought the property. Another is the Car Barn, in which a huge amount of space - and business activity - has been dedicated to the University's Business School. Because it is just outside the official campus boundary, none of the Car Barn activity has been disclosed by the University as part of the campus plan process.

4. Medical Center operations under MedStar

First, there is a zoning issue: DC law specifies that only a University Medical Center is entitled to claim a special exception to operate in our R-3 residential zone. If this holds up, MedStar has no right to operate the GU Medical Center according to its purchase agreement. If not, we don't know under what law MedStar will operate under. These legal questions must be cleared up (and the Zoning Administrator has promised to do so).

Second, we are concerned about higher-intensity uses that MedStar might consider that may be incompatible with a teaching hospital (including possible commercial uses, increase in trauma care, and others). One particular concern about trauma care was that the number of helicopter flights to the Medical Center might substantially increase, adding to the noise and increaseing the possibility of a crash in the neighborhoods. We ask that restrictions be placed on such activities.

5. New high-density development on campus

The vista onto the north campus from Reservoir Rd is an important part of the neighborhood environment. New construction planned for the north (Reservoir Rd) campus will change the character there by blocking the view with tall buildings. Georgetown University is within the Georgetown historic district, so campus development should be historically appropriate and consistent with the near neighbors. The further urbanization of the north campus now planned will increase the noise and activity level in the residential area.

We ask that the BZA carefully examine this aspect of the plan and mandate action to mitigate this problem.

6. Flaws in the plan and planning process

The description of current and future use by four categories is inadequate. Municipal use and zoning regulations have far more categories of use than the proposed plan, and in fact the use categories therein cannot be used or any other purpose than this plan. The system of four categories used in the proposed campus plan does not meet the requirements of a campus plan because such a system is not adequate to evaluate impact. We urge the BZA to require greater specificity of the University before approving the campus plan.

The proposed plan lacks important information, and this makes it harder to evaluate the community impact. In most cases, we have asked for the University for this information, but no real answer was provided. For example, the plan:

1. lacks important information about existing University buildings (we weren't given the sizes of existing buildings, just the height);
2. doesn't give the actual uses of existing buildings or changes in use since 1990;
3. omits properties owned by GU inside and outside campus boundary. We urge the BZA to require the University to supply this information to the community and include it in the plan before approving the campus plan;
4. gives no description of University expansion within Georgetown beyond campus boundaries, such as Wormley School and the Car Barn;
5. omits the present extent of open space, how this would change for each project, and the size of open space at the end of the ten-year period;
6. doesn't mention the site of the easement granted for the Canal Rd entrance. (The easement will limit planning flexibility on campus);
7. has no assessment of current programs and their needs and a projection of future growth (for both current programs and new programs).

7. Other concerns

These include in particular the noise from University-sponsored and University-sanctioned events. The University noise policy, in Appendix K of the draft plan, is overly permissive because it allows University operations that are offensive to the community because of their noise. (It allows loud music to be played on campus - for example, on the roof of the Leavey Center - until 11 p.m. on weekdays and 1 a.m. on weekends). The noise policy also allows behavior that would be contrary to District law.

One of the greatest problems now is how to objectively evaluate the community impact of the University (especially due to students and traffic). With the DC government still almost disfunctional, and after years of town-gown sparring, there are no trusted arbiters. If a solution could be found to this problem, it would allow the BZA to give the University more flexibility without concern that the community would be harmed. But finding a solution will be very challenging.

June 6, 2000: ANC rejects community, endorses campus plan

On June 6, 2000, ANC 2E held its Town Meeting on the proposed Georgetown University campus plan. After hearing a University presentation and over an hour of complaints from the community about the plan, the ANC summarily voted, 5-3, to "support the campus plan as presented by the University."

The overwhelming majority of community members voiced concerns about off-campus students, and urged the ANC to vote to limit the 500-student enrollment increase that the University desires.

Some community members were concerned about traffic impact from the development in the plan, and criticized the University's traffic studies as inadequate. Traffic concerns were mostly about the four new buildings and garages on the north (Medical Center) campus, but there is also some question about how the new basketball arena and theater complex will be used.

Some community members were unhappy about how the University described use of its buildings, putting each into one of four categories.

The ANC ignored all these concerns and voted to request no changes or conditions on the current plan.

The motion to endorse the plan was proposed by Commissioner Bill Starrels (replacing Jonda McFarlane as representing lower Georgetown) and seconded by Fran Goldstein (Hillandale). Voting for it were Starrels, Goldstein, Art Schultz (champion of the student block party), Mark Ryan (Northeast Georgetown) and Matt Payne (a Georgetown undergraduate). Voting against the blanket approval were Peter Pulsifer (Burleith and north Georgetown), Barbara Zartman (Cloisters and central-west Georgetown) and Scott Polk (Foxhall). There was little debate on the motion itself; the only active defense of the motion came from Schultz, who said, "there was a lot of misinformation said here tonight" and "it is unrealistic to expect the University to house 100% of its students." Goldstein echoed the latter remark, and said something about how hard it is to send kids to college.

If you oppose this decision, you must take your case directly to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Attend the hearing on July 18, where public comments will be heard, and speak for yourself. Call the Board at 727-6311. You can also send in written comments to the Board, at the following address: