Members of the community arrived at the first public engagement meeting on the next UDC Campus Plan eager to hear about the university’s goals for the next decade. The University of the District of Columbia is, after all, an important cultural, community and commercial hub, and one with a growing presence, if not in its student body, in its physical size. But some attendees expressed disappointment and frustration with the February 18th proceedings.
“It was outrageous,” said Bill Breer, a longtime Forest Hills resident and Forest Hills Citizens Association board member. He had expected an outline of a plan. “Without that, there could be no real discussion,” he said.
The public engagement process is a required step as the university prepares to submit its 2021-2030 plan to the District Zoning Commission in August. The current plan expires at the end of the year.
Breer and his wife Peggy arrived at the public meeting a few minutes late, after introductory remarks by Stephen Varga, a consultant from Cozen O’Conner. His PowerPoint presentation included an overview of the campus plan process and a zoning map that highlighted the campus boundary in blue (below). Other than the Student Center, Connecticut Avenue properties that UDC owns or controls did not fall within the boundary. That came as a surprise, because it now holds the master leases for 4225 and 4250 Connecticut Avenue. Between those buildings and its law school at 4340 Connecticut, the university controls as much as 90 percent of the vacant retail space along the Van Ness commercial corridor.
The zoning map used in the February 18th presentation.
Attendees were further surprised to learn that their input was to be restricted to the area outlined on the zoning map. That would leave feedback on the commercial spaces off the table. This unexpected constraint was clearly stated by Varga, and was confirmed by Avis Russell, the acting general counsel to the university. The restriction did not seem in keeping with the 2011-2020 campus plan, which includes many references to UDC’s relationship to the Van Ness commercial area.
Participants were asked to participate in a “SWOT” analysis. They sat at tables with blank sheets of paper labeled “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.” Attendees were to have discussions among each other and fill out the sheets of paper. Some stated that it would be difficult to provide input since their knowledge about the university was limited.
Dipa Mehta, a former Van Ness Main Street board member, was one of those raising the issue of the lack of context. She asked Eric Thompson, UDC’s vice president of real estate and facilities, to provide a quick overview of its six-year capital plan. He briefly explained that the buildings on campus needed to be rehabbed. He spoke about the master leases for 4225 and 4250 Connecticut Avenue, and the plan to purchase 4250 Connecticut for $37 million. (At its own meeting that night, ANC 3F passed a resolution in favor of the purchase, with conditions.) He did not mention that UDC houses the DC Institute for Politics, Policy, and History, or the plan to give the DC Archives a home on campus (also the subject of an ANC 3F resolution that night).
Some of the feedback recorded by consultants can be found here. Not included in these notes are concerns some participants raised about university’s declining enrollment. When UDC was drawing up its 2011-2020 plan, around 5,800 students were enrolled in its degree programs. It set a goal for the next decade of increasing enrollment to 10,000, but reduced that number to 6,000 after discussions with the Zoning Commission. The current campus plan states:
“This enrollment increase is needed to permit the University to develop its programs and attract and retain talented students and faculty. The proposed enrollment will be easily accommodated within existing campus academic and administrative infrastructure, much of which is currently underutilized.”
In spring 2019, total enrollment, including part-time, community college and law school students, was 4,270. Even so, UDC’s footprint is growing. Gloria Garcia, the new executive director of Van Ness Main Street, understands the university’s importance as a stakeholder and partner in ensuring vibrancy of the commercial corridor. She suggests that at the next public engagement meeting, currently scheduled for March 3rd, UDC give a presentation on the previous campus plan and lessons learned. Garcia also suggests an overview of the university’s $600 million capital improvement plan, and a discussion of UDC’s plans for 4250, 4340, and 4225 Connecticut Avenue.
At the February 18th meeting, UDC said it would reveal the results of stakeholder surveys at the March 3rd public engagement meeting (the public is invited to take the survey here). At the April 7th meeting, it will reveal recommendations. The May 5th meeting will include a presentation on transportation findings. And UDC is to have the final recommendations at the final public meeting on June 2nd.
UDC has previously said those meetings, on the first Tuesday of each month, will begin at 4:30 p.m., but after feedback critical of the February 18th meeting’s 4:30 start time, it was agreed that some of the meetings would be scheduled later.
Marjorie Rachlin says
This writeup makes me think that UDC does not take community input seriously. It appears they are focussed on UDC’s academic problems and care little about their impact on Van Ness Main Street.
The ANC 3f resolution is excellent, but I disagree with the last sentence, where they edorse the purchase of 4250 even though they say they cannot meet the ANC’s requests
Why is this resolution addressed to the Council, and not the Zoning Commission?
David Jonas Bardin says
FHC reports:
“… When UDC was drawing up its 2011-2020 plan, around 5,800 students were enrolled in its degree programs. It set a goal for the next decade of increasing enrollment to 10,000, but reduced that number to 6,000 after discussions with the Zoning Commission. The current campus plan states:
“ ‘This enrollment increase is needed to permit the University to develop its programs and attract and retain talented students and faculty. The proposed enrollment will be easily accommodated within existing campus academic and administrative infrastructure, much of which is currently underutilized.’
“In spring 2019, total enrollment, including part-time, community college and law school students, was 4,270. …”
— UDC’s total enrollment was 4,281 on 1/30/2020 according to a Feb. 6 Enrollment Report (supplied by Acting General Counsel Avis Russell).
— Zoning Commission’s order of June 27, 2011, in Z.C. Case Nos. 11-02 and 11-02A,
DECISION, paragraph 1 (under Enrollment) prescribes:
See, also, FINDINGS OF FACT, paragraphs 50 and 51 (under Number of Students), states:
“Under the 2011 Plan, the University originally proposed a maximum full-time equivalent (“FTE”) of 8,000 students or l0,000 headcount students, which is the number the Campus was originally designed to accommodate. (Exhibit 17.) However, in response to community concerns and based on the University’s projections, the University has agreed to limit enrollment to 6,500 students on a headcount basis and 5,000 students on a FTE basis. (Exhibit 39.)”
“The Commission finds that the approval of the 2011 Plan will not tend to create conditions objectionable to neighboring properties because of the number of students. During the hearing, the University demonstrated that the proposed number of students will not resullt in objectionable impacts due to the many existing and proposed measures implemented by the University to mitigate noise, lighting, traffic, parking, and other impacts. The Commission finds that this Campus has previously accommodated the requested number of students. The Commission allso finds that the University’s proposed method of counting headcount and FTE students is adequate.”
— Did Zoning Commission subsequently change its enrollment cap of 6,500 students? Where did FHC find 6,000?
— Last night (March 3) UDC’s Board of Trustees (BOT) approved an UPDATED Equity Imperative Strategic Plan [see http://docs.udc.edu/bot/020520-Equity-Imperative-Board-Package.pdf%5D, modifying a Plan that the BOT had approved on June 26, 2018. UDC’s Plan (under “What to Expect from UDC by 2022”) calls for DEGREE ENROLLMENTs as follows (subject to funding):
2018 GOAL: 4,254
2018: 4,500
2022: 5,110
2028: 8,992
— I assume that UDC will instruct its Campus Master Plan (CMP) team to align its CMP with its UPDATED Equity Imperative Strategic Plan (or has already done so).
David Jonas Bardin says
Oops. I left out what the Zoning Commissioh order PRESCRIBES.
— The Zoning Commission’s order of June 27, 2011, in Z.C. Case Nos. 11-02 and 11-02A, DECISION, paragraph 1 (under “Enrollment”) prescribes:
“For the duration of the 2011 Campus Plan, the maximum enrollment on the Van Ness Campus shall not exceed 6,500 students on a headcount basis, and shall not exceed 5,000 students on a FTE basis:
“a. For purposes of the above, headcount shall include all students enrolled in a course that is offered at the Van Ness Campus;
“b. For purposes of the above, FTE shall be determined by assigning a fraction to part-time students based on the number of credits they are taking on the Van Ness Campus compared to a full-time course load (currently, 12 credits) and adding the number of full-time students; and
“c. The University shall provide ANC 3F with its Van Ness Campus enrollment by November 1st (for fall semester enrollment), April 15th (for spring semester
enrollment), and August 1 (for summer enrollment).”
Marjorie Rachlin says
David’s comments have me confused. Is he saying that the new campus plan is proposed for more students than the last one ?? Would this be a problem with traffic and other things for those of us in the Van Ness neighborhood. It is all murky.
David Jonas Bardin says
Marjorie, Sorry I confused you.
1) I’m writing about a new (replacement) Van Ness Campus Master Plan which UDC must PROPOSE before Dec. 31 and which the Zoning Commission (ZC) will not even consider until 2021 (when it will doubtless invite public comments before deciding whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove UDC’s proposal).
2) UDC says it wants our inputs now, before it decides exactly what to PROPOSE in December.
3) I wanted (a) to point out that the current, ZC-conditionally-approved Plan PRESCRIBED maximum student enrollments — “caps” — and (b) to express the opinion that UDC, in December, will surely want to propose that the ZC not restrict enrollments to levels below long-term goals approved by UDC’s Board of Trustees (BOT) in a Strategic Plan it approved in 2018 and UPDATED this week. (c) I also raised some technical questions.
4) I think long-term UDC enrollments GROWTH would be in the public interest: Good for UDC. Good for our neighborhood, Good for DC as a whole, and good for the DC-MD-VA region. So I am unenthusiastic about ZC orders PRESCRIBING maximum enrollments that might actually DISCOURAGE OR EVEN PREVENT student enrollments and greater utilization of UDC’s space . If one has specific concerns, for example about traffic, why not focus UDC and the ZC on specific solutions?