Hospital Feasability Study in Uk

St.
Elizabeths East Campus

Urban Hospital Site Feasibility Study
Preliminary Findings, December 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 01. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
Historic Background
Vision Of St. Elizabeths East
Jobs In The Education And Health Care Industries
Combined Review Team
Evaluation Process
Summary
SECTION 02. PROJECT OVERVIEW 7

Project Initiatives
Healthcare Needs
Proposed Program
Resiliency Design Criteria
Program Benchmark Projects
St. Elizabeths East Master Plan
SECTION 03. INITIAL SITE SELECTION 22

Initial Site Selection
SECTION 04. SITE RECOMMENDATION 24

Building Data Summary
Conceptual Cost Estimate
SECTION 05. NEXT STEPS 27

Development Timeline
Private Development Opportunities
APPENDIX A: EVALUATION PROCESS i
APPENDIX B: DUE DILIGENCE REPORTS xxi

Due Diligence Report For St. Elizabeths East
A. Government Entitlements
B. Environmental Reports And Filings
C. Geology And Hydrology
D. Surrounding Real Estate Development (If Applicable)
E. Miscellaneous
ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, DECEMBER 2014
SECTION 01.
Executive Summary
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND VISION OF An essential element of the Master

Plan is ensuring that the redevelopment
A National Historic Landmark and local ST. ELIZABETHS EAST efforts incorporate the following
Historic District, St. Elizabeths East was stakeholder-driven development
The St. Elizabeths East Master Plan
established as the first hospital in the objectives:
and Design Guidelines, dated June 4,
nation for the humane treatment of
2012 (the “Master Plan”)1 function as
individuals with mental illness. At one 1. Open up the campus,
the outline for the ongoing
time, the hospital employed over 7,000 2. Create connections with surrounding
redevelopment of St. Elizabeths East.
staff members and was the source of communities,
The Master Plan contemplates that
economic stability for neighborhoods 3. Attract new development,
the redevelopment will include a range
east of the Anacostia River. The 4. Preserve the historic character, and
of end uses, including commercial
District has committed to redeveloping 5. Treat existing residents fairly
office, educational, retail, and residential
St. Elizabeths East into a vibrant mixed- and equitably.
uses, as well as the District’s first
use campus featuring the District’s first
Innovation Hub.
Innovation Hub. The Innovation Hub is
expected to spur the creation of new
technology-related businesses and
The St. Elizabeths East Innovation Hub JOBS IN THE EDUCATION
is planned to be an integrated center of
jobs for all skill levels, which will create
research, education and private sector
AND HEALTH
economic opportunities for residents
of Ward 8 and the District as a whole.
commercial activities. Success will CARE INDUSTRIES
be defined by the District’s ability to
The generation of new businesses The education and medical industries
co-locate community users, universities,
and employment will accelerate the are amongst the largest and most vital
technology businesses and technology-
diversification of the District’s economy components of the District’s economy.
focused amenities (such as business
and reduce reliance on the federal
accelerators, an innovation market
government. The District’s ultimate goal • According to the 2O13
place, and other related components)
is to revitalize this historic landmark to Comprehensive Annual Financial
that are focused on cultivating
once again become a destination place Report2, eleven (11) of the District’s
commercial and globally significant
for sustainable development that meets top fifteen (15) employers were
economic opportunities.
the needs of the community. either universities, hospitals or
health-care companies.
1
St. Elizabeths East - Master Plan and Design Guidelines: http://stelizabethseast.com/our-opportunity/master-plan/
2
DC.gov – Office of Chief Financial Officer: FY 2013 DC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: http://cfo.dc.gov/node/772372
2 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Section 01. Executive Summary
• The educational and health services

industries employ an estimated FIGURE 1: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS -
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT4
300,000 people in the District.
• The Consortium of Universities of Data Series May June July Aug Sept Oct
the Washington Metropolitan Area 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
member activity represents almost
Number of Unemployed in, 27.8 27.3 27.5 28.4 28.8 28.7
3 percent of the regional economy,
thousands, seasonally adjusted.
an $11.3 billion impact.
Unemployment Rate Seasonally 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.6
In October 2014, the D.C. Department of
Employment Services3 reported that the
unemployment rate for the District was
7.6 percent, compared to the national FIGURE 2: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS -
unemployment rate of 5.8 percent. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATION AND HEALTH SERVICES JOBS
However, some Wards in the District
Data Series May June July Aug Sept Oct
have reached unemployment levels that
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
are more than twice the regional and
national averages. Unemployment levels Education & Health Services 126.9 128.9 128.4 128.4 128.6 129.9
in Wards 7 and 8 stand at 14.3 percent Jobs, in thousands,
and 17.0 percent, respectively. seasonally adjusted
The health care and educational

industries are major job generators.
The development of these types
These companies have a particular The general scope of services
of industries east of the Anacostia
concentration in the District itself. In consisted of the team conducting a
River would significantly benefit local
many neighborhoods of the District, high-level review of United Medical
residents and provide jobs where they
particularly those along Metro’s Center (UMC) supplied programming
are needed the most. Developing a
Green Line (which serves as a direct criteria and previous studies, and a
new urban hospital would not only
link to St. Elizabeths East), hundreds review of site requirements for
benefit the goals of the Innovation Hub,
of entrepreneurs have formed a similar facilities elsewhere to determine
but also bring much needed jobs East
technology-based creative class and what constitutes a successful urban
of the River.
startup culture. hospital site.
In addition, the development of a new
A combined review group consisting of
hospital to anchor the Innovation Hub COMBINED REVIEW TEAM DMPED, Huron Healthcare on behalf of
would help drive private commercial
The Office of the Deputy Mayor for the UMC for specialized program input,
development. The District’s private
Planning and Economic Development and the team of CH2M HILL and Perkins
sector economy, which now accounts
(DMPED) retained the services of CH2M + Will (collectively, the review team)
for 88 percent of the region’s jobs,
HILL to prepare a planning analysis to studied the site layouts (See Appendix
has long been dominated by federal
determine the feasibility of locating an A) for the potential of locating an
contractors, telecommunications
urban hospital and medical ancillary urban hospital on St. Elizabeths East.
providers and professional services.
uses on St. Elizabeths East as part of a After feedback from the review group
In the past five years, however, this
mixed-use development. The vision for at multiple workshop sessions and
has begun to change dramatically
St. Elizabeths East is to create a shared producing variations of the potential
as small and growing companies
campus for academic institutions, site layouts, the group concluded that
focused on education, healthcare,
technology and community-based an urban hospital, such as UMC, could
e-commerce, cybersecurity and energy
services, and an Innovation Hub. be hosted at St. Elizabeths East.
have taken root in the District’s region.
3
D.C. Department of Employment Services: http://does.dc.gov/node/184512
4
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the District of Columbia: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.dc.htm
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 3

FIGURE 3: COMBINED REVIEW PROCESS
Review Preliminary
Kick-off Draft Study Final Study
Round 1, 2, 3 Presentation
tend to be much larger, allowing for funding and those that could be
relatively inexpensive surface parking, delivered entirely by the private sector.
EVALUATION PROCESS optimization of both emergency and This distinction informed building
The team of CH2M HILL and Perkins patient or visitor vehicular circulation, placement and massing, distribution
+ Will was directed by DMPED to and primarily horizontal adjacencies of program, parking strategy, and
study all potential locations at the St. among program elements. Urban other design aspects in all of the Site
Elizabeths East with no preconceived sites, on the other hand, tend to be Options considered.
or predetermined preferences, except smaller and more constrained, requiring
for the mandate to keep the main structured parking, vertical stacking The site layouts were presented to the
hospital building and tower outside of program elements, and sometimes Review Team and after feedback via
the Phase 1 Real Estate Development unconventional vehicular circulation several workshops, Site Option 3e, with
RFP5 areas. This study resulted in the strategies. While suburban hospital sites variations anchored by Parcels 13 and
analysis of thirteen (13) conceptual often allow optimal functionality and 16, was suggested as the most viable
site layouts on four (4) alternative adjacencies, their inherent remoteness site for an urban hospital. It is described
parcels of St. Elizabeths East. The site can compromise their ability to fully below. Detailed site layouts have been
analysis used the site-wide guidelines serve their communities. provided in Appendix A of this report.
from the St. Elizabeths East Master
Plan and Design Guidelines as the Though several of the parcels that The preferred Site Option was identified
standards for historical, architectural, were considered were large enough using multiple parcels located in the
and parcel-specific design and to allow for at least some aspects of southern portion of St. Elizabeths
development considerations. Also a suburban hospital configuration, East along proposed 13th Street SE.
taken into consideration were land use it was felt that such a model was This Site Option was favored because
combinations, development scale, open not consistent with the Master Plan it reinforces the Phase 1 Real Estate
space systems, site circulation, access, framework, and was not appropriate for Development, brings opportunities
and the creation of special places. A and did not allow for the most efficient for private development of ancillary
detailed evaluation process is outlined use of what would ultimately be a facilities, and allows better connections
in Appendix A of this report. relatively dense, urban campus. to the Innovation Hub planned at the
St. Elizabeths East.
A fundamental distinction encountered Another distinction considered
at the outset of the evaluation process during the evaluation process was
was that between urban and suburban that between program components
hospital models. Suburban hospital sites requiring at least partial governmental
5
http://www.stelizabethseast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/RFP-St-Elizabeths-East-Phase-I-Master-Dev.pdf

Advantages FIGURE 4: SITE 3E – PARCEL COMPOSITION

• Adjacent to 13th Street
• Relatively good site conditions
• Ample space for proposed program
• Compatible existing zoning
• Offers public/private redevelopment
opportunities
• Provides for a major anchor tenant
for Innovation Hub
• Metro accessibility
Disadvantages
• Low visibility due to location within
the overall campus
• Existing St. Elizabeths Psychiatric
Hospital entrance would have to
be reconfigured in order to
consolidate parcels.
Congress Heights
Metro Station
FIGURE 5: ILLUSTRATIVE DRAWING - SITE OPTION 3E
Note: The Illustrative drawing of Site Option 3e (Figure 5) is a conceptual plan created for the purpose
of demonstrating the possible siting of the hospital program components used in this study.

Hub by lending to the synergy of The results of the study confirmed

the educational component of the that the siting of an urban hospital
SUMMARY St. Elizabeths East redevelopment, on St. Elizabeths East as an anchor to
The site feasibility study is to be the attraction of commercial health the proposed Innovation Hub is worth
considered the first of many steps care end-users, and securing a major exploring further. The general plans
should the District further pursue anchor tenant on the campus. Though and layouts developed for the purposes
locating an urban hospital at at first blush a hospital program might of the feasibility study are not to be
St. Elizabeths East. The study of the appear incompatible with an Innovation considered as definitive programs or
thirteen (13) potential layouts on Hub program, the combination has specific site layouts. Additional studies,
four (4) anchor parcels indicated the potential to engender strong site plans and development parameters
an urban hospital such as UMC educational and research connections such as costs and timing will have to
could be accommodated at several over the long term. In addition, a be completed, including significant
parcels on St. Elizabeths East. It large hospital facility would catalyze coordination with the Phase 1 Real
was also determined that an urban other forms of development that Estate Development agenda being
hospital would be very important to also complement the Innovation pursued by DMPED.
the establishment of an Innovation Hub program, such as retail, housing,
and hospitality.

SECTION 02.
Project Overview
PROJECT INITIATIVES Center noted that UMC is financially

insolvent and unable to continue
• UMC’s inpatient share in Ward 7 is
less than 10 percent – little connects
The District is seeking a sustainable, operations without significant, ongoing Ward 7 residents to UMC
long-term solution to stabilize and support from the District. The August • UMC has no physical, community-
improve UMC while meeting the 2013 report noted several issues: based presence beyond the
long-term healthcare needs of District main campus
residents, especially in Wards 7 and • 85 percent of the residents within
8, east of the Anacostia River. In the UMC’s Primary Service Area (PSA) As such, UMC proposed a strategic
“United Medical Center, Transformation were admitted to other hospitals direction designed to:
Initiative Strategic Direction” (August in 2012
2013)6, the Board of United Medical • Build a quality medical staff
comprised of physicians provide
services within the community
FIGURE 6: WARD MAP
• Amend or replace the
negative reputation
• Develop a critical mass of physicians
to support specialty program
Ward 6 development (heart & vascular,
cancer, diabetes, etc.)
• Address the problems with the
Ward 7 Emergency Room (overcrowding,
long wait times, service)
Ward 8 • Align with established System/group
practices (prefer academic/training
opportunities) to provide specialist
access, improve image
• Become more visible within
the community and inform the
community about UMC
UMC
H • Expand insurance products that
use UMC and improve information
concerning those insurance products
6
UMC Transformation Initiative – Strategic Direction (August 2013): http://www.united-medicalcenter.com/component/phocadownload/category/1-down-
loads.html?download=1:umc-transformation-initiative

Section 02. Project Overview
• Address customer satisfaction In addition, in December 2014, the • Cut the ongoing costs for facility
• Engage and empower employees District further announced that a letter maintenance and operations in half
to change service delivery within of intent (LOI) was signed to enter into • Offer much better access to public
the hospital a collaborative agreement with Paladin transportation from across Wards
• Provide a clean, safe environment Healthcare Capital, LLC and Howard 7 and 8, as well as other parts of
with privacy University to transform UMC8. The letter the District
• Provide competitive quality facilities of intent outlines the joint venture • Greatly strengthen the likelihood of
• Expand UMC’s reach/image beyond between Paladin and Howard which will attracting and/or partnering with
the existing campus acquire the operating assets of UMC. a high-quality operating partner
The District will retain ownership of for the hospital (such as Paladin
In support of UMC’s new direction, the property and physical plant. The Healthcare Capital, LLC/Howard
the District of Columbia announced joint venture company will lease the University or other operator)
on March 26, 20147, a plan to invest hospital from the District and assume
approximately $300 million in a brand- the operational and maintenance cost of To study this approach, DMPED
new hospital on St. Elizabeths East UMC. The impacts of this LOI were not engaged the CH2M HILL and
designed to replace the aging District- assessed in this study. Perkins + Will team with a goal
owned UMC on Southern Avenue SE. of determining if any parcels on
The District has made the case that, St. Elizabeths East could host the
The District proposed that investing while more costly in the short run, relocation of UMC or another urban
in a new hospital rather than capital building an entirely new United Medical hospital. DMPED’s goal in completing
improvements at the current UMC Center at St. Elizabeths, or another this study is two-fold:
facility was a more viable option for a viable site east of the Anacostia River,
number of reasons including: might provide the greatest long-term 1. Confirm whether the hospital
advantages. A new facility also provides could physically be accommodated
• Even after making a minimum a long-term solution to the present on the site,
of a $100 million funding for challenge of providing high quality 2. Confirm that an urban hospital
existing deferred maintenance and medical services east of the Anacostia could be incorporated in a manner
operational deficiencies and major River. Among other advantages, that benefits the redevelopment of
capital investments in the nearly relocating UMC would: St. Elizabeths East and Innovation
50-year- old facility, the District Hub development efforts.
would still be forced to cover • Allow the District to begin
$6-8 million annually in facility implementing its plans for DMPED requested that the proposed
maintenance costs – twice what a sustainable, high quality medical site for the main hospital building and
new facility would incur annually. services much more quickly than tower itself be located outside the area
• Investing in the current site does investing in the current UMC campus covered by the Phase 1 Real Estate
not offer the District a meaningful • Address the real potential for Development scope and conform to
rebranding opportunity for significant competition at the existing zoning/historic preservation/
the hospital. existing UMC site from the new Master Plans.
• The current site is not $600 million proposed medical
Metro-accessible. center in Prince George’s County
• Investment in the current site would • Provide a brand-new, state-of-the-
not meaningfully increase the art facility, affording the District
HEALTHCARE NEEDS
chances of the District attracting a a major rebranding opportunity The first step of the study was to
high-quality operating partner for and the potential for significantly understand the potential program(s)
the hospital. increased market share for UMC necessary to meet the health care needs
of customers in the UMC service area.
Much of this research was coordinated
7
DC.gov: District announcement for new hospital at St. Elizabeths East (March 26, 2014: http://dmped.dc.gov/release/mayor-gray-announces-
plan-build-new-hospital-st-elizabeths-east-campus
8
Howard University News Room: http://www.howard.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/20141218HowardUniversityDistrictofColumbiaandPaladinHealthcare
CapitaltoOperateUnitedMedicalCenter.html

with UMC staff and District staff. FIGURE 7: MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED AREAS
The potential new hospital and
associated program were analyzed DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
with the focus of serving a historically Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs) & Medically Underserved Populations (MUPs)
and currently medically-underserved Medically Underserved Areas Medically Underserved Populations
community (Figure 7). The potential East Capitol Southeast ID 00497 Homeless – Downtown Washington ID 00498
South Capitol ID 00499 Low Income (LI) Brentwood ID 07855
of a location within St. Elizabeths East DC Service Area ID 00500 Low Income (LI) Columbia Heights/Ft. Totten/Takoma ID 07861
would effectively position an urban DC Service Area ID 00502
Anacostia ID 07617
hospital to serve these needs.
These needs are underscored by the

following considerations:
LI Columbia Heights/Ft. Totten/Takoma

• Deaths due to accidents, Diabetes,
and Septicemia increased
dramatically in Ward 8 from 2006
to 2010 DC Service Area 00500
• Ward 8 residents have the highest

LI Brentwood
obesity rate and are the least
likely to exercise or consume the
Homeless Downtown DC
recommended servings of fruits and
vegetables
• 80 percent of UMC discharges come DC Service Area 00502
from 3 zip codes: 20019, 20020, and

20032, which are located in Wards
7 and 8 South Capitol East Capitol SE
• Prevalence and mortality associated

with diabetes are highest in District
Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8 where rates are
higher than the city-wide rate Anacostia
• While 50 percent of youth live in

Wards 7 and 8, less than 10 percent
of the District’s grocery stores are
located there
• Adults who reside in Ward 7 were
more likely than all other wards to Government of the District of Columbia DC Dep artment of Health
have heart disease, at 5 percent
• Adults who reside in Wards 5 and 8
were more likely than all other wards
to have had a stroke, at 8 percent. FIGURE 8: HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE STATISTICS
• Adults who reside in Ward 8 were Ward 1: 26.7% Ward 3: 20.2% Ward 5: 39.3% Ward 7: 41.5%
more likely than all other wards to
Ward 2: 22.3% Ward 4: 33.2% Ward 6: 29.6% Ward 8: 40.4%
be told by a doctor that they have
diabetes, at 15.2 percent
• Ward 7 (43.6 per 100,000), Ward
8 (41.0 per 100,000), and Ward 5 • Cancer affects residents in every The research confirmed the real and
(40.4 per 100,000) had the highest ward, but Ward 5 (259.7 per urgent need for an urban hospital
crude death rates while Ward 2 had 100,000) had the highest rate of to serve Wards 5, 7 and 8. It also
the lowest mortality rate (6.3 per death, followed by Ward 4 (213.8 per reinforced the basis for the District’s
100,000) in this category 100,000), and Ward 7 (212.5 initiative to upgrade and/or replace
per 100,000) UMC and its mission to serve this need.

FIGURE 9: DISTRICT AREA HOSPITALS

Washington D.C. Area Hospitals.
1. Specialty Hospital of Washington-
10 Capitol Hill
2 6
2. Psychiatric Institute of Washington
5
3 3. MedStar National Rehab Hospital
4 14
4. MedStar Washington
9
Hospital Center
8 5. Sibley Memorial Hospital
7 6. Providence Hospital
1
7. George Washington
University Hospital
8. MedStar Georgetown
University Hospital
9. Howard University Hospital
13 10. Hospital for Sick Children
11. United Medical Center
11
12 12. Specialty Hospital of
Washington-Hadley
13. St. Elizabeths Hospital
14. Children’s National Medical Center
PROPOSED PROGRAM Base Program:

• Hospital Diagnostic and Treatment
Ancillary Uses:
• Innovation Center: this accounts
To understand the potential size of (D&T) and Bed Tower: this accounts for office, laboratory, classroom,
buildings and site improvements, the for the primary hospital component and other spaces associated with
team worked with the District and UMC and consists of both diagnostic innovation center or incubator
to develop a base and ancillary program and treatment components and program
for a prototypical urban hospital and a 150-bed bed tower. Required • Long-Term Care: space allocated for
typical related medical support services. area was based on Perkins + Will’s a 120-bed long-term care facility and
benchmarks as well as information associated program
The prototypical program consisted provided by UMC • Medical Education Component:
of core hospital functions (base), and • Ambulatory Care Center and an classrooms, lecture halls, study
ancillary functions such as innovation Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) space, and other program associated
center, long-term care facilities and Program: this accounts for specialty with medical educational programs,
medical educational components. physician offices, outpatient possibly with a college or university
Relative sizes of these functional imaging, rehabilitation, clinics, affiliation
components, as well as estimated and similar program
associated parking requirements, • Pediatric Emergency
were developed by Perkins + Will. The Department (ED)
functional components considered for • Medical Office Building (MOB):
this analysis consisted of the following: space allocated for medical offices
• Utility Plant: area reserved for
cooling towers, emergency
generators, and other large
utility equipment

FIGURE 10: PROPOSED PROGRAM (gross square feet of required area)
BASE PROGRAM
Hospital D&T and Support 172,000
Hospital Beds (150 beds) 125,000
Ambulatory Care Center* 28,000
Additional ACC Program* 55,000
Pediatric ED* 12,000
MOB* 42,000
Utility Plant 3,500
ANCILLARY PROGRAM
Innovation Center* 100,000
Long Term Care (120 beds)* 105,000
Medical Education Component 100,000
TOTAL AREA 742,500
* Private development or public/private partnership opportunity
FIGURE 11: RECOMMENDED PARKING SPACES
BASE PROGRAM
Total Hospital Parking 892
ACC Parking 140
Additional ACC Parking 275

PED Parking 60
MOB Parking 210
Utility Parking 3
ANCILLARY PROGRAM
IC Parking 100
LTC Parking 30
Educational Parking 100
TOTAL PARKING 1,810
** Parking requirements are based on Perkins + Will benchmarking standards, and do not account
for potential reductions associated with LEED requirements, proximity to public transportation,
limitations in the zoning code or other factors. While surface parking is discouraged, some
proposed development options incorporate limited surface parking both as emergency room
parking and as a method of reserving future expansion space.

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital
natural disasters, such as hurricanes, Given its critical role in the community,
tornados, earthquakes, flooding, a hospital is expected to serve as a
RESILIENCY DESIGN drought, wildfire, and others. hub of supply, storage, and refuge.
CRITERIA Responding to the changing climate Therefore, it becomes crucial that the
and depletion of natural resources, site selection and design processes
Resilient design has become
stressors in buildings, cities, and their involved dialog to determine the
increasingly important in the wake of
communities have been identified most efficient, effective and feasible
natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy
to achieve stability and adaptability approach to making the facility resilient.
and the Joplin Missouri Tornado.
through the following initiatives: This can be done in three ways:
Hospital facilities represent a significant
financial investment, often remaining
• Strengthen building, infrastructure, • Hardening
functional for decades, and must
organization and community • Redundancy
not only remain operational but also
resistance to chronic stressors • Acquiescence
accommodate increased demand
arising from a changing climate and
during a large-scale emergency event.
resource depletion Resiliency considerations also provide
These considerations underscore the
• Improve safety and stability during a complementary framework for
importance of resilient design with
acute shocks from both manmade addressing sustainable project goals
regard to the planning of a hospital
events and natural phenomena such as ecological well-being and
facility.
• Reduce physical risks posed by long-term resiliency, energy and water
extreme weather events to building efficiency, renewable power, improved
According to the Resilient Design
occupants, building systems, indoor air, transit proximity, human
Institute, resilient design is defined as
organizations, and communities and ecological health, diversity and
“the intentional design of buildings,
• Reduce risk premiums associated productivity, community connectivity,
landscapes, communities, and regions
with operations, insurance and and economic viability.
in response to their vulnerabilities
financing
to disaster and disruption of normal
• Maintain continuity of business and Resiliency considerations were a factor
life.” Resilient design has become
community activities during chronic in the site evaluation process, and were
increasingly important in the wake of
and acute events also important considerations in the
following project precedents.

Einstein Medical Center Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital
an environmentally sensitive approach pool and roof gardens that incorporate

to its site. By consolidating the rehabilitative functions. Principles of
PROGRAM BENCHMARK building functions into a relatively sustainable design are incorporated
PROJECTS small footprint, a large amount of the throughout. US News & World
extensive site was left undisturbed. Report recently called SRH “the best
EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER
The project achieved LEED Silver rehabilitation hospital in New England.”
East Norriton, Pennsylvania
certification.
Completion Date: 2011
PIEDMONT REPLACEMENT HOSPITAL
146 beds 360,000 GSF
SPAULDING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL Newnan, Georgia
Boston, Massachusetts Completion Date: 2012
The Einstein Medical Center required a
Completion Date: 2010 136 beds
careful master planning and community
130 beds 365,000 GSF
interaction effort, aimed at creating
270,000 GSF
a destination hospital in line with
Constructed during the height of the
community needs and expectations.
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (SRH) 2008 economic recession, Piedmont
Environmental responsibility,
is a new 130-bed, 270,000 square Replacement Hospital was challenged
technology that maximizes clinical
foot facility constructed at the former with implementing creative and
productivity, architectural image, staff
Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston. The innovative strategies for reducing costs
retention, and provision of community
final design was the outcome of an without compromising its primary
amenities were primary goals.
extensive master planning process that goals of delivering high quality patient
Amenities and user experience were
explored a number of strategies for care and positioning itself for maximal
important design drivers, and the lobby
achieving SRH’s mission of achieving future growth and flexibility. Rigorous
atrium and bed tower are designed to
the highest level of patient care, sustainability measures were an integral
capitalize on surrounding natural views
research, education, and advocacy. part of the cost-saving strategy,
and to maximize the use of natural
In addition to 130 private rooms, the and included:
light. Overall, the project demonstrates
facility includes a sixty foot therapy

Anticipated 20 percent reduction

in energy usage through the use of
high-efficiency HVAC equipment and
energy-sensitive design
• Anticipated 29 percent reduction in

potable water usage
• Maintaining approximately 60
percent of the site in an undisturbed
condition
The facility was completed in 2012, and

has achieved LEED certification.
RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

Chicago, Illinois
Completion Date: 2012
304 beds
806,000 GSF
The cornerstone of a long-term

campus transformation project, Rush
University Medical Center (RUMC) is
a new 14-story facility housing Rush’s
acute and critical care patients as well
as surgical, diagnostic, and therapeutic
services utilizing the most advanced
technology available. The facility’s
unique shape reflects four years of
planning and input by hundreds of
Rush nurses, doctors, and patients. It
also provides patients and visitors with
expansive views of Chicago’s skyline
and abundant natural light.
The facility also includes an innovative

emergency preparedness center, which
brings an unprecedented level of
Piedmont Replacement Hospital
readiness to Chicago’s citizens in the
case of a widespread emergency. RUMC
was designed with a number of features
that position it at the center of a
coordinated response to a bioterrorism,
pandemic, or large-scale industrial
accident event. These include an
emergency department configuration
that allows for a doubling of capacity
under emergency conditions,
ambulance bays that can be converted
to decontamination rooms, and the
ability to isolate an entire quadrant
Rush University Medical Center rather than individual rooms.

RUMC also employs a number of roles in carrying out the vision of the and the city’s flourishing innovation
sustainability initiatives, including Master Plan. The goals of the Master economy. St. Elizabeths East Master
multiple green roofs, extensive use of Plan are intended to create dynamic Plan will connect the unique historic
recycled materials, and use of energy- urban places that reflect innovative, campus with the Congress Heights
efficient systems for lighting, heating, sustainable design solutions while neighborhood, creating a destination
and cooling. RUMC received LEED Gold maintaining the rich historical and for both current and future residents to
certification, and was the largest new cultures resources found on the campus live, work, shop, play, and innovate.
construction healthcare facility in the today. The Master Plan proposes a
world to do so at the time. balance of preservation goals with a PLACES: NEIGHBORHOOD ANCHORS
market-based development approach. A primary goal of the Master Plan is
The Master Plan recommends parallel the development of two neighborhood
economic development planning efforts centers for Ward 8. These anchors
ST. ELIZABETHS EAST to support technology-related industries are the Martin Luther King (MLK)
MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan outlines a vision for a

vibrant, mixed-use development with UCC
Pine St.
community-serving amenities that will
create an important hub for the Ward Suitland Pkwy.
8 community and District’s emerging

Farm
innovation economy. It is intended to Complex
be an implementable roadmap for the Magnolia St.
future development of St. Elizabeths

East that will evolve over the next five
to twenty years. The Plan is specifically
Water Tower
designed to build on past planning FEMA
efforts and form the foundation for the
entitlement process that the city will
Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE
complete to prepare the site for future Pecan St.
development.
Sycamore Dr.
OVERVIEW
St. Elizabeths East Master Plan Maple
serves as a framework for creating Quadrangle Saint Elizabeths
Hospital
a new community hub within the
Congress Heights neighborhood,
as well as promoting the District’s
emerging innovation economy through Cypress St.
redevelopment. The recommendations 13
th
St.
found in the Master Plan call for
residential, commercial, cultural, and
Oa
kD
institutional uses intended to bring r.
renewed vibrancy to St. Elizabeths East,

as well as to surrounding areas and MLK Neighborhood
the District as a whole. Revitalization Center
of this National Historic Landmark will

d Dr.
be guided by detailed development Malcolm X Ave., SE oo
gw
Do Congress Heights
and preservation goals as well as Metro
design principles outlined in the Master e., SE
ma Av
13th St., SE
Alaba
Plan. The District, the community,
and the private sector will play key
Figure 2.38: The Saint Elizabeths East Campus Illustrated Plan
0 100’ 200’ 400’
MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 75

Neighborhood Center and the architecture and a diverse offering

Congress Heights Metro Sector. of local and national retailers are PLACES: INNOVATION HUB
These neighborhood anchors will recommended for the development to The historic quadrangles of the Maple
cater to area residents and provide ensure energetic activity and place- Quad and Community Technology (CT)
goods and services that will support making. The Master Plan also raises Village will become the “Innovation
the community for years to come. the possibility of working with WMATA Hub,” an integrated center of research,
Three main place-making strategies to assess the feasibility of adding a education, training, entrepreneurship,
constitute the basis of the Master second entrance at the north end of the technology transfer, and private sector
Plan: places, paths, and connections. station which would provide direct and commercial activities tied to technology
These opportunities help organize convenient access to the southern end related industries. The District’s
the principles of the Master Plan to of St. Elizabeths East. Innovation Strategy for St. Elizabeths
create a sense of place within each East seeks to expand and diversify the
neighborhood anchor.
FIGURE 12: NEIGHBORHOOD ANCHORS

MARTIN LUTHER KING
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
The MLK Neighborhood Center Sector
Plan will include the surrounding
community and provide much needed
services and amenities for the residents
of Ward 8. Located on the western side
of the campus, the Master Plan calls
for the MLK neighborhood to have a
neighborhood center and ground-level
retail within new buildings fronting
Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The
retail establishments in these locations
will complement the existing businesses
along Alabama Avenue, SE and extend
the retail corridor to St. Elizabeths
East. In addition, the neighborhood will
house a wide range of community uses
designed to support individuals and
businesses from the area that are
interested in the innovation- and
technology-related industries.
CONGRESS HEIGHTS METRO STATION

AND BUS TRANSFER FACILITY
Located just steps away from the core
of St. Elizabeths East, the Congress
Heights Metro Station and Bus
Transfer Facility will be the gateway
to St. Elizabeths East. It’s envisioned
that this center will be a vibrant,
mixed-use neighborhood center. New
development will offer ground floor
retail and restaurants, as well as offices
and apartments. Wide sidewalks, café
seating, outdoor entertainment, unique

city’s economy by linking to business, the Maple Quadrangle, and the

research and employment opportunities PATHS/CONNECTIONS Community Technology (CT) Village. A
in the innovation sector. Beyond its key Fundamental to the Master Plan is the more detailed historic description can
functions, the hub will also support goal of connecting the campus to the be found in the Master Plan
complementary uses such as hotel, surrounding community. A key aspect Design Guidelines.
conference center, retail, and potentially of the Master Plan is the collection
residential development. of site-wide design guidelines that The preservation of the historic campus
emphasize the creation of welcoming, core and its many significant resources
PLACES: RESIDENTIAL/ walkable streets throughout the is paramount to the success of the
COMMUNITY SECTORS campus. An important connection redevelopment of St. Elizabeths East.
The final two sectors of St. Elizabeths within St. Elizabeths East is the Once a closed historic property, St.
East are the 13th Street Sector and the reconstructed Dogwood Drive that Elizabeths East will now provide a
Farm Complex Sector at the north end links the two community anchors in the unique redevelopment opportunity
of the campus. See figure 12. Due to the Master Plan: the MLK Neighborhood that preserves a historic asset and
expansive views and Metro accessibility, Center and the Congress Heights Metro creates a new community within
this sector is a prime location for a wide Sector. The Master Plan recommends an the District. The historic buildings
variety of residential development. active public realm, public art, creative and landscapes that characterize St.
The Farm Complex is a unique site programming, and active ground floor Elizabeths East represent a significant
that provides an opportunity to create uses at all of these gateways to signal part of national and local history, and
a community resource for urban an open and welcoming atmosphere. the implementation of St. Elizabeths
agriculture. Due to the historic nature East Master Plan will ensure that this
of the site and the existing historic HISTORIC BUILDINGS treasure is preserved, revitalized, and
farm structures, new development St. Elizabeths East consists of four made accessible. As part of the St.
opportunities will be very limited in major historic building groupings: Elizabeths Hospital National Historic
this location. the Farm Complex, the 1902 Buildings, Landmark and local Historic District,
FIGURE 14: HISTORICALLY CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS FIGURE 15: BUILDINGS PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION

Rendering of Historic St. Elizabeths East
Maple Quad, circa 1950

Figure 0.1: 1950s Photo of Maple Quad
St. Elizabeths East is protected under The Master Plan encourages the future The most successful master-planned
federal and local historic preservation master developer and other designers neighborhoods or new communities
Services Administration (GSA) assumed control of the Therefore, this Master Plan is comprehensive in scope
laws and regulations. The Master Plan to follow the core urban design have site-specific architecture,
West
designCampus
guidelinesfor
areuse as a future
intended federal
to create government
principles totheprovide
highlighted in Master standards for revitalization
welcoming and engaging publicof historic
places
a cohesive and ordered development Plan. The Master Plan highlights the and views, identifiable landmarks and
facility. In 2007, the US Department of Homeland resources, land use and development, infrastructure,
plan that carefully addresses importance of the arrangement and focal points, and a human element
Security (DHS) decided
historic preservation, land to
useconsolidate
and its operations
design on lots,building
of building height and
public spaces, density, by
established public open scales
compatible space,of and
development, and the public realm.
the West Campus and redevelop that site. transportation systems, services and development. Community safety,
sustainable measures in every sector of the site. Its
amenities within the site. accessibility, sustainability, quality of
recommendations are buttressed by a Transportation
From the District’s perspective, the DHS consolidation Plan of improvements to the East Campus that have
is seen as a potential catalyst for expanding the city’s been coordinated and approved by the District of
innovation sector and diversifying its economy. Over Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) and
time, this federal agency will increase neighborhood the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
FIGURE 16: LAND USE FIGURE 17: RETAIL AREAS
life and protecting campus heritage • Activate streets with public or development can occur. Land uses were
are some of the key ideas of the Master semi-public uses such as retail on determined by studies that assessed
Plan and are significant elements within the ground floors of buildings, and future demand for retail, residential,
its urban design goals. The following provide direct entry from the street office, hospitality, and other uses for
principles further describe the goals of where feasible St. Elizabeths East. The Master Plan
the Master Plan: • Develop and strengthen pedestrian studies suggested that there was
connections within the campus by significant demand for commercial,
• Design and site new development designing streets and multiuse trails residential, and retail development in
sensitively to preserve existing which are pleasant and safe for the vicinity, and that these uses could
gateways, vistas, and campus pedestrians. be built immediately. In addition,
landmarks the development of the land use
• Create focal points, such as USE AND BULK GUIDELINES program was closely coordinated with
fountains, plazas, and courtyards, Within the District, St. Elizabeths research and planning for the District’s
to establish a sense of place and East offers enormous potential Innovation Strategy at St. Elizabeths
orientation within the public realm as one of the few large remaining East. This economic development
and key open spaces contiguous parcels where significant planning process developed a set of

proposed land use and programmatic

FIGURE 18: DENSITY ZONES AND BUILDING HEIGHTS
components that form the Innovation
Hub on St. Elizabeths East and inform
the range of uses being proposed
within the campus plan. Some of the
recommended land use principles and
uses are noted below:
• Support a mix of development

densities, particularly those that
enhance the pedestrian experience
and are within easily walkable areas
adjacent to major activity centers
• Create a safe environment by mixing
uses, programming activities in
public spaces, and through design Density Zones Legend
techniques that foster social activity
and visibility
• Ensure a mix of uses is present
within each sector during each phase
of development
The physical form and density of the

proposed development in St. Elizabeths
East involves increased density without
diminishing the lower-profile historic
buildings. The density goals will govern
the general placement and massing of
the new buildings within the proposed Building Heights Legend
campus plan. Massing strategies were
explored for their ability to yield new
buildings that work together to shape a
high-quality public realm and sense of
place. The methods used for controlling
the placement and massing of buildings
include the following:
• High/low density zones, which

govern the distribution of
development density throughout the
planning area, and are based on
criteria such as access to transit,
proximity to historic resources and • Setbacks are recommended to new density is the 13th Street corridor.
land use objectives reduce bulk and sculpt the massing Because this area is located behind the
• Allowable building height is of buildings historic core, new development will
governed by the 2008 St. Elizabeths have less of an impact on the historic
East Redevelopment Framework The Master Plan recommends that character of St. Elizabeths East. In
Plan and the District’s density be concentrated within a limited addition, the new development will be
Comprehensive Plan number of locations. The area that is concentrated on the edge of a ravine, so
most suitable for the largest share of development can take advantage of the

topography by the addition of density. It light and air, and providing the most successful options were
should be noted that the Transportation opportunities for visual interest and consistent with the density, bulk,
Environmental Assessment has architectural expression. In general, and use requirements reflected in
identified the ravine as a potentially St. Elizabeths East Master Plan provides the current zoning provisions. Each
sensitive area for development. more design principles related to parcel within St. Elizabeths East is
Therefore, development in the ravine building heights, tapers, setbacks, governed by an independent set of
should be carefully placed, and effort and other architectural features. zoning requirements, summarized in
should be made to restore the native the table below, and intended to reflect
planting once development is complete. ZONING the density, bulk, and use intentions
There are areas on the site where new A primary goal of this site analysis described by the Master Plan. Existing
development must sensitively address exercise for an urban hospital on zoning provisions also carefully address
the adjacent context. Setbacks and St. Elizabeths East was to adhere to parking considerations, limiting the
recommended build-to lines (RBL) a “by right” development strategy. total number of on-campus parking
are tools that can be used to control This approach minimizes the spaces, discouraging surface parking,
building massing and form. Façade need for rezoning or other special and prescribing setbacks and “liner”
setbacks can shape overall building entitlement provisions. Though this program in portions of the campus
massing by reducing the bulk of the objective was not achieved by all of where architectural and public realm
building, increasing penetration of the options that were considered, treatment is especially sensitive.
FIGURE 19: ZONING REQUIREMENTS
Zone District FAR (Max.) FAR Required FAR Above Grade Height Lot Occupancy Rear Yard
Residential (Min.) Parking (Max.) (Max. Ft.) (Max %) (Min. Ft.)
StE-1 0.20 - - 25 25 -
StE-2 4.00 - - 75 -
StE-3 2.50 - - 80 60 -
StE-4 0.50 - - 25 60 -
StE-5 1.50 - - 65 60 -
StE-6 3.20 1.60 - 90 75 -
StE-7 1.50 1.00 § 3306.3 § 3306.4 60 -
StE-8 0.40 - - 25 60 -
StE-9 1.50 - - 65 60 -
StE-10 1.50 - - 40 60 20
StE-11 0.70 - - 25 60 -
StE-12 3.00 1.50 - 80 75 -
StE-13 3.20 1.60 - 90 75 -
StE-14a 1.50 - - 40 60 20
StE-14b 1.50 1.00 - 40 60 20
StE-15 2.00 1.00 § 3306.3 80 75 -
StE-16 3.20 1.60 - 90 75 -
StE-17 0.50 - § 3306.3 70 60 -
StE-18 4.00 - - 90 75 -
StE-19 0.00 - - 0 n/a -

SECTION 03.
Initial Site Selection
INITIAL SITE SELECTION these sites offers distinct advantages

and disadvantages. A summary of the
SITE 1:
Site 1 consists of Parcel 1. Though
Initial site analysis began with four opportunities and constraints offered this parcel was later considered in
primary site candidates which were by each site can be found below, conjunction with other parcels, it was
identified through group discussion at with further information contained in initially considered alone. The parcel
the project Kick-Off Meeting. Each of Appendix A. is adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr.
FIGURE 20: PARCEL IDENTIFICATION MAPS

Section 03. Initial Site Selection
Boulevard and is relatively flat - two site. Initial feasibility, programming, Line Metro tunnel traversing a portion
characteristics conducive to large- and planning work has been conducted of the site. Development of this site is
scale development. However, it is also for a new Federal Government use further complicated by the presence of
relatively small in size, is remote from to occupy Parcel 2 at the north end an access road to the new St. Elizabeths
both the central core of the campus of St. Elizabeths East. Parcel 2 as a Hospital, which passes between both
and the anticipated extent of Phase 1 Federal Government use best met the parcels. This site offers the benefit
infrastructure, and its existing zoning intent of the Master Plan to provide of being located within easy walking
is not consistent with high-density the Department of Homeland Security distance of the Congress Heights Metro
development. It also contains several (DHS) a location that is compatible Station.
existing historic buildings. and suitable for the consolidation of
their facilities and services. The study SITE 4:
SITE 2: revealed that the hospital could not be Site 4 involves a portion of the new
Site 2 consisted solely of the Federal co-located with a Federal Government St. Elizabeths Hospital Planned Unit
Use Parcel (Parcel 2). This parcel is use on Parcel 2. Development (PUD) site. Though a
larger in size than Parcel 1, but is less portion of this site is also dedicated
regular in shape. It is also relatively SITE 3: to a water tower and maintenance
flat and offers potentially pleasing Site 3 consists of two development road, a significant portion of the site
views to the east. Its current zoning parcels: Parcels 13 and 16. While these is underutilized. Despite this, this site
is also conducive to high-density parcels are more centrally located, they is fairly remote from the heart of St.
development, and therefore the District are unwieldy in shape and impose some Elizabeths East and poses challenges
looked at Parcel 2 to determine if the development challenges in the form regarding accessibility, visibility, and
hospital could be co-located on the of difficult topography and the Green branding opportunities.
FIGURE 21: FEDERAL USE PARCEL

SECTION 04.
Site Recommendation
The proposed siting location designated for vehicular and emergency traffic
as Site Option 3e, was one of many site to flow in and out of the site without
development options that were studied, congesting the historic Maple Quad and
and represents a plan that best meets CT Village Quads.
the goals of a hospital developer and
the District, and conforms to the goals OPERATIONAL ACCESSIBILITY:
of the St. Elizabeths East Master Plan. SHORT AND LONG-TERM
The hospital will not only help transform Short and long-term operational
St. Elizabeths East, but also will accessibility issues such as emergency
encourage economic development and access, building service, staff shifts,
create a vibrant, healthy neighborhood and helicopter access were important
within the District. considerations during the evaluation of
the sites. The proposed location of the
PATIENT AND VISITOR ACCESSIBILITY hospital, medical office buildings, and
Patient and neighborhood connectivity education building allows for long- and
was a key criterion that was evaluated short-term operational flexibility during
during the planning process. Due to the phasing and ultimate build-out of
the close proximity of the Congress the hospital program. An important
Heights Metro station, Site Option 3e feature of the proposed plan is the
meets the visibility and connectivity extension of Cypress Street to the new
goals as well as supporting the St. Elizabeths hospital and the closing of
Master Plan’s goal of connecting the the current new St. Elizabeths hospital
Congress Heights neighborhood with access road. Relocating this access road
St. Elizabeths East. As proposed in the allows Parcels 13 and 16 to be combined
Master Plan, a pedestrian and bicycle to create a larger, more developable
path will encourage greater access lot for the hospital and long term care
to the hospital and medical buildings facility and allows service vehicles to
which in turn will encourage use of the service the lot from Cypress Street
ground floor retail space that will be rather than 13th Street. It also allows
incorporated with the medical office staff to enter and exit a continuous,
buildings. The emphasis on walkability efficiently-configured below-grade
will also create a healthier community. parking area in multiple locations as
The road configurations outlined in the well as allowing ambulance traffic to
Master Plan will allow greater flexibility flow easily in and out of the site without
Depictions of Site Option 3e.

Section 04. Site Recommendation
disrupting other campus functions or building configuration for the ACC, proposed hospital plan has flexibility
being encumbered by campus traffic. It MOB, and Education buildings allow for to grow across the currently proposed
also provides the additional benefit of a flexible plan and core that support emergency drop off location.
improving public connectivity between either an ACC tenant, MOB tenant, or
the Metro and the St. Elizabeths East. a mixed-use commercial tenant. These INTEGRATION WITH OVERALL
buildings are also positioned in such a MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY way as to allow for future expansion or As prescribed in the St. Elizabeths
AND FLEXIBILITY more direct connections with adjacent Master Plan, the greatest amount
In addition to operational accessibility, buildings. of density is recommended to be
the proposed siting location employs developed on Parcels 6, 13, and 16. Due
efficient building layouts and To allow greater ease of patient and to the building size and height of the
configurations for both the hospital and physician circulation, a series of sky proposed program, the Hospital and
medical programs. Special care was bridges is recommended to connect the Long Term Care buildings have been
taken to ensure that the configurations hospital to the medical office buildings. placed on the combined Parcels of
proposed were efficient in size The medical office and innovation 13 and 16. The location of these uses
while also meeting the urban design programs have been located within the will not diminish the character of the
principles outlined by the Master Plan. Phase 1 Real Estate Master Development historic building but reinforce the public
The building locations and sizes allow Plan, which will encourage this program realm goals of campus and community
for flexible patient circulation, physician to be phased and constructed by connectivity. In addition, the Long
circulation, large- and small-scale private development entities. When in Term care program complements the
way-finding, efficient stacking of the the future new modalities and acuities residential development goal as noted
medical programs, and parking. The require new equipment or space, the in the Master Plan and will serve as a
FIGURE 22: PROPOSED PROGRAM (gross square feet FIGURE 23: RECOMMENDED PARKING SPACES
of required area)
BASE PROGRAM BASE PROGRAM
Hospital D&T and Support 172,000 Total Hospital Parking 892
Hospital Beds (150 beds) 125,000 ACC Parking 140
Ambulatory Care Center* 28,000 Additional ACC Parking 275
Additional ACC Program* 55,000 PED Parking 60
Pediatric ED* 12,000 MOB Parking 210
MOB* 42,000 Utility Parking 3
Utility Plant 3,500
ANCILLARY PROGRAM
ANCILLARY PROGRAM IC Parking 100
Innovation Center* 100,000 LTC Parking 30
Long Term Care (120 beds)* 105,000 Educational Parking 100
Medical Education Component 100,000
TOTAL PARKING 1,810
TOTAL AREA 742,500 ** Parking requirements are based on Perkins + Will standards, and do
not account for potential reductions associated with LEED require-
ments, proximity to public transportation, limitations in the zoning
* Private development or public/private partnership opportunity
code or other factors. While surface parking is discouraged, some
proposed development options incorporate limited surface parking
both as emergency room parking and as a method of reserving future
expansion space.

Section 04. Site Recommendation
model to encourage more residential

development within the remaining FIGURE 24: SITE 3E BUILDING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
parcel. Located within the Phase 1 BASE PROGRAM
Real Estate Master Development Buildings SF Cost Parking Cost
Plan are the other medium density
Hospital D+T 172,000 $103,200,000 892 $ 35,230,000
medical and education buildings. The
and Support
location of these buildings creates a
mix of development that enhances Hospital beds 125,000
the public experience, encourages (150 beds)
private development, supports the Ambulatory 28,000 $ 14,000,000 140 $ 5,600,000
innovation hubs, creates urban focal Care Center
points, reinforces the need for walkable Additional 55,000 $ 27,500,000 275 $ 11,000,000
pathways and encourages a healthy ACC Program
campus community.
Pediatric ED 12,000 $ 7,200,000 60 $ 2,400,000
MOB 42,000 $ 21,000,000 210 $ 8,400,000
BUILDING DATA Utility Plant 3,500 $ 3,500,000 3 $ 45,000

TOTAL 437,500 $176,400,000 1580 $62,675,000
The final recommended development
configuration (Site Option 3e) adheres
to the initial project program, including MAJOR SITE COMPONENTS
the ancillary program introduced Mobilization $ 1,850,000
during the Round 1 Meeting. However,
Demolition $ 400,000
it combines a number of the ancillary
program components into a single Earthwork $ 7,650,000
building complex, rather than locating Utilities $ 1,900,000
them in individual buildings. This Roadways & related $ 3,400,000
results in a building scale and massing
Retaining Walls $ 5,200,000
that is consistent with surrounding
& Structures
proposed development density and
bulk requirements, while also allowing WMATA Elements $ 10,000,000
for generous ground-floor retail space Contingencies $ 10,600,000
and public realm amenities such as TOTAL $41,000,000
courtyards and pocket parks.
GRAND TOTAL $280,075,000
SITE 3E COSTS
CONCEPTUAL COST
ANCILLARY PROGRAM
ESTIMATE SF Cost Parking Cost
As part of the site evaluation process, Innovation Center * 100,000 $ 35,000,000 100 $ 4,000,000
a conceptual cost estimate was
Long Term Care 105,000 $ 52,500,000 30 $ 450,000
conducted for the recommended Site
(120 beds) *
Option 3E. This estimate was based on
benchmark unit cost metrics for each Education 100,000 $ 35,000,000 100 $ 4,000,000
of the primary program components, Component *
and considered site utility work, TOTAL 305,000 $122,500,000 $ 8,450,000
infrastructure, mobilization costs, ADDITONAL TOTAL $130,950,000
and contingency allowances in addition COSTS 3E
to both primary and supporting
program components.

SECTION 05.
Next Steps
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE building facilities that falls within the

envelope of “Adjacent Construction”
Partners was selected as the Phase 1
Master Developer for the St. Elizabeths
To develop a conceptual design for the with respect to the green line Metro East redevelopment. While the team
hospital, the parties suggest that the facilities will have to follow WMATA was not consulted in making this
District plan for at least 2 months of Joint Development and Adjacent report, it is anticipated that the above
design and detailed planning effort. To Construction (JDAC) specifications and facilities may be under consideration for
obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) for procedures. Phase 1 opportunities or later private
a hospital at the new site, the District development initiatives depending
should anticipate that it will take on the pace of development for the
approximately 6-10 months (further hospital complex. DMPED anticipates
information regarding the CON process
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
and timeline can be found at doh. OPPORTUNITIES
dc.gov/node/160472). Site development
HOSPITAL RELATED COMPONENTS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OR
and Hospital construction would be
The base program for an urban hospital PUBLIC / PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
anticipated to require 30 to 36 months OPPORTUNITIES
includes the bed tower and two floors
to complete after building permits
of the main hospital (Diagnostic & Innovation Center 100,000 SF
are obtained.
Treatment), patient and emergency
Long Term Care 105,000 SF
entrance and parking garages for
Modification of infrastructure to (120 beds)
employees and customers. Several
accommodate a hospital for Site Option
other facilities are included in the long Ambulatory 28,000 SF
3e layout and the extension of Cypress
term plan for the hospital complex, and Care Center *
Drive for a new entrance to the existing
many of these component facilities are Additional 55,000 SF
St Elizabeths Hospital (DMH) can be
ripe for development by third parties ACC Program *
accomplished in a number of ways:
including private developers. Such Pediatric ED * 12,000 SF
1) as a change order to the present
opportunities are summarized in the
solicitation by DDOT for the Stage 1 Medical Office 42,000 SF
table on the opposite page. So, the
infrastructure improvements, 2) be Building (MOB)
total potential private development
a part of the Stage 2 infrastructure
components associated with the overall Education 100,000 SF
improvements contemplated for
long term “Hospital Complex” at St. Component
St. Elizabeths East or 3) be a site
Elizabeth East could include facilities TOTAL 442,000 SF
development cost of the urban hospital
with up to 442,000 SF of buildings
project. Either way a conceptual * Private development opportunity only;
and up to 915 parking spaces (surface
estimated cost has been prepared not appropriate for public/private
or garages). As of the date of this development
for these improvements. All site and
report, Redbrick LMD-Gragg Cardona

Section 05. Next Steps
working with the Phase 1 developer The development of an urban hospital In addition, the new urban hospital
to identify build to suit and build to is of particular interest to the St. would serve as a key investment and
lease facilities from the above listing, Elizabeths East redevelopment. A driver for the development of creative
with coordination with UMC. By new hospital that features innovation ideas such as the development of
utilizing private development capital and educational components and an “innovation marketplace” that
investments in the facilities, the District partnerships could serve as an anchor provides flexible, shared conference
can reduce up-front capital costs and for the Innovation Hub and significantly and classroom space and infrastructure
subsidize operational or lease costs bolster the District’s efforts to create to support research and technology
as an urban hospital is developed on an innovation economy in East development, business and
St. Elizabeths East and becomes a Washington. The hospital would serve entrepreneurship development, as
financially self-sufficient operation. as a major magnet for other health, well as product demonstration and
Even the option of a private parking biotech and innovation end-users. A commercialization activities in the areas
garage with leased spaces to employees new hospital location could also allow of healthcare, biotech, big data, and
and public revenue control should the District to further support the St. STEM related fields. Activities could
be explored. Elizabeths East’s redevelopment effort include business incubation and early
and its ability to: business expansion facilities, product
INNOVATION HUB/CENTER prototyping, small scale assembly,
The development of the Innovation Hub • Become a preferred location for storage and distribution, and light
is a key component of the District’s Five the innovation-focused, high- manufacturing, all of which can take
Year Economic Development Strategy tech facilities needed by Federal place within either newly constructed
for the District and for St. Elizabeths agencies, academic institutions, and facilities or renovated historic buildings
East. The Strategy identifies the creation private sector firms, especially to on St. Elizabeths East.
of a shared campus for academic enable collaborative research and
institutions and technology firms as a development, technology transfer
key initiative for this administration. The and commercialization
District’s objectives in developing an • Support entrepreneurship and small
Innovation Hub at St. Elizabeths East are business development, targeting
to spur the creation of new technology- both private sector markets and
related businesses and jobs, to create Federal contracting opportunities
economic opportunity at all skill levels in healthcare, biotech, big data, and
for residents of both Ward 8 and the STEM related fields
city as a whole, and to accelerate the • Serve as a focal point for networking
diversification of Washington, D.C.’s and deal making interactions among
economy, reducing reliance on the individuals and organizations in
federal government. the healthcare, biotech, big data,
and STEM fields that are part of the
broader region’s most important
innovation clusters.

APPENDIX A
Evaluation Process
EVALUATION PROCESS the actual weighting range was

arbitrary, but it was agreed that
The criteria identified for analysis are
described as follows:
SCORING MATRIX OVERVIEW each stakeholder would be allotted
The primary tool used for evaluating 25 weighting points to distribute Site Conditions: This criterion is
and comparing the various as they saw fit among the criteria. intended to reflect the develop-
development options that were studied This feature modifies the raw ability of the site in question. Factors
was a quantitative scoring matrix, which scoring so as to reflect the relative impacting this include topography,
had three basic features: priorities of each stakeholder. These soil conditions (insofar as they are
three features, when combined, known), and the presence of utilities,
1. A set of criteria by which each created a mechanism by which groundwater, below-grade obstructions,
development option was evaluated. various development options could and any existing buildings requiring
This set of criteria was proposed by be compared objectively, and the demolition or relocation.
Perkins + Will, reviewed by CH2M most viable development option
HILL, DMPED, and UMC, and refined identified. Refer to Figure 25 for a Patient and Visitor Accessibility: This
over the process in order to capture sample scoring matrix. is intended to reflect the ease with
observations and nuances regarding which a patient or visitor can access
the various options presented. The For each site and for each stakeholder, the facility, using all relevant modes of
criteria are described in further the raw score for each criterion transportation. Proximity of the Metro
detail below. was multiplied by the stakeholder’s station, clarity of vehicular circulation,
2. A raw scoring system. Though the weighting, resulting in a weighted and parking efficiency were all factors
actual scoring range is arbitrary, score for that criterion. These scores impacting this criterion.
it was proposed and agreed that were then summed, resulting in a total
a 5-point scoring system (5 being weighted score for each development Operational Accessibility: This criterion
the most favorable, 1 being the option. The option with the highest is similar to the above, but applies
least favorable) represented the weighted score thereby reflects each to staff and emergency and service
right balance of precision and ease stakeholder’s preferred development personnel rather than the patient and
of use. A score for each criterion option. For the purpose of this exercise, visitor experience. This began as a
was assigned collectively for each a final recommendation was determined single criterion, but was later divided
development option reviewed. by averaging the total weighted scoring into two separate criteria to account for
3. A weighting system. This is meant for each stakeholder (in this case the possibility of differing conditions
to reflect the relative importance DMPED and UMC) and selecting the over time.
of each criterion in the evaluation option with the highest total weighted
process. Like the scoring system, score.
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS i

Appendix A. Evaluation Process
Availability of Neighborhood
FIGURE 25: EVALUATION CRITERIA Amenities: This is intended to reflect
SITE 1 the availability of nearby (within
Scoring walking distance) amenities that would
be attractive to both staff and visitors,
Weight Criteria Raw (1-5) Weighted
such as restaurants, dry cleaners, and
Site Conditions - topography, services. Like the above, it was later
utilities, groundwater, Metro tunnel, separated into two distinct criteria to
existing buildings account for the possibility of future
Patient and Visitor Accessibility - nearby development.
Metro access, vehicular access,
pedestrian access Visibility/Branding Opportunities:
Operational accessibility (near term) - This criterion is intended to reflect the
emergency, service, staff, and relative prominence of the site and its
helicopter access potential for branding and marketing
opportunities.
Operational accessibility (long term) -
emergency, service, staff,
Flexibility: This criterion reflects the
and helicopter access
ease with which a development option
Operational efficiency - can accommodate future growth,
building layout and configuration changes in construction phasing,
Availability of neighborhood changes in program, or other similar
amenities and services (near term) changes.
Availability of neighborhood
Building Construction Cost/
amenities and services (long term)
Complexity: This is intended to reflect
Visibility / branding opportunities the anticipated construction cost and
Flexibility - accommodate future complexity of the development scenario
growth / shifts in program or phasing in question.
Building construction
cost / complexity Compatibility With Existing
Entitlements: This criterion addresses
Compatibility with existing
the degree to which the proposed
entitlements - zoning,
development scenario is in compliance
environmental, HPRB
with existing zoning, environmental,
Compatibility with general master preservation, and other requirements
plan intent and guidelines.
Integration with overall site
development (innovation hub) Compatibility And Integration: What
Integration with overall site began as a single criterion was later
development (Phase 1 development) subdivided into three separate but
related criteria intended to reflect
Availability of natural light / views
general compatibility with the spirit
Political Viability and intent of the St. Elizabeths East
TOTAL: Master Plan, integration with the
RANK proposed Innovation Hub program, and
integration with the proposed scope of
Phase 1 development.
ii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Availability Of Natural Light/Views:

This criterion reflects the degree to REVIEW TIMELINE
which the proposed development
scenario makes natural light and views
available to both staff and visitors.
Political Viability: This criterion

accounts for any difficulty in facilitating
a general political atmosphere
conducive to the development of the
scenario in question.
MEETING OVERVIEW
The evaluation process was iterative in
nature, and involved a series of review
sessions wherein various development
options were presented and evaluated. ROUND 1 REVIEW MEETING
After each session, a collection of PARCEL ID
new or refined development options
were generated, followed by another 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PUD
review session. In addition to the Option 1
Kick-Off Meeting, a total of four
review sessions were held including a Option 2
session reviewing the final proposed Option 3a
development scenario. The agenda,
attendees, and outcome of each Option 3
meeting are summarized below. The Option 4
table accompanying each meeting
summary indicates the name of each
site development scenario developed
for discussion at that meeting, and ROUND 1 REVIEW MEETING ROUND 2 REVIEW MEETING
indicates (in blue) the parcels involved. (JULY 23, 2014) (AUGUST 6, 2014)
Attendees: DMPED, UMC, CH2M HILL, Attendees: DMPED, UMC, CH2M HILL,
KICK-OFF MEETING Perkins + Will Perkins + Will
(JULY 8, 2014)
Attendees: DMPED, UMC, CH2M HILL, Summary: A proposed development Summary: Two variations each on the
Perkins + Will program, generated by Perkins + Will, most favorable development options
was presented and discussed. UMC presented at the previous meeting
Summary: Project teams, background presented some additional program were presented and discussed. All four
and goals were introduced and components for inclusion in the project options reflected the augmented project
discussed. General time frame of the program. The evaluation process and program developed at the previous
exercise was established. It was also score sheet were also presented, meeting, and expanded to partially
agreed that initial analysis should focus and initial development options (Site or fully occupy adjacent parcels as a
on Parcels 1, 2, 13 and 16 in conjunction Option 1, Site Option 2, Site Option 3, result. Site Options 2a and 2b expanded
and the undeveloped portion of the St. Site Option 3a, and Site Option 4) were the footprint of Site Option 2 to the
Elizabeths Hospital PUD site. presented and discussed. It was agreed southeast and to the north, respectively,
that Site Option 2 (Parcel 2) and Site and the merits of both approaches
Option 3 (Parcels 13 and 16) seemed to were evaluated. Site Options 3b and 3c
be the most favorable candidates for expanded on ideas explored by Site 3,
continued development. expanding the development footprint
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS iii

to the west and north. It was agreed more consistent with the Master Plan. sites (Site Option 2 and Site Option
that Site Options 1 and 4 would not be Site Option 3d represented a further 3) were briefly explored, and the
further developed due to the limitations refinement of the ideas represented remaining process and timeline were
associated with those sites that were by Site Option 3c from the previous discussed.
identified at the previous meeting. meeting, and further capitalized on the
development opportunities offered by ROUND 4 REVIEW MEETING
ROUND 3 REVIEW MEETING the parcels involved. (SEPTEMBER 10, 2014)
(AUGUST 14, 2014) Attendees: DMPED, CH2M HILL,
Attendees: DMPED, UMC, CH2M HILL, PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION Perkins + Will
Perkins + Will (AUGUST 20, 2014)
Attendees: DMPED, UMC, CH2M HILL, Summary: The project team reconvened
Summary: At this meeting, three Perkins + Will briefly on September 10 to further
options related to Site Option 2 and one discuss the difficulties associated with
related to Site Option 3 were presented. Summary: On August 20, 2014, the development of Site Option 2, and
The Site Option 2 Options (Site Options project team made a joint presentation to review a refined configuration for
2c, 2d, and 2e) were intended to explore of progress to date to the District Site Option 3 (Site Option 3e). The
the full range of density options related and Otero. The project background, remaining timeline was then discussed
to the parcels in question. Site Option program, challenges and opportunities, and it was agreed that work would
2c represented a low-density suburban and development strategies were commence on a draft of the final
model, while Option 2e represented reviewed and were, in general, well- project report.
a high-density urban development received. The relative merits of the two
ROUND 2 REVIEW
PARCEL ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PUD
Option 2a
Option 2b
Option 3b
Option 3c
ROUND 3 REVIEW
PARCEL ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PUD
Option 2c
Option 2d
Option 2e
Option 3d
ROUND 4 REVIEW
PARCEL ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PUD
Option 3e
iv ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

EVALUATION CRITERIA
TE2 2 SITE
SITE
SITE
2e
SITE
2e2a2a SITE
SITE
SITE
3SITE
3 2b2b SITE
SITE
SITE
3a
SITE
3a2c2c3
ROUND SITE
SITE
SITE
3c
SITE
3c2d32d
ROUND SITE
SITE
SITE
3d
ROUNDSITE
3d32e2e SITE
SITE
ROUND SITE
3eSITE
3e
4 33 SITE
SITE
SITE
4SITE
4 3a3
oring
ng Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring ScoringSITE 2c
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring SITE
Scoring
Scoring 2d
Scoring
Scoring SITE
Scoring 3d
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring SITE 3eScoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scorin
Weighted
hted
ighted
Weighted
RawRaw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
RawRaw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Scoring Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
ScoringWeighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
ScoringWeighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
ScoringWeighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighte
Weigh
Wei
W
3.60
606.00
6.00 4 4Weight
3 3 4.80
4.80
3.60
3.60
Criteria 3 3 3 3 3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 2 2Raw
3 3(1–5)
2.40
2.40
3.60
3.60
Weighted 3Raw
3 3(1–5)
3 3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
Weighted 3 3(1–5)
Raw 4 4 3.60
3.60
4.80
4.80 Raw3(1–5)
Weighted 3 3 3Weighted
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 3 3 2 2 3.60
3.60
2
1.20 Site Conditions - topography, 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60

5.00
00
12.00
12.00 4 4 4 4 12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00 4 4 4 4 12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00 3 3 5 5 9.00
9.00
15.00
15.00 5 5 5 5 15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00 5 5 4 4 15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00 5 5 4 4 15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00 2 2 3 3 6.00
6.00
9
utilities, groundwater, Metro tunnel,
existing buildings
5.75
753.45
3.45 5 5 3 3 5.75
5.75
3.45
3.45 3 3 3 3 3.453.45
3.45
3.45 3 3 5 5 3.45
3.45
5.75
5.75 3 3 5 5 3.45
3.45
5.75
5.75 3 3 5 5 3.45
3.45
5.75
5.75 4 4 3 3 4.60
4.60
3.45
3.45 2 2 3 3 2.30
2.30
3
3.00 Patient and Visitor Accessibility - 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00
Metro access, vehicular access,
5.75
754.60
4.60 5 5 4 4 5.75
5.75
4.60
4.60 4 4 4 4 4.604.60
4.60
4.60 2 2 5 5 2.30
2.30
5.75
5.75 3 3 5 5 3.45
3.45
5.75
5.75 3 3 5 5 3.45
3.45
5.75
5.75 4 4 4 4 4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 2 2 2 2 2.30
2.30
2
pedestrian access
0.40
405.20
5.20 3 32.30
4 4 7.80Operational
7.80
10.40
10.40 4accessibility
4 4 4 10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40 1 1 4 45 2.60
2.60 5.75
10.40
10.40 4 4 45 4 10.405.75
10.40
10.40
10.40 4 43 3 3 10.40
3.45
10.40
7.80
7.80 444 4 4 10.40
4.60
10.40
10.40
10.40 3 3 1 1 7.80
7.80
2
(near term) - emergency, service,
staff, and helicopter access
1.40
401.40
1.40 2 2 2 2 1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 3 3 2 2 2.10 2.10
1.40
1.40 3 3 2 2 2.10
2.10
1.40
1.40 3 3 2 2 2.10
2.10
1.40
1.40 3 3 2 2 2.10
2.10
1.40
1.40 3 3 3 3 2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 2 2 3 3 1.40
1.40
2
Operational accessibility 5 5.75 5 5.75 3 3.45 4 4.60
2.10
102.80
2.80 3 3 4 4 2.10 (long
2.10
2.80
2.80term) 4- emergency,
4 3 3 2.80 service,
2.80
2.10
2.10 4 4 3 3 2.80
2.80
2.10
2.10 4 4 3 3 2.80
2.80
2.10
2.10 4 4 3 3 2.80
2.80
2.10
2.10 4 4 4 4 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 3 3 4 4 2.10
2.10
2
staff, and helicopter access
9.20
209.20
9.20 4 42.60
4 4 9.20Operational
9.20
9.20
9.20 5efficiency -11.50
5 3 3 11.50 building
6.90
6.90 4 4 4 44 9.20
9.2010.40
9.20
9.20 5 5 44 4 11.50
10.40
11.50
9.20
9.20 5 54 4 4 11.50
10.40
11.50
9.20
9.20 545 5 5 11.50
10.40
11.50
11.50
11.50 1 1 4 4 2.30
2.30
9
layout and configuration
0.80
805.40
5.40 3 31.40
4 4 8.10
8.10
10.80
10.80
Availability 3
of3neighborhood
5 5 8.10
8.10
13.50
13.50 1 1 5 52 2.70
2.70
13.50
13.50
1.40 3 3 42 4 8.10
8.10
10.80
10.80
1.40 3 33 3 3 8.10
8.10
8.10
2.108.10 333 3 3 8.10
8.10
2.108.10
8.10 3 3 1 1 8.10
8.10
2
amenities and services (near term)
4.80
806.40
6.40 4 4 4 4 6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40
Availability 2
of2neighborhood
3 3 3.20
3.20
4.80
4.80 1 1 3 33 1.60
1.60
4.80
4.80
2.10 1 1 33 3 1.60
1.60
4.80
4.80
2.10 2 24 4 4 3.20
3.20
6.40
2.806.40 242 2 2 3.20
3.20
2.803.20
3.20 3 3 1 1 4.80
4.80
1
amenities and services (long term)
7.20
205.40
5.40 4 4 4 4 7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 3 3 4 4 5.40
5.40
7.20
7.20 3 3 4 4 5.40
5.40
7.20
7.20 3 3 4 4 5.40
5.40
7.20
7.20 2 2 4 4 3.60
3.607.20
7.20 3 3 3 3 5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 1 1 3 3 1.80
1.80
5
2.30 Visibility / branding opportunities 4 9.20 4 9.20 5 11.50 5 11.50
2.00
002.00
2.00 3 32.70
3 3 2.00Flexibility
2.002.00 - 2accommodate
2.00 2 2 2 1.33 future
1.33
1.33
1.33 1 1 2 25 0.67
0.6713.50
1.33
1.33 2 2 34 3 1.3310.80
1.33
2.00
2.00 3 33 3 3 2.00
8.10
2.00
2.00
2.00 434 2 2 2.67
8.10
2.67
1.33
1.33 3 3 1 1 2.00
2.00
0
growth / shifts in program or phasing
2.00
002.00
2.00 3 31.60
3 3 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 construction
Building 4 4 3 3 cost
2.67
2.67
/2.00
2.00
complexity 3 3 3 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.80 3 3 33 3 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.80 5 52 3 3 3.33
3.33
2.00
3.202.00 525 4 4 3.33
3.33
3.202.67
2.67 3 3 3 3 2.00
2.00
2
1.80 Compatibility with existing 4 7.20 4 7.20 2 3.60 3 5.40
2.00
002.00
2.00 4 4 3 3 2.67
2.67
2.00
2.00
entitlements4-4zoning,
3 3 2.67
2.67
2.00
2.00 4 4 3 3 2.67
2.67
2.00
2.00 4 4 3 3 2.67
2.67
2.00
2.00 4 4 4 4 2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 4 4 4 4 2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 3 3 4 4 2.00
2.00
2
environmental, HPRB
2.80
807.00
7.00 2 2 2 2 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 2 2 2 2 2.802.80
2.80
2.80 2 2 2 2 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 2 2 2 2 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 3 3 2 2 4.20
4.20
2.80
2.80 3 3 2 2 4.20
4.20
2.80
2.80 3 3 2 2 4.20
4.20
2
2.00 Compatibility with general 2 1.33 3 2.00 3 2.00 4 2.67
master plan intent
2.70
702.70
2.70 2 2 1 1 5.40
5.40
2.70
2.70 2 2 1 1 5.405.40
2.70
2.70 2 2 1 1 5.40
5.40
2.70
2.70 2 2 1 1 5.40
5.40
2.70
2.70 3 3 2 2 8.10
8.10
5.40
5.40 3 3 2 2 8.10
8.10
5.40
5.40 2 2 2 2 5.40
5.40
5
Integration with overall site 3 2.00 3 2.00 5 3.33 5 3.33
7.50
50
77.55
77.55 development
85.37
85.37
83.35
83.35 (innovation
82.02 hub)
82.02
80.78
80.78 57.08
57.08
89.53
89.53 81.60
81.60
87.50
87.50 87.50
87.50
85.37
85.37 92.27
92.27
82.02
82.02 58.10
58.1
57
Integration with overall site 3 2.00 3 2.00 4 2.67 4 2.67
3310
10 55development
66 77 99
(Phase 1 development) 12
1222 88 33 33 55 11 77 11
111
1.40 Availability of natural light / views 2 2.80 2 2.80 3 4.20 3 4.20
2.70 Political Viability 1 2.70 1 2.70 3 8.10 3 8.10
TOTAL 89.53 87.50 87.50 92.27
RANK 2 3 3 1
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS v

EVALUATION CRITERIA
SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
1
SITE
11 11 SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
2
SITE
22 22 SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
2a
SITE
2a2a2a
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria ROUND 1 ROUND 1 ROUND 22a SITE
SITE
SITE
ROUND SITE
2b
SITE
2b2b2b
2 2b SITE
SITE
ROUNDSITE
SITE
2c
SITE
2c2c2c
3 2c SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
2d
SIT
22
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scorin
Sco
Sc
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
SITE
(1-5)
(1-5)
1
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
WeightedRaw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
SITE
(1-5)
(1-5)
2
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
WeightedRaw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
2a
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
WeightedRaw
Raw
Raw
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
2b
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
SITE
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
2c
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
WeightedRaw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5)
(1-5
We
WW
Site
Site
Site
Site
Conditions
Site
Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
Conditions
- -topography,
-topography,
topography,
- -topography,
topography,utilities,
utilities,
utilities,
utilities,
utilities,
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20 333 33 Scoring
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 Scoring
555 55 6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00 Scoring
333 33 3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 333Scoring
33 3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 33Scoring
3 33 3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 333 33 3
groundwater,
groundwater,
groundwater,
groundwater,
groundwater,Metro
Metro
Metro
Metro
Metro
tunnel,
tunnel,
tunnel,
tunnel,
tunnel,
existing
existing
existing
existing
existing
buildings
buildings
buildings
buildings
buildings
Weight3.00Criteria
3.00
3.00
Patient
3.00
Patient
3.00
Patient
Patient
Patient
and
and
andand
Visitor
and
Visitor
Visitor
Visitor
Visitor
Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility
- -Metro
-Metro
Metro
- -Metro
Metro
access, access, Raw Weighted
access,
access,
access,
333 33 9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00 4Raw
44 44 Weighted
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00 Raw
444 44Weighted
12.0012.00 Raw
12.00
12.00
12.00 444 4Weighted
4 12.0012.00 Raw
12.00
12.00
12.00 555 Weighted
55 15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00 555 55 15
1
vehicular
vehicular
vehicular
vehicular
vehicular
access,
access,
access,
access,
access,
pedestrian
pedestrian
pedestrian
pedestrian
pedestrian
access
access
access
access
access (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
accessibility
accessibility
accessibility
accessibility
accessibility(near
(near
(near
(near
(near
term)
term)
term)
term)
term)
--- --
333 33 3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33 3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33 3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33 3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 555 55 5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 555 55 5
1.20 2.30 Site
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Conditions
emergency,
emergency,
emergency,
emergency,
emergency,service, -service,
service,
service, topography,
service,
staff,
staff,
staff,
staff,
staff,
and
and
andand
helicopter
and
helicopter
helicopter
helicopter
helicopter
access
access
access
access
access 3 3.60 5 6.00 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60
utilities, groundwater, Metro tunnel,
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
accessibility
accessibility
accessibility
accessibility
accessibility(long
(long
(long
(long
(long
term)
term)
term)
term)
term)
- - - - -
333 33 3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 444 44 4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 444 44 4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 444 44 4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 555 55 5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 555 55 5
emergency,
emergency,
emergency,
emergency,
emergency,service,
service,
service,
service,
service,
staff,
staff,
staff,
staff,
staff,
and
and
andand
helicopter
and
helicopter
helicopter
helicopter
helicopter
access
access
access
access
access
existing buildings
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
efficiency
efficiency
efficiency
efficiency
efficiency
- -building
-building
building
- -building
building
layout
layout
layout
layout
layout
and
and
andand
and
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60 111 11 2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60 222 22 5.20
5.20
5.20
5.20
5.20 444 44 10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40 444 44 10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40 444 44 10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40 444 44 10
1
3.00 Patient and Visitor Accessibility -
configuration
configuration
configuration
configuration
configuration 3 9.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 5 15.00
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
ofofof
neighborhood
neighborhood
of
neighborhood
of
Metro access, vehicular access,neighborhood
neighborhood amenities
amenities
amenities
amenities
amenitiesand
and
and and
and
222 22 1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22 1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22 1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22 1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22 1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22 1
services
services
services
services
services
(near
(near
(near
(near
(near
term)
term)
term)term)
term)
1.40pedestrian
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 access
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
ofofof
neighborhood
neighborhood
of
neighborhood
ofneighborhood
neighborhood amenities
amenities
amenities
amenities
amenitiesand
and
and and
and
333 33 2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 444 44 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 444 44 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 333 33 2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33 2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33 2
2.30 services
services
services
services
services
Operational (long
(long
(long
(long
(long
term)
term)
term)term)
term)
accessibility (near term) - 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 5 5.75 v
2.30emergency,
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Visibility
Visibility
Visibility
Visibility
Visibilityservice,
/ /branding
/branding
branding staff,
/ /branding
branding and
opportunities
opportunities
opportunities
opportunities
opportunities 333 33 6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90 444 44 9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 444 44 9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 333 33 6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90 444 44 9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 444 44 9
helicopter access
Flexibility
Flexibility
Flexibility
Flexibility
Flexibility
- -accommodate
-accommodate
accommodate
- -accommodate
accommodate
future
future
future
future
future
growth
growth
growth
growth
growth
/ /shifts
/shifts
shifts
/ /shifts
shifts
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 111 11 2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 222 22 5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 444 44 10.80
10.80
10.80
10.80
10.80 555 55 13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50 555 55 13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50 444 44 10
1
ininin
program
program
in
program
inprogram
program
ororor
phasing
phasing
or
phasing
orphasing
phasing
Operational accessibility (long term) - 3 3.45 4 4.60 4 4.60 4 4.60 5 5.75
1.60emergency,
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
Building
Building
Building
Buildingservice,
Building
construction
construction
constructionstaff,
construction
construction
cost
cost
cost
cost and
/ cost
/complexity
/complexity
complexity
/ /complexity
complexity 333 33 4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80 444 44 6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40 444 44 6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40 333 33 4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80 333 33 4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80 333 33 4
helicopter access
Compatibility
Compatibility
Compatibility
Compatibility
Compatibility
with
with
with
with
existing
with
existing
existing
existing
existing
entitlements
entitlements
entitlements
entitlements
entitlements
--- --
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80 111 11 1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80 333 33 5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 444 44 7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 444 44 7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 444 44 7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 444 44 7
zoning,
zoning,
zoning,
zoning,
zoning,
environmental,
environmental,
environmental,
environmental,
environmental,
HPRB
HPRB
HPRB
HPRB
HPRB
2.60 Operational efficiency - building 1 2.60 2 5.20 4 10.40 4 10.40 4 10.40
layout and configuration
Compatibility
Compatibility
Compatibility
Compatibility
Compatibility
with
with
with
with
general
with
general
general
general
general
master
master
master
master
master
plan
plan
plan
plan
intent
plan
intent
intent
intent
intent 111 11 0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67 333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 222 22 1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33 222 22 1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33 333 33 2
Integration
Integration
Integration
Integration
Integration
with
with
1.40 2.00Availability
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 ofwith
with
overall
with
overall
overall
overall
overall
site
site
site
neighborhood development
site
development
site
development
development
development
21
111 1 1.40
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67 333233 1.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 3323 33 1.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 233 33
3 1.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 2333 33 1.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2
(innovation
(innovation
(innovation
(innovation
(innovation
hub)
hub)
hub)
hub)
hub)
amenities
Integration
Integration
and
Integration
Integration
Integration
with
with
services
with
with
overall
with
overall
overall
overall
overall
site
(near
site
site
term)(Phase
development
site
development
site
development
development
development
(Phase
(Phase
(Phase
(Phase
333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33 2
11development)
1development)
1development)
1development)
development)
Availability of neighborhood 3 2.10 4 2.80 4 2.80 3 2.10 3 2.10
1.40amenities
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
Availabilityand
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
ofofof services
natural
natural
of
natural
ofnatural
natural
light
light /(long
light
light
light
/views
/views
views term)
/ /views
views 444 44 5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60 555 55 7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00 222 22 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22 2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22 2
2.30 2.70Visibility
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
Political
Political
Political/Viability
branding
Political
Political
Viability
Viability
Viability
Viability opportunities 32
222 2 6.90
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 111411 9.20
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 1141 11 9.20
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 1311 11 6.90
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 4111 11 9.20
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 111 11 2
2.70 Flexibility
TOTAL:
TOTAL:
TOTAL:
TOTAL:- accommodate future
TOTAL: 1 2.70
56.13
56.13
56.13
56.13
56.13 2 5.40
77.55
77.55
77.55
77.55
77.55 4 10.80
83.35
83.35
83.35
83.35
83.35 5 13.50
80.78
80.78
80.78
80.78
80.78 5 13.50
89.53
89.53
89.53
89.53
89.53 87
8
growth / shifts in program or phasing
1.60 Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Building construction cost / complexity 3
13
13
13
13
13
4.80 4
10
10
10
10
10
6.40 4
666 66
6.40 3
999 99
4.80 3 4.80
222 22
1.80 Compatibility with existing entitlements - 1 1.80 3 5.40 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20
zoning, environmental,
Legend
Legend
Legend HPRB
Legend
Legend
2.00 Compatibility with general master 1 0.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 2 1.33 2 1.33
Round
Round
planRound
Round
Round
4 4Option
intent 4Option
Option
4 4Option
Option
Integration
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
3 3Optionwith
Option overall site development
3Option
Option
3 3Option 1 0.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00
(innovation hub)
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
2 2Option
2Option
Option
2 2Option
Option
Integration with overall site development 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00
(Phase 1 development)
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
1 1Option
1Option
Option
1 1Option
Option
1.40 Availability of natural light / views 4 5.60 5 7.00 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80
2.70 Political Viability 2 5.40 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70
TOTAL 56.13 77.55 83.35 80.78 89.53
RANK 13 10 6 9 2
vi ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

E
TEcITE
2c
SITE
2c
2c
2c2c SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
2d
SITE
2d
SITE
2d
SITE
2d
SITE
2d
2d
2d2d SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
2e
SITE
2e
SITE
2e
SITE
2e
SITE
2e
2e2e2e SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
3
SITE
3
SITE
3
SITE
3
SITE
333 3 SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
3a
SITE
3a
SITE
3a
SITE
3a
SITE
3a
3a3a3a SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
3c
SITE
3c
SITE
3c
SITE
3c
SITE
3c
3c
ROUND 3 ROUND 3 ROUND 1 ROUND 1 ROUND 23c3c SITE
SITE
SITE
SITE
3d
SITE
ROUND 3d
SITE
3d
SITE
3d
SITE
3d
33d3d3d SITE
SITE
SITE
ROUNDSITE
3e
SITE
3e
SITE
3e
SITE
43e
SITE
3e
3e3e3e SITE
SITE
SITE
ROUND SITE
4
SITE
4
SITE
4
SITE
1 4SITE
444 4
Scoring
coring
gring
ng
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
Scoring
ghted
ighted
1-5)
Weighted
5)
eighted
) Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
SITE
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
2d
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
SITE
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
2e
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
3
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
3a
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
3c
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
3d
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
SITE
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
3e
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Raw
Raw
Raw
SITE
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Raw
4
(1-5)
Raw
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
(1-5)
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
60
3.60
.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 Scoring
3.60 333 33333.60
33.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 Scoring
3.60 444 44444.80
4
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.804.80 333 3333Scoring
4.80
4.80 3.60
33.60
3.60
3.60
3.603.60 222 222Scoring
3.60
3.60 22.40
22.40
2.40
2.40
2.402.40 333 33Scoring
2.40
2.40 333.60
33.60
3.60
3.60
3.603.60 333 3Scoring
3.60
3.60 3333.60
33.60
3.60
3.60
3.603.60 333Scoring
3.60
3.60 33333.60
33.60
3.60
3.60
3.603.60 33Scoring
3.60
3.60 3 33333.60
33.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
15.00
5.00
.00
15.0015.00555 55Raw
15.00
15.00
15.00 5515.00Weighted
15.00
515.00
15.0015.00444 4Raw
15.00
15.00
15.00 Weighted
44412.00
12.00
412.00
12.0012.00444 Raw
12.00
12.00
12.00 Weighted
444412.00
12.00
412.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00 Raw
12.00333 Weighted
33339.00
39.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00 Raw
9.00 555 5555Weighted
15.00
15.00
515.00
15.0015.00Raw
15.00
15.00
15.00 555 555Weighted
515.00
15.00
515.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00 Raw
15.00 Weighted
555 555515.00
15.00
515.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00Raw
15.00 Weighted
222 22226.00
26.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
(1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5)
75
5.75
.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 555 55555.75
55.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 555 55555.75
55.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 333 33333.45
33.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33333.45
33.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33333.45
33.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33333.45
33.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 444 44444.60
44.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 222 22222.30
22.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
3 3.60 4 4.80 3 3.60 2 2.40 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60
75
5.75
.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 555 55555.75
55.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 555 55555.75
55.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75 444 44444.60
44.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 222 22222.30
22.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30 333 33333.45
33.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 333 33333.45
33.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45 444 44444.60
44.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60 222 22222.30
22.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
10.40
0.40
.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40444 444410.40
10.40
410.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40333 33337.80
37.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80 444 444410.40
10.40
410.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40111 11112.60
12.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60 444 444410.40
10.40
410.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40444 444410.40
10.40
410.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40444 444410.40
10.40
410.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40333 33337.80
37.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
5 15.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 3 9.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 2 6.00
40
1.40
.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22221.40
21.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 222 22221.40
21.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 222 22221.40
21.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
10
2.10
.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10 444 44442.80
42.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 444 44442.80
42.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 444 44442.80
42.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 444 44442.80
42.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 444 44442.80
42.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 333 33332.10
32.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
v 5 5.75 5 5.75 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 4 4.60 2 2.30
20
9.20
.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 444 44449.20
49.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 444 44449.20
49.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 555 555511.50
11.50
511.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50444 44449.20
49.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20 555 555511.50
11.50
511.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50555 555511.50
11.50
511.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50555 555511.50
11.50
511.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50111 11112.30
12.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
13.50
3.50
.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50
13.50444 444410.80
10.80
410.80
10.80
10.80
10.80
10.80
10.80333 33338.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10 333 33338.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10 111 11112.70
12.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70 333 33338.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10 333 33338.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10 333 33338.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10 333 33338.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
5 5.75 5 5.75 4 4.60 2 2.30 3 3.45 3 3.45 4 4.60 2 2.30
80
4.80
.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80 333 33334.80
34.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80 444 44446.40
46.40
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.40 222 22223.20
23.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20 111 11111.60
11.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60 111 11111.60
11.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60 222 22223.20
23.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20 222 22223.20
23.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20 333 33334.80
34.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
20
7.20
.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 444 44447.20
47.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 444 44447.20
47.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.20 333 33335.40
35.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 333 33335.40
35.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 333 33335.40
35.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 222 22223.60
23.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60 333 33335.40
35.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 111 11111.80
11.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
4 10.40 3 7.80 4 10.40 1 2.60 4 10.40 4 10.40 4 10.40 3 7.80
33
1.33
.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33 333 33332.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33332.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 222 22221.33
21.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33 111 11110.67
10.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67 222 22221.33
21.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33 333 33332.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 333 33332.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
00
2.00
.00
2.00
2.002.00 333 333322.00
2.00
2.00 32.00
2.00 1.40
2.00
2.002.00 333 333232.00
2.00
2.00 32.00
2.001.40
2.00
2.002.00 444 443442.67
2.00
2.00 42.672.10
2.67
2.67
2.672.67 333 333332.00
2.67
2.67 2.10
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.002.00 333333332.00
2.00
2.00 2.10
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.002.00 5535 55553.33
2.00
2.00 2.10
53.33
3.33
3.33
3.333.33 5355 55553.33
3.33
3.33 2.10
53.33
3.33
3.33
3.333.332333 3331.40
3.33
3.33 32.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
00
2.00
.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 333 33332.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 444 44442.67
42.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67 333 33332.00
32.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3 2.10 3 2.10 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 3 2.10
80
2.80
.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22222.80
22.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22222.80
22.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22222.80
22.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22222.80
22.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 222 22222.80
22.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80 333 33334.20
34.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20 333 33334.20
34.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20 333 33334.20
34.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
70
2.70
.70
2.70
2.702.70 111 111142.70
2.70
2.70 12.70
2.70 9.20
2.70
2.702.70 222 222425.40
2.70
2.70 25.40
5.409.20
5.40
5.405.40 222 225225.40
5.40
5.40 25.4011.50
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40 42225.40
5.40 222 2 9.20
25.40
5.40
5.40
5.405.40 222522225.40
5.40
5.40 11.50
25.40
5.40
5.40
5.405.40 3353 33338.10
5.40
5.40 311.50
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.108.10 3533 333311.50
8.10
8.10 8.10
38.10
8.10
8.10
8.108.10 1222 2222.30
8.10
8.10 25.40
25.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
89.53
9.53
.53
89.53
89.53
89.53
89.53
89.53 487.50
87.50
87.5010.80
87.50
87.50
87.50
87.50
87.50 385.37
85.37
85.378.10
85.37
85.37
85.37
85.37
85.37 3 82.02
82.028.10
82.02
82.02
82.02
82.02
82.02
82.02 1 2.70
57.08
57.08
57.08
57.08
57.08
57.08
57.08
57.08 3 8.10
81.60
81.60
81.60
81.60
81.60
81.60
81.60
81.60 3 8.10
87.50
87.50
87.50
87.5087.50 3
87.50
87.50
87.50 8.10
92.27
92.27
92.27
92.2792.273
92.27
92.27
92.27 8.10
58.10
58.10
58.10
58.10
58.10
58.10
58.10
58.10
2222222 2 3
333334.80
33 3 4
55556.40
555 5 2
7773.20
7777 7 1
12
12
1212
12
12
1.60
12
12 1
8888888 8
1.60 2
3333333 3 2
3.20
1111111 1 3
3.20
11
4.80
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
4 7.20 4 7.20 3 5.40 3 5.40 3 5.40 2 3.60 3 5.40 1 1.80
3 2.00 3 2.00 2 1.33 1 0.67 2 1.33 3 2.00 4 2.67 3 2.00
3 2.00 3 2.00 4 2.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 5 3.33 5 3.33 3 2.00
3 2.00 4 2.67 4 2.67 4 2.67 4 2.67 4 2.67 4 2.67 3 2.00
2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 3 4.20 3 4.20 3 4.20

1 2.70 2 5.40 2 5.40 2 5.40 2 5.40 3 8.10 3 8.10 2 5.40
87.50 85.37 82.02 57.08 81.60 87.50 92.27 58.10
3 5 7 12 8 3 1 11
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS vii

ADDITIONAL STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
Site Option 1 involved Parcel 1 at

the far northern end of the campus.
While topography and other site
considerations were considered to be
relatively favorable, its size and existing
zoning proved incompatible with the
proposed program.
Advantages
• Adjacent to Martin Luther King,
Jr. Boulevard
• Relatively Good Site Conditions
• Good Site Access
Disadvantages
• Small Size
• Far from Phase 1 Infrastructure
• Parcel 1 Already Earmarked for
Incompatible Use
• Incompatible Zoning
viii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Site Option 2 involved Parcel 2 at the

northern end of the campus, just south
of Parcel 1. This site offered reasonable
topography, enough space to
accommodate the proposed program,
and excellent accessibility. Although a
stand-alone proposal Involving Parcel
2 exclusively was not further pursued,
variations involving expansion onto
adjacent parcels were pursued.
Advantages
• Adjacent to Martin Luther King,
Jr. Boulevard
• Ample Space for Proposed Program
• Compatible Existing Zoning.
Disadvantages
• Parcel 2 Presently Earmarked for
Other Uses
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ix

Site Option 2a was a later variation on

Site Option 2, which sought to further
engage the surrounding campus by
expanding onto two adjacent parcels to
the southeast. In addition to improving
the functionality and accessibility of
Parcel 2, it also further activated Pecan
and 13th Streets.
Advantages
• Adjacent To Martin Luther King,
Jr. Boulevard
• Compatible Existing Zoning
Disadvantages
• Parcel 2 Presently Earmarked
For Other Uses
• Larger Footprint
x ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Site Option 2b was a further variation

on Site Option 2, which sought to
consolidate the full program on the
portion of the campus north of Pecan
Street with the exception of a single
additional building on parcel 15.
Advantages
Jr. Boulevard
Compatible Existing Zoning
Disadvantages
• Parcels 1 and 2 Presently Earmarked
For Other Uses
• Larger Footprint
• Somewhat Suburban Character
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xi

Site Option 2c was intended to explore

the consequences of locating only
the fundamental hospital program
on Parcel 2, with the remainder of
the program occupying surrounding
parcels. Though this solution provides
maximum flexibility and functionality
for the hospital program, the result
is an undesirable suburban character,
poor utilization of valuable land, and an
abundance of surface parking
Advantages
Jr. Boulevard
• Good Accessibility and Functionality
Disadvantages
For Other Uses
• Very Large Footprint
• Suburban Character
• Very Low Density
• Heavy Reliance on Surface Parking
xii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Site Option 2d was intended to

represent a reasonable compromise
between Sites Options 2c and 2e. The
result is a medium-density solution with
the central hospital program located on
Parcel 2 and ancillary program located
on surrounding parcels. It preserves
flexibility and functionality while
engaging the remainder of the campus
and activating Pecan Street and Martin
Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
Advantages
Jr. Boulevard
• Activates Pecan Street and MLK
Blvd.
Disadvantages
For Other Uses
• Very Large Footprint
• Suburban Character
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xiii

Site Option 2e proposes to reconfigure

the boundaries of Parcels 1 and 2 in
order to optimize Parcel 2 for the
fundamental hospital Program while
reserving Parcel 1 as a possible site
for Federal Government Use. The
remainder of the program is distributed
on adjacent parcels to the south of
Parcel 2.
Advantages
Jr. Boulevard
• High Density
• Urban Character
• Activates Pecan Street and
MLK Blvd.
Disadvantages
• Parcel 2 Already Earmarked
For Other Uses
• Requires Revision of Parcel
Boundaries
xiv ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Site Option 3 involved Parcels 12, 13, and

16 on the eastern side of the campus.
The site is well located and circumvents
the challenges posed by Site Option 3
by expanding onto an adjacent parcel.
Advantages
• Near Metro
• Centrally Located
• Near Phase 1 Infrastructure
• Expansion Space Available
Disadvantages
• Difficult Topography
• Traversed By Metro Tunnel
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xv

Site Option 3a involved Parcels 13 and

16 on the eastern side of the campus.
Although this site is well located, it
is compromised by narrow parcels,
difficult topography, and other site
complications.
Advantages
• Near Metro
Disadvantages
• Unusual Site Geometry
xvi ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Site Option 3b involved Parcels 5, 6,

12, 13, and 16. The site makes good
use of available parcel, has good
accessibility, catalyzes a number of
adjacent uses, and activates 13th Street.
However, it also addresses parking
needs through a very large central
parking structure which makes poor use
of a prominent parcel.
Advantages
• Near Metro
• Good Accessibility
Disadvantages
• Significant Above-Grade
Structured Parking
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xvii

Site Option 3c is similar in character

to Site Option 3b, but explores
the implications of making minor
adjustments to the surrounding street
grid. Though this change would involve
the need for additional approvals, it
offers several distinct benefits including
improved circulation, more reasonably
shaped parcels, and a more coherent
street grid.
Advantages
• Near Metro
• Good Accessibility and Circulation
Disadvantages
• Additional Approvals Required for
Street Changes
xviii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Site Option 3d is similar in approach to

Site Option 3c, but attempts to better
consolidate the proposed program. It
also proposes to relocate the entrance
road to St. Elizabeths hospital in order
to improve vehicular circulation
and accessibility.
Advantages
• Near Metro
• Good Accessibility and Circulation
Disadvantages
• Additional Approvals Required for
Street Changes
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xix

Site Option 4 involved a portion of the

PUD site for St. Elizabeths hospital.
Although this site seemed to offer
adequate space for the proposed
program, it was compromised by poor
accessibility as well as branding and
visibility challenges due to its proximity
to St. Elizabeths hospital.
Advantages
• Adequate Space
• Reasonable Topography
Disadvantages
• Limited Access
• Poor Branding and Visibility
Opportunities
• Remotely Located
xx ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

APPENDIX B
Due Diligence Report
DUE DILIGENCE REPORT

FOR ST. ELIZABETHS EAST
This Due Diligence Report has been
prepared to assess the existing
conditions of St. Elizabeths East for
purposes of locating the United Medical
Center Hospital on the campus. Thirteen
(13) development options were studied.
The study included a combination of
ten (10) parcels within the St. Elizabeths
East, Parcel 1 through 6, 9, 12, 13 and
16. The information provided in the
Appendix was relied on by CH2M HILL
and Perkins + Will for the purpose of
developing this study. This information
is provided for background information
only and should be independently
verified.
A. GOVERNMENT
ENTITLEMENTS
1. ZONING AND LAND
USE INFORMATION
PARCEL 1
Overview: 6.72 acres - Urban Farm
Parcel, is located at the far north
end of St. Elizabeths East. The parcel
contains the oldest existing buildings
on the campus. The site’s two barns
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xxi

Appendix B. Due Diligence Report
and two staff cottages are the last PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3

reminders of both the agricultural Overview: 12.36 acre proposed Federal Overview: 4.76 acres; 7 stories with a
roots of St. Elizabeths East and the Use Parcel, is situated to the north of mix of commercial office, residential,
farm’s importance in the history of Pecan Street. The parcel is a backwards and ground floor retail. This parcel
the Hospital. Restoring the historic L-shaped area wrapping two sides of lies prominently along Martin Luther
agricultural use of the sector is a strong the Farm Complex. The property lies King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue, at the western
desire of the community. north of the main part of St. Elizabeths edge of St. Elizabeths East, and offers
East and extends along MLK Avenue at significant development potential for
Restoration of the farm complex will the western edge of the site. St. Elizabeths East and Ward 8. The
offer opportunities for physical activity parcel also offers the opportunity to
and access to healthy food that enhance The use of Parcel 2 has been create an attractive, open, and inviting
the neighborhood’s livability. Additional designated for Federal Government campus façade along MLK Avenue
programming on the site could include use. Development on the parcel by the and is located near the planned FEMA
child, youth, and adult education, Federal Government will extend the headquarters. Structured parking will
workforce training, small business presence of DHS from its main complex also be accommodated on this parcel.
incubation and development, and on the West Campus to St. Elizabeths
potential employment opportunities, East in this location.
while future building rehabilitation PARCEL 3
could provide an additional community. Development for the parcel is
guided by the DHS Master Plan ZONING St. Elizabeths East
Amendment – St. Elizabeths East, North -Site 1 – (StE-3)
PARCEL 1 Campus Parcel and the North Parcel FAR 2.5
Environmental Assessment. Continued
Height 80’
ZONING St. Elizabeths East coordination between the US General
-Site 1 – (StE-1) Services Administration and DHS will Parking Off-street parking
be needed as the development of the - maximum 4,800
FAR 0.2
parcel is planned and comes to fruition. total parking spaces
Height 25’ limited for StE zone.
Parking Off-street parking Possible restraint
- maximum 4,800 due to existing
total parking spaces PARCEL 2 underground
limited for StE zone. ZONING St. Elizabeths East streams.
Possible restraint -Site 1 – (StE-2) Loading One 30’ loading
due to existing vehicle bay; one
FAR 4.00
underground 55’ loading vehicle
streams. Height 75’
bay; one 20’ service
Loading One 30’ loading Parking Exempt from 4,800 vehicle bay.
vehicle bay; one total parking space
Lot 60%
55’ loading vehicle Loading Site 1: One 30’ Occupancy
bay; one 20’ service loading vehicle bay;
LAND USE Residential
vehicle bay. one 55’ loading
Commercial Office
Lot 25% vehicle bay; one 20’
Occupancy service vehicle bay.
LAND USE Commercial/ Lot 75%

Innovation Occupancy
Civic/Community LAND USE Commercial Office
xxii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 PARCEL 6

Overview: 4.44 acres and features a Overview: 8.28 acres and features a Overview: 5.57 acres; 8 stories with a
series of existing 2-story buildings to series of existing multi-story buildings mix of commercial office, residential,
be adaptively reused with a mix of to be adaptively reused with a mix of and ground floor retail. This parcel
commercial/innovation, educational commercial/innovation, educational sits directly across from the central
institution, civic/community uses, institution, hospitality, and ground building of the historic Maple
and ground floor retail. This parcel floor retail. This parcel lies between Quadrangle complex and will allow
lies immediately to the east of Parcel Parcel 4 and 13th Street at the heart for high-density development that
3, along the east side of Sycamore of St. Elizabeths East and includes the will promote activity along 13th
Street, and includes the first facilities Maple Quadrangle buildings. The Maple Street. Structured parking will also be
construction on St. Elizabeths East. Quadrangle group comprises the largest accommodated on this parcel.
Development in this area will focus on set of buildings expected to remain
the preservation, rehabilitation, and on St. Elizabeths East, and is thus a
judicious reuse of these structures major opportunity for both economic
PARCEL 6
for the Innovation Hub components development and historic preservation.
including small office space, incubators, Structured parking will also be ZONING St. Elizabeths East
meeting and gathering spaces, and accommodated on this parcel. -Site 1 – (StE-6)
other specialty uses suitable for the FAR 3.2
unique spaces associated with these
Height 90’
historic buildings.
PARCEL 5 Parking Off-street parking
- maximum 4,800
ZONING St. Elizabeths East total parking spaces
PARCEL 4 -Site 1 – (StE-5) limited for StE zone.
ZONING St. Elizabeths East FAR 1.5 Possible restraint
-Site 1 – (StE-4) Height 65’ due to existing
underground
FAR .5 Parking Off-street parking
streams.
Height 25’ - maximum 4,800
total parking spaces Loading One 30’ loading
Parking Off-street parking vehicle bay; one
limited for StE zone.
- maximum 4,800 55’ loading vehicle
Possible restraint
total parking spaces bay; one 20’ service
due to existing
limited for StE zone. vehicle bay.
underground
Possible restraint
streams. Lot 75%
due to existing
Loading One 30’ loading Occupancy
underground
streams. vehicle bay; one LAND USE Residential
55’ loading vehicle Commercial Office
Loading One 30’ loading
bay; one 20’ service
vehicle bay; one
vehicle bay.
55’ loading vehicle
bay; one 20’ service Lot 60%
vehicle bay. Occupancy
Lot 60% LAND USE Commercial/

Occupancy Innovation Hub
LAND USE Commercial/ Hospitality

Innovation Hub Educational/
Educational/ Institutional
Institutional
Hospitality
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xxiii

PARCEL 9 PARCEL 12 PARCEL 13

Overview: 1.94 acres and features Overview: 1.76 acres; 7 stories with a Overview: 3.50 acres; 8 stories with a
an existing multi-story building mix of commercial office, residential, mix of commercial office, residential,
to be adaptively reused. The and ground floor retail. This parcel lies and ground floor retail. This parcel is
recommended building height for directly between the CT Village and similar to Parcel 6 except that it has
the new development is 5 stories 13th Street, and provides one of the no direct adjacency with any historic
and a mix of commercial/innovation, larger opportunities for development buildings. It therefore offers a similar
educational institution, and ground on St. Elizabeths East. Proposed set of development opportunities,
floor retail is allowed. This parcel is uses within this parcel consist of but in a slightly less constrained
anticipated to be the programmatic residential and commercial office, context. Structured parking will also be
link between the Maple Quadrangle possibly in association with a university accommodated on this parcel.
and the Community Technology (CT) or community college user at the
Village. It should incorporate Innovation CT Village. As this site is relatively
Hub functions with a specific focus regular in shape, it offers a particular
PARCEL 13
on production, technology transfer, opportunity to provide structured
and commercialization. Facilities parking for the campus ZONING St. Elizabeths East
could include small scale production -Site 1 – (StE-13)
and assembly, a technology testing FAR 3.2
and evaluation center, a prototyping Height 90’
PARCEL 12
and proof-of-concept center (where
Parking Off-street parking
prototypes are assessed for market ZONING St. Elizabeths East
- maximum 4,800
readiness), a demonstration center -Site 1 – (StE-12)
total parking spaces
where companies can show their FAR 3.0 – 1.60 Minimum limited for StE zone.
products and services, as well as Residential Possible restraint
supportive office space to incubate ideas
Height 80’ due to existing
and products. Structured parking will
Parking Off-street parking underground
also be accommodated on this parcel.
- maximum 4,800 streams.
total parking spaces Loading N/A
limited for StE zone. Lot 75%
PARCEL 9 Possible restraint Occupancy
ZONING St. Elizabeths East due to existing
LAND USE Residential
-Site 1 – (StE-9) underground
Commercial Office
streams.
FAR 1.5
Loading N/A
Height 65’
Lot 75%
Parking Off-street parking PARCEL 16
Occupancy
- maximum 4,800 Overview: 1.73 acres; 8 stories with a
total parking spaces LAND USE Residential
mix of commercial office, residential,
limited for StE zone. Commercial Office
hospitality and ground floor retail.
Possible restraint This parcel is situated directly to the
due to existing north of the Congress Heights Metrorail
underground station and is divided from Parcel 13
streams. in order to provide a right-of-way for
Loading N/A the hospital road. New development
Lot 60% will be directly accessible to the Metro
Occupancy station. Structured parking will also be
accommodated on this parcel.
LAND USE Commercial/
Innovation Hub
Educational/
Institutional
xxiv ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

St. Elizabeths East Master Plan and

PARCEL 16 Design Guidelines - Final Plan
ZONING St. Elizabeths East ZONING ORDINANCES & POLICIES: (June 4, 2012)
-Site 1 – (StE-16) Z.C. Order No. 12-08 The intent of the Master Plan is to create
(January 28, 2013) a framework that renews historic and
FAR 3.2
• MOA for Proposed Transportation cultural resources on the campus while
Height 90’ Network for the St. Elizabeths ensuring that new development creates
Parking Off-street parking Hospital, East Campus dynamic urban places that reflect
- maximum 4,800 (June 26, 2012) innovative, sustainable design solutions.
total parking spaces • MOA for Transportation To accomplish this, the Master Plan
limited for StE zone. Improvements along a segment of carefully balances preservation goals
Possible restraint MLK Jr. Avenue and Construction of with a market-responsive development
due to existing the FEMA Headquarters within the approach; this is critical to ensure that
underground Federal Use Parcel on St. Elizabeths the resources generated from private
streams. East of St. Elizabeths National sector development can be reinvested
Loading Historic Landmark (April 19, 2012) into the renewal of the campus’s
• St. Elizabeths Redevelopment infrastructure and historic resources.
Lot 75%
Framework Plan The Master Plan also links to parallel
Occupancy
(December 16, 2008) economic development planning efforts
LAND USE Residential • Programmatic Agreement among to ensure thoughtful placement of uses
Commercial Office GSA, the Advisory Council on and programs that stimulate the city’s
Hospitality Historic Preservation, DCHPO, burgeoning innovation economy tied to
FHWA, NCPC and DHS regarding technology related industries. The result
the development of St. Elizabeths of these intentions is a Master Plan
National Historic Landmark that knits together the unique historic
(December 9, 2008) campus with the Congress Heights
• Memorandum of Agreement by and neighborhood, to create a destination
among the Offices of DMPED, GSA for both current and future residents to
and DHS (November 23, 2008) live, work, shop, play, and learn.
• St. Elizabeths East Master Plan
and Design Guidelines - Final Plan 3. AGREEMENTS WITH
(June 4, 2012) GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

2. MASTER PLAN The Final Master Plan outlines 3.8 for Transportation Improvements
On January 8, 2009, the National Capital million gross square feet of office space (April 19, 2012)
Planning Commission (NCPC) approved on the West Campus and 750,000 gross This MOA is for transportation
the Final Master Plan for the DHS square feet of office space on a portion improvements along a segment of
Headquarters Consolidation. The U.S. of St. Elizabeths East (identified as East Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and
Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) approved Campus, North Campus Parcel). The Construction of the FEMA Headquarters
the Final Master Plan on November development will be consistent with a within the Federal Use Parcel on
20, 2008. The NCPC Executive DHS Interagency Security Committee St. Elizabeths East of St. Elizabeths
Director’s Recommendation (EDR), (ISC) Level V campus to house mission- National Historic Landmark. The MOA
NCPC Commission Action, and the critical Federal agencies. Part of the is made by and among the U.S. General
Final Master Plan can be downloaded Master Planning process includes Services Administration, the Advisory
from the Document Center. The Final an Environmental Impact Statement Council on Historic Preservation, the
Master Plan provides the development (EIS) under the National Environmental Government of the District acting by
framework for accommodating 4.5 Policy Act (NEPA), and compliance and through DMPED, the District Office
million gross square feet of office space with the Section 106 regulations under of Planning, the District Department
for the DHS headquarters on both the the National Historic Preservation of Transportation, the District State
St. Elizabeths West and East Campuses. Act (NHPA). Historic Preservation Office (DCSHPO),
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xxv

the National Capital Planning for the purpose to resolve adverse

Commission, and the U.S. Department effects from certain complex project 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES
of Homeland Security. situations during the development
of DHS Headquarters Consolidation Note: Much of this information is
St. Elizabeths Redevelopment at St. Elizabeths West and East excerpted from St. Elizabeths East
Framework Plan, Resolution campuses. GSA proposes through Redevelopment Concept Infrastructure
#R17-0899 (December 16, 2008) the implementation of St. Elizabeths Plan and other studies from 2012 and
This framework plan is designed to Final Master Plan to develop the West is subject to change to meet current
provide broad planning guidance Campus of St. Elizabeths together regulations and requirements.
that will shape development and help with the North Campus Parcel of St.
future master planners, developers, the Elizabeths East for use as a high- POWER SYSTEMS
District government, and surrounding security federal campus. The existing electrical system on St.
neighborhoods navigate these Elizabeths East was installed privately
challenges. Memorandum of Agreement by and for the specific use of St. Elizabeths.
among the Offices of DMPED, GSA and Since the installation was not done by
Due to the size and scope of the DHS (November 23, 2008) PEPCO, the system is not considered
opportunity, the framework plan In order to pursue development of reusable by PEPCO. PEPCO has
provides the lens to view the site, its St. Elizabeths East, GSA and DHS have indicated it has no use for the existing
historic context, current site conditions entered into an agreement with the infrastructure, so all existing electrical
and historic preservation controls. District Office of the Deputy Mayor distribution, cables, switches, conduit
It also outlines a set of stakeholder- for Planning and Economic and manholes, will be removed.
driven development principles that Development to develop St. Elizabeths Old cables and transformers will be
define an ambitious agenda for future East on terms and conditions outlined removed/ salvaged.
development. A new St. Elizabeths in a separate, non-Section 106
East must balance sensitive infill Memorandum of Agreement PEPCO has a substation on Alabama
development with historic preservation executed November 23, 2008. Avenue about a mile east of St.
while providing new multi-modal access Elizabeths East. This substation has 140
and circulation. Redevelopment of the 4. PERMITS MVA capacity. Several 13 KV feeders go
campus must also reflect a commitment Permits were obtained for Stage by the campus on Alabama, but is said
to sustainable development, both in 1 Infrastructure construction. New to have very limited reserve capacity
individual building design and campus construction will require construction available to tap into for the future and
wide systems. These development permits for buildings and connections present needs of St. Elizabeths East.
principles drive the content of the and possible upgrades to existing
Redevelopment Framework chapter infrastructure. A new 12 duct underground duct bank
of this plan, which includes both land was constructed with 4 active feeders
use and development guidance and Typical Permits for New Construction: (8 ducts available for future needs of
illustrative site plans. The illustrative • New construction and foundations others). The duct bank is routed along
site plans suggest potential ways of • Grading Alabama Avenue, then north along
developing the campus that embody • Building Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, via 8th
the guidance and principles articulated • Additions, alterations, or repair Street and Malcolm X Boulevard to the
throughout the document. of existing buildings main gate (tunnel) at the West Campus.
• Demolition This will be a primary power point of
Programmatic Agreement among • Razes connection for St. Elizabeths East.
GSA, the Advisory Council on • Construction of retaining walls,
Historic Preservation, DCSHPO, fences, sheds, garages, or vault Interconnecting system and
FHWA, NCPC and DHS regarding construction coordination with a new hospital
the development of St. Elizabeths • Erection of signs or awnings power service will require some
National Historic Landmark • Layout of interior space for tenants relocating. The ultimate system
(December 9, 2008) in new or existing commercial will be reworked with this project
The Programmatic Agreement buildings. (e.g. changing the floor to accommodate the new roadway
entered into on December 9, 2008 plan of a building) configuration. Coordination will be
xxvi ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

necessary to avoid service interruptions has finished design, and work must be conduits concrete encased. Each main
to the hospital and WMATA Congress done under PEPCO’s design and permit. street will include a 4-way duct bank
Heights Metro Station. with manholes spaced about 300’ apart.
POWER DEMAND A 2-way duct bank is indicated for each
Switching equipment may also Demand Assumptions building power supply. It is assumed
need to be relocated in Phase 2 of (see Electrical Load Summary chart) each building will receive a pad mount
St. Elizabeths East development. transformer next to the building. PEPCO
PEPCO lines servicing a new hospital, Power Load Growth will extend 12KV cables through the
WMATA, and other existing users on The above load summary is based on duct bank system to the transformers
campus will need to remain in service common loads found with the building near each building where power will be
and any abandonment of service for types indicated. Very heavy users can stepped down to the utilization voltage
development shall be coordinated be found within any of the categories. in the building. Transformers will be
with PEPCO. The FEMA property is not included in owned and maintained by PEPCO.
the loads above. It is anticipated the
Two sites may require temporary FEMA electric supply will come directly Switches/other Components
electric service from PEPCO for uses from MLK Jr. Ave. or Pecan Street and/ No switches are indicated on the
prior to Stage 1 construction. The user or the West Campus system. conceptual plan. PEPCO may or may
would pay for the installation and use of not choose to include such switches
the services. These sites include Electric System Design Criteria somewhere on St. Elizabeths East in its
The infrastructure described here final design.
1. North Parcel (old farm) – may assumes primary power of 12,000
require a minimal power supply, volts will available from MLK Jr. Ave., Back-up Generation
perhaps a residential type service, to primarily and potentially Alabama Original conceptualization of St.
accommodate a community garden. Avenue. PEPCO has recently installed Elizabeths East development plan
2. Temporary power supply to new duct banks along MLK Jr. Ave. included on-site power generation of a
existing buildings which have There are four feeders along MLK at co-generation character. The concept
cellular telephone provider antenna this time. of co-generation was discarded when
transmitter stations, which will economic feasibility did not materialize,
remain operational until new Distribution System nor was there a logical solution to
locations are available, possibly The distribution system conceptualized manage the operations of such a plant.
some perimeter security. for St. Elizabeths East includes a system Individual buildings will provide their
of 4-way duct banks with 5” diameter own backup power on as needed basis.
PEPCO Regulations and Standards
The electrical power distribution
infrastructure proposed for the
development may be constructed by ELECTRICAL LOAD SUMMARY
the developer, provided there is strict
Area (sf) Calculated Maximum Diversified Demand
adherence to PEPCO standards. These
Demand (kw) (kw)
standards may be found at: http://www.
pepco.com/business/services/new/res/ Retail 289,243 7,231 4,339
Residential 1,627,475 16,275 9,765
For facilities built on private property Large Office 2,422,054 48,441 29,065
there is no preference for contractors as
Small Office 273,635 5,473 3,284
far as PEPCO is concerned. Construction
can begin once the proposed facilities Institution 600,524 21,018 12,611
drawings have been approved by Civic 61,689 1,542 925
PEPCO. If the property is made public Hotel 354,551 7,091 4,255
before the infrastructure is built and
Parking 800,000 1,600 960
certified then the contractors must
be a PEPCO pre-approved contractor. TOTALS 6,429,171 108,671 65,203
Construction cannot begin until PEPCO
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xxvii

IT/COMMUNICATIONS General Assumptions Considerations for Other Users

Nearly all existing telephone and A system of pathways in the streets The pathways will be constructed
communication wiring on the site is proposed for DCNET and other to DC-Net standards and generally
is or was hospital-owned (private). telecommunication provider’s use. available for other providers as
Verizon was the telecommunication The pathways, typically, 4-way necessary. One potential user of the
infrastructure owner only up to the concrete encased duct banks with 4” telecommunications system pathways
main telecommunication building. This diameter conduits concrete encased will be DC- Net by becoming the
building, the Dix Building, is slated will be provided in the streets for all primary supplier and data hub to St.
to be demolished. Cellular telephone telecommunication wiring. Manholes Elizabeths East. Other providers will
antenna/transmitter equipment is now will be provided with 4-way stub-out have access to the system should
limited to the water tower on campus duct banks extending from a manhole the service be requested. The exact
by a variety of vendors. These facilities to the property line for extension to details will be coordinated and agreed
will require coordination with vendors individual buildings. The system of upon during the utility preliminary plan
prior to power interruption. pathways, manholes and stub-outs development.
is proposed to provide sufficient
All existing cables are deemed obsolete infrastructure with the roadways and NATURAL GAS
and unsuitable for future use and utilities to preclude immediate and Existing natural gas piping on
are planned to be removed. Conduit, constant street damage as buildings of St. Elizabeths East is owned and
manholes and duct banks are to be the development come online. maintained by Washington Gas. The
removed or abandoned in place as gas lines do not go to each building,
they are deemed unsuitable for new Two sites may require temporary but go to three buildings of the St.
work and do not align with the new telecommunications service for uses Elizabeth facilities that required gas, like
roadway and conceptual infrastructure prior to Stage 1 construction. These the central heating plant, and cooking
locations. Existing entertainment sites include: facilities. Existing piping does not follow
TV wiring infrastructure is outdated existing roads, but tend to be a direct
and technologically unsuitable for 1. North Parcel (old farm) routing from the street mains to the
reuse. Any existing security systems 2. Temporary telecommunication delivery point. Such routing conflicts
infrastructure on the East Campus are services to existing buildings which with current concept development
remnants of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital and have cellular telephone provider plans; including locations of proposed
thus, of little value to new development. antenna transmitter stations, which buildings where gas piping now exists.
All such security systems should be will remain operational until new Thus, nearly all existing gas piping will
scheduled for removal. The new hospital locations are available be removed or purged/capped and
is currently being served entertainment abandoned in favor of new.
TV by Verizon FIOS. Although other IT/Communication
commercial vendors are available for Infrastructure Layout Washington Gas Regulations
these types of services, infrastructure Multiple locations are indicated for and Requirements
installed within the streets will be connection to pathways in Martin Luther Natural gas piping will be provided
controlled by DCNET, while other King Jr. Avenue, Alabama Avenue and by Washington Gas or its qualified
vendors may offer services using that extensions of 8th Street and Malcolm contractors. Washington Gas typically
same infrastructure consistent with X Avenue. These access points will does not invest in infrastructure until
regulation and local agreements. afford considerable flexibility in getting reasonable certainty exists that natural
telecommunication cabling to the gas will be requested for a property.
DCNET Regulations and Requirements campus and/or to loop through to This concept is counter to this Concept
DCNET will require compliance with its surrounding communities. The 4-way Infrastructure Plan which is trying to
design guidelines and an opportunity duct bank layout assumes two ducts organize all utilities on site, and place
to review and comment on proposed will be immediately occupied by DCNET infrastructure to minimize disturbance
infrastructure designs intended for its cables for distribution through the to roadway infrastructure.
use. For further information concerning campus. Two ducts will remain spare
design guidelines contact Anil Sharma and available for other users for which
at DCNET at 202.715.3805. design is to be reviewed and approved
by DC-Net.
xxviiiST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Washington Gas has an 8-inch 20 lb.

pressure main in MLK. The infrastructure GAS LOAD SUMMARY
is in reasonable condition but the Area (sf) Consumption Rate Load (MBH)
system pressure is weak. Washington (MBH/sf)
Gas is contemplating upgrades to the
Retail 289,243 10 2,892,430
system in this Southeast region of The
District but needs a clear vision of Residential 1,627,475 10 16,274,750
future increased demand to make the Large Office 1,672,054 30 50,161,620
investment. A substantial commitment
Small Office 273,635 0 -
to natural gas for the proposed
development may be sufficient. Institution 600,524 10 6,005,240
Civic 61,689 10 616,890
General Assumptions and Standards Hotel 354,551 30 10,636,530
It is noted that many modern buildings
Parking 800,000 0 -
have minimal heating loads and often
are constructed without natural gas TOTALS 5,679,171 86,587,460
supply. Office buildings, as an example, Optional uses can allow a large demand range.
are largely cooling loads, minimal heat,
often relying on localized electric reheat
only. Large office buildings may or and maintained by Washington of any new buildings on St. Elizabeths
may not choose to use natural gas for Gas all the way up to the building East. At a minimum, this will require
heating in the large roof mounted or metering point. Exact details of design, that the Stage 1 connections to the DC
central plants. Buildings and facilities construction, ownership and operations Water system along Martin Luther King,
with logical gas requirements include will be coordinated and agreed upon Jr. Avenue, SE and Alabama Avenue, SE
food preparation and cooking facilities, during the preliminary utilities plans be completed to allow for connection
large hot water users, or large heating preparation. of the Hospital to the new water
loads. Such buildings usually include; distribution system. DC Water may
residential, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, Demand for Natural Gas require that the construction of the new
hair salons, etc. Energy efficiency Consistent with the discussion above, water tank and 24-inch transmission
criteria being applied to building design natural gas may not be used in all connection to Martin Luther King,
will play a big role in building owners buildings. The type of occupant, hours Jr. Avenue, SE be complete, prior to
choosing to include natural gas as an of operation, etc. all contribute to the removal of existing water tank.
energy source. With the above in mind, load calculations.
Washington Gas will be reluctant to Coordinated efforts during development
bear the cost for the infrastructure POTABLE WATER AND WASTEWATER are necessary to ensure continuity of
proposed with this development plan. The existing privately owned potable service, particularly to the hospital,
water system within St. Elizabeths availability of fire protection at an
While Washington Gas will insist on East will be replaced with a new estimated rate of 1,000 gallons per
installing all gas lines with their own public system. Integral components minute (gpm) to existing buildings on
or pre-qualified contracting sources, of the new system that will be built St. Elizabeths East.
the cost of such infrastructure will be separately by the District Water and
passed on to the developer. Sewer Authority (DC Water) include a St. Elizabeths East will not be on
24-inch transmission main from Martin a master meter system, as such all
Washington Gas will provide natural Luther King, Jr. Avenue, within the buildings (existing and proposed) will
gas directly to each building that right-of-way of Pecan Street, to a new be individually metered for water usage.
requests gas. Washington Gas will 2 MGD elevated water storage tank on
provide meters and measure usage St. Elizabeths East near a new hospital. The existing private gravity wastewater
at each building or group of buildings This separate construction is scheduled sewer system connects to DC Water’s
under common ownership. The new to be completed in 2015 and must be system through an existing 18-inch
infrastructure on site will be owned operational before the construction vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer along
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xxix

the ravine at a manhole near the north All of these documents are available expressed as gallons per day (gpd) on a
boundary of St. Elizabeths East adjacent on-line at DC Water’s website: per unit basis such as square foot (SF).
to Suitland Parkway. DC Water will http://www.dcwater.com/business/ The analysis is further detailed by the
analyze the capacity and condition permits/criteria.cfm calculation of potable water demands
of its receiving facilities downstream and wastewater flows for 17 individual
on receipt of this report. An existing General Assumptions service areas identified as parcels.
8-inch sewer connecting to the 18-inch and Abbreviations
outfall will serve the north parcel A specific requirement of particular
including the parcel intended for future note from the Project Design Manual, FLOW FACTOR PER PARCEL
USAGE TYPE
agricultural use. With rehabilitation by Volume 3, Infrastructure Design, Part
a trenchless technology in accordance C, Section 1, Subsection 1.3 states: Parcel Usage Unit Flow Factor
with DC Water standards, these two “The minimum size of water mains Type (gpd)/Unit
existing sewers are the only salvageable that are used for fire protection is Retail SF 0.048
portions of the existing system on 8-inch diameter.” Consequently, it is
Residential SF 0.120
St. Elizabeths East. The remainder of anticipated that the majority of the new
the private system will be replaced water distribution mains will be 10-inch Residential DU Water: 121
by new sewers. The connection to the diameter or larger. Residential DU Sewer: 130
18-inch outfall in the ravine can only Large Office SF 0.200
be made if DC Water determines that New gravity collector sewers with a
the existing public pipe systems have minimum diameter of 10 inches serving Small Office SF 0.200
adequate capacity. the greater part of the campus are Institution SF 0.620
anticipated.
Design and construction details of all
water and wastewater sewer systems Summary design flows shown assume FLOW FACTOR PER PARCEL
within the existing or future ROW are all flows have been distributed or USAGE TYPE
to be coordinated with DC Water and collected in the proposed systems at Parcel Usage Unit Flow Factor
DDOT during plans preparation phase. a single point. Actual design flows will Type (gpd)/Unit
vary depending upon actual water
Civil SF 0.100
DC Water Regulations distribution and wastewater collection
and Requirements piping in the networks provided. Hotel SF 0.256
The applicable regulations and
requirements of DC Water include: Demand Analyses
1. D.C. Water Design standards Estimates of flow are based upon The number of square feet in each
and forms, typical industry water and wastewater parcel usage type and number of
2. Project Design Manual Volume 3 sewer flow projection factors as shown residential dwelling units used in the
Infrastructure Design, in the following chart. These factors subsequent calculations are based
3. Standard details and originate from usages of various upon the current master plan for
4. Permit application and documents. dwelling and building types and are development for the St. Elizabeths East
Redevelopment.
POTABLE WATER DEMANDS SUMMARY
Parcel No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ADF (gpd) 0 0 114,700 15,000 223,700 114,300 36,200 3,900 100,500
MDF (gpd) 0 0 229,400 30,000 447,400 228,600 72,400 7,800 201,000
Parcel No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Hospital

ADF (gpd) 2,100 147,400 26,300 45,600 23,400 109,600 33,900 79,500 103,800
MDF (gpd) 4,200 294,800 52,600 91,200 46,800 219,200 67,800 159,000 207,600
xxx ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Potable Water Demands was performed and recorded for all In general the new development of
The following potable water flow hydrants with 100 percent compliance St. Elizabeths East will be served by
projections detail the usage types, the above 750 gpm. The construction existing facilities as follows (reference
number of units in each usage type, during this timeframe was to enable Exhibit titled “Road Names and Parcel
the associated flow factors and the minimal fire and domestic service to the Layout,” sheets 1 and 2 for parcel
resultant average daily flow (ADF) existing facilities with no consideration locations):
and maximum daily flow (MDF) in for future development.
gpd in parcels 1-17. The flow rates are 1. Parts of parcels 2, 3 and 7 drain west
summarized in the chart below. to Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue,
2. Parts of parcels 14 and 17 drain south
Wastewater Flows OVERALL AVERAGE to Alabama Avenue, SE.
WASTEWATER FLOW
The next wastewater flow projections 3. All other parcels areas, including
detail the usage types, the number Outfall Description Average the proposed Federal Emergency
of units in each usage type, the Wastewater Management Agency (FEMA) parcel
associated flow factors and the Flow (mgd) and the Farm parcel intended for
resultant base wastewater flow (BWF), Ravine located at 1.550 future agricultural use, drain east
average wastewater flow (AWF), peak the northern end and north through the existing
wastewater flow (PWF) and design of 13th Street 54-inch outfall,
flow (DF) in gpd in each of the 17 4. All roadway areas drain east and
parcels and for the hospital. The peak north through the existing 54-inch
and design flow rates are summarized outfall; except the section of 13th
in the chart below. Wastewater Collection System Street, SE south of Dogwood Street
Wastewater Collection System which will drain south to Alabama
POTABLE WATER Layout Stages Avenue, SE.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Stormwater Drainage Local Regulations and Requirements
Potable Water and Fire Flow Demands The majority of the existing stormwater The District Department of the
In conjunction with the potable water drainage system will be replaced by Environment (DDOE) is responsible for
demands, a fire flow of 3500 gallons new facilities. water quality regulation which includes:
per minute (gpm) is required for the
proposed system. The new roadway stormwater drainage 1. Water Quality Regulatory and
piping will range and size from 15” to Legislative Affairs
Existing Fire Flow Analysis and results 48”. All of the piping will be Reinforced • Resources for Businesses
Fire protection work was conducted on Concrete Pipe with Rubber Gasket joints • District Stormwater Fee
St. Elizabeths East between November (RCPR). Roadway drainage facilities will • Separate Storm Sewer System
2010 and August 2011 to enable include curb inlets and manholes with MS4 Permit
compliance with the requirement of 750 sizes and locations in accordance with • Flood Zone Building Permits
gpm at each hydrant. Pressure testing DC Water and DDOT standards.
WASTEWATER FLOWS SUMMARY
Parcel No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PWF (gpd) 0 0 660,800 86,400 1,288,400 658,400 208,400 22,400 578,800
DF (gpd) 0 0 991,200 129,600 1,932,600 987,600 312,600 33,600 868,200
Parcel No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Hospital

PWF (gpd) 12,800 849,200 151,600 262,800 136,000 631,200 195,200 458,000 598,000
DF (gpd) 19,200 1,273,800 227,400 394,200 204,000 946,800 292,800 687,000 897,000
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xxxi

2. Total Maximum Daily Load These standards and guidelines are Hydrologically, the majority of
(TMDL) Documents available at the DDOT website: St. Elizabeths East discharges the
• Anacostia Watershed http://ddot.dc.gov/page/ stormwater runoff into the adjacent
• Potomac River & Other Tributaries standards-and-guidelines. ravine that flows to the downstream
• Recently Approved TMDLs Suitland Parkway drainage system
• Chesapeake Bay TMDL General Assumptions for Stormwater and ultimately outfalls into the
3. Water Related Laws and Regulations Systems Construction Phasing Anacostia River.
• Water Quality Regulations The storm drain construction in Stage
• Watershed Protection Regulations 1 includes the construction of a new Rainfall
• Stormwater Regulations connection to the existing 54” outfall. Rainfall intensity, duration and
• Floodplain Management The alignment of this new connection frequency are determined in
Regulations is within the new extension of 13th accordance with the DDOE’s
• Water Pollution Control Act of Street, SE adjacent to the location of Stormwater Guidebook. This reference
1984 (DC Law 5-188) the existing water tower serving the is available on the DDOE’s website:
• Water Quality Monitoring Hospital. http://ddoe.dc.gov/publication/
Regulations (21 DCMR Ch. 19) stormwater-guidebook.
• Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Outfall Capacity
and Stormwater Management DC Water is presently verifying the Soils
Regulations capacity of their storm sewer system Soil conditions were analyzed and
downstream of the 54” outfall pipe. the impervious percentages were
All of these regulations are available Further study may be required to determined by Arup USA, Inc. (Arup),
on the DDOE’s website: http://ddoe. determine exact connection point to under separate contract to DMPED.
dc.gov/service/water-quality-regulation. DC Water’s system downstream of the The impervious area percentages
Their disclaimer recommends obtaining culvert below Suitland Parkway. provided in the Arup report were used
printed versions for legal matters. to calculate Run-off Coefficients in
General Information for Stormwater order to provide Storm Drainage and
The District Department of Systems Site Location Stormwater Management quantities.
Transportation (DDOT) is responsible
for the development and maintenance
of a cohesive sustainable transportation
system while protecting and enhancing
the natural, environmental and cultural
resources of the District. This mission
is accomplished in part through the MhB
Ub
CeD
enforcement of its standards and

guidelines which include: CwD
CdC
U1
1. Construction Management Manual
BeB
2. Design and Engineering Manual CwD
U6
BeB
3. Manual on Uniform Traffic BeB
CwD
Control Devices Ub
CwD
CxD
4. Pedestrian Safety and Work BeB

CwD
Zone Standards CxD
5. Public Realm Design Manual

6. Right of Way Manual
7. Sidewalk Construction
8. Standard Drawings
/
Symbol Soil Unit Name St Elizabeths East Campus
BeB Beltsville-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes District of Columbia
9. Standard Specifications StudyArea

CdC
CeD
CwD
Chillum-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Christiana silt loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes
Croom very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes
10. Temporary Traffic Control Manual Mapped Soil Units CxD

MhB
U1
Croom-Urban land complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Matapeake-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Udorthents
EXHIBIT B
0 200 400 600 Feet NRCS Mapped Soils
11. Utility Work Zone Traffic Control U6
Ub
Udorthents, smoothed
Urban land
Plan (TCP) Typicals

12. Work Zone Safety and
Mobility Policy
xxxiiST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Each site (drainage area) is required to

TABLE 1: SOILS IDENTIFIED AT ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS retain 1.2” of stormwater runoff from the
Soil Unit Name Map Unit Acreage Percentage Hydric1 entire site area, using varying reduction
Symbol of Study Status factors based upon the proposed
Area surface composition. Reduction Factors
will range from 0.95 for impervious
Beltsville-Urban land BeB 46.04 53.7 No
areas to 0.00 for natural cover.
complex, 0 to 8
Retention requires that the stormwater
percent slopes
volume be infiltrated (on-site) or reused
Chillum-Urban land CdC 10.77 12.6 No (on-site) without any discharge to a DC
complex, 8 to 15 Water sewer (separated or combined)
percent slopes system. This retention requirement also
Christiana silt loam, CeD 0.66 0.8 No applies to the Public Right-of-Way, but
15 to 40 percent slopes only to the Maximum Extent Practical
unless new roadways are proposed.
Croom very gravelly CwD 5.19 6.1 No
sandy loam, 15 to 40
In a meeting with DC Water the design
percent slopes
strategy of a regional stormwater
Croom-Urban land CxD 1.07 1.3 No management facility, which would
complex, 15 to 25 serve the whole St. Elizabeth East was
percent slopes discussed. DC Water’s current policy
Matapeake-Urban MhB 0.49 0.6 No is that any storm drain infrastructure
land complex, 0 to 8 upstream of a stormwater management
percent slopes facility is considered a private system,
Udorthents U1 17.69 20.6 No which would create a separate private
utility service within the public roadway.
Udorthents, smoothed U6 0.86 1.0 No
Additionally, a regional facility would
Urban land Ub 2.94 3.4 No require legal agreements among St.
Elizabeths East property owners for the
purposes of future maintenance and
operation of the facility. As a result, the
Flood Protection man’s influence. This means that the
current design strategy proposes that
The Federal Emergency Management predevelopment condition is considered
each development parcel will provide
Agency (FEMA) has designated the to be before any development was
separate on-site (within the parcel
area of this site as “Zone X,” within the performed at the site and not the
boundary) stormwater management
National Flood Insurance Program. This current condition of the site as it
facilities. This will allow greater design
is shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map is today.
flexibility for the design of each parcel,
(FIRM) Number 1100010076C, revised
eliminate the need for a “private”
September 27, 2010. Zone X is defined The new DDOE stormwater regulations
utility within the public road system,
as, “Areas determined to be outside the will require retention of stormwater
and reduce any easement/covenant
0.2% annual chance floodplain.” within the site (drainage area) in
documents between individual
addition to detention requirements.
ownership entities.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Detention requirements and methods
will only be used when controlling
Possible stormwater retention methods
Detention Volume Criteria up to 15-year storm event is needed
for the individual parcels include:
Current DDOE stormwater regulations to prevent flooding downstream of a
bio-retention, green roof, infiltration,
require that the peak stormwater development site.
re-use for building mechanical
discharge rate from the 2-year and
systems or irrigation, and permeable
15-year storm events must be controlled Retention Volume Criteria
pavements. DDOE’s new regulations
to the predevelopment rate. The current New DDOE stormwater management
cover providing retention credits for
policy defines the predevelopment regulations change the required storage
trees that are planted in association
condition as meadow, prior to volumes from detention to retention.
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGSxxxiii

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RETENTION VOLUME (RV) SUMMARY hazardous materials, including asbestos.
The tunnels connect buildings, one
Parcel No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to another. The tunnels will not be
Rv (Ac.-ft.) 0.37 0.71 0.40 0.24 0.50 0.48 0.32 0.14 0.13 reused in the new development, can
be deemed a security breach and the
Parcel No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Hospital hazardous materials a health issue.
Rv (Ac.-ft.) 0.06 0.67 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.40 0.17 0.19 1.56
The hazardous materials must be
Note: Retention Volume calculations are based upon Impervious Area percentages defined in abated. Typically, two methods are
Stormwater Quantity Control” Report, dated March 12, 2012 by Arup USA, Inc.
used, containment or proper removal
and disposal. Both methods are
proposed. It is proposed to remove
within a development. The storm run- Design Calculations tunnels where the tunnel’s existence
off from the public roadway will be A summary of the 15-year stormwater will interfere with new construction
treated separately using LID methods. flow rates to the outfalls locations as such as roadways or new buildings.
The following chart shows preliminary shown in the table below. Where possible the existing tunnels
calculations of the stormwater retention will be abandoned in place after
volume required for each parcel based sufficiently capping and sealing entry
on draft regulations. 15-YR STORM EVENT FLOW RATES and access points.
Outfall Description 15-yr Flow
Pretreatment and Water Regulations and Requirements
(cfs)
Quality Criteria All abatement, whether removal
The DDOE stormwater regulations Ravine located at 427.7
of tunnels or containment, will be
require that: “Any stormwater discharge northern end of
performed in compliance with EPA
facility which may receive stormwater 13th Street
abatement regulations and all other
run-off from areas which may be Intersection of Alabama 13.5 regulations.
potential sources of oil and grease Ave & 13th Street
contamination in concentrations Intersection of Alabama 8.0 These guidelines can be found
exceeding ten (10) milligrams per liter Ave. & 12th Street at EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/
(mg/l), will include a baffle, skimmer, osw/hazard/.
South West of Proposed 18.3
grease trap or other mechanism which Asbestos removal is regulated under
Parcel 7 going
prevents oil and grease from escaping EPA’s NESHAP regulations – 40 C.F.R.,
southwest along Martin
the stormwater discharge facility in Part 61, Subpart M
Luther King Jr. Ave
concentrations that would violate or
contribute to the violation of applicable West of Proposed 27.3
6. EMERGENCY SERVICES
water quality standards in the receiving Parcel 3 going north
Unified Communications Center
waters of the District…” along Martin Luther
The District opened the Unified
King Jr. Ave
Communications Center (UCC) on St.
The new DDOE stormwater regulations Elizabeths East in 2006. The UCC is
require a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) an integrated call center and public
removal rate of at least 65% if the site Demolition of Steam Tunnels safety/emergency response facility
(or drainage area) cannot achieve at The East campus of St. Elizabeths that consolidates key public safety
least 50% of the required retention St. Elizabeths East of St. Elizabeths used communications functions of multiple
volume, as defined above. a central plant concept for heating. District of Columbia agencies, including
This concept utilized a system of Metropolitan Police, Fire and Emergency
Additional water quality treatment steam tunnels to house heating pipes Medical Services, and Emergency
criteria apply to areas within the to distribute steam to each of the Management.
Anacostia Watershed Development buildings. These steam tunnels date
Zone. It is understood that the St. back to the early 1900’s. Materials used
Elizabeth’s site is not within this zone. in the tunnels and used as insulation
on the pipes are now considered
xxxivST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Fire and Rescue Services St. Elizabeths East contains St.

The DC Fire and Emergency Medical Elizabeths Hospital, a 292-bed 7. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Services Department provides fire hospital on the southeastern portion • Drainage Reports (onsite retention)
and rescue services for St. Elizabeths. of St. Elizabeths East. The hospital, • Utility Constraints by Utility
The closest station, which houses owned and operated by The District Companies
Engine Company 25 and Medic Unit and opened in April 2010, is a public
25, is located at 3203 Martin Luther psychiatric facility for individuals with
King, Jr. Ave., approximately 0.7 miles serious and persistent mental illness 8. CONDEMNATION AND
from St. Elizabeths East. The response who need intensive inpatient care. EMINENT DOMAIN
time to St. Elizabeths East Campus is There are no pending or proposed
approximately 2 minutes. The Engine Law Enforcement Services condemnation proceedings, eminent
Company 32 station is located at 2425 St. Elizabeths Campus is within The domain proceedings or similar action
Irving St., approximately 2 miles from District’s Seventh Police District, located or proceedings pending or threatened
the project site. The response time at 2455 Alabama Ave. approximately 1.4 against the Real Property.
to St. Elizabeths East Campus from miles from the study area, this district
Engine Company 32 is approximately location is the nearest police station to
4 minutes. the St. Elizabeths Campus. The Seventh 9. PENDING OR PROPOSED
Police District contains seven Police GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
Hospital and Medical Services Service Areas (PSAs); the St. Elizabeths APPLICATIONS, ACTIONS
The United Medical Center Hospital, Campus is in PSA 703. OR PROCEEDINGS
which is located at 1310 Southern Memorandum of Agreement by and
Ave., approximately 1½ miles from Crime has been declining in District among the Offices of DMPED, GSA and
St. Elizabeths Campus, provides Seven and citywide dating back to DHS (November 23, 2008).
general hospital service in the area. at least 1993, when District Seven WMATA Parcel – 13th Street Right of
This is a full-service hospital with a experienced twice as many crimes as in Way Access Agreement.
354-bed capacity. 2010 (DCMPD 2011).
10. WETLANDS
An ecological survey conducted April
– May 2011 identified two wetlands in
the undeveloped eastern section of the
project area (Exhibit A).
Wetland 1
Wetland 1 is a 0.24-acre (10,450-square-
foot) isolated forested wetland located
within the eastern woodland between
the current St. Elizabeths Hospital and
St. Elizabeths East (Exhibits A and B).
The majority of Wetland 1 is outside
the study area, with the exception of
a small portion at the western end. It
is an isolated forested wetland, which
appears to receive surface water runoff
from the surrounding hillsides and
groundwater from several seeps located
to the south and east.
Exhibit A
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGSxxxv

Wetland 1 meets the full criteria for

a wetland according to the USACE
manual (USACE, 2010). However, it
appears to have no surface connections
to the tributary system to navigable
waterways.
Wetland 2
Wetland 2 is a 0.22-acre (9,790-square-
foot) scrub-shrub wetland located
east of the access road to the current
St. Elizabeths Hospital (Exhibit A and
C). Wetland 2 appears to be a man-
made basin (created by the access
road to a new hospital) that collects
stormwater runoff from parking areas
associated with the hospital and
surrounding upland areas. The basin
has no apparent outlet. Water stands in
the basin for extended periods, which
has contributed to the development of
hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation.
The eastern end of Wetland 2 connects
to a channel, which was flowing at
the time of the field visit. The channel
Exhibit B originates at a concrete culvert to
the east, but the source of the flow is
unknown.
Wetland 2 meets the full criteria for

a wetland according to the USACE
manual (USACE, 2010). However, it
appears to have no surface connections
to the tributary system to navigable
waterways.
Data Point A
Data Point A documents a 150-square-
foot remnant depression that appears
to have been created when the Metro
access road was constructed in or
around 1999. The remnant depression
is located adjacent to the access road
to the south (Exhibit B). Water pools in
the low lying area, possibly a product of
rutting from the construction activities,
and stands for a sufficient time to allow
for hydrophytic vegetation growth.
A culvert connects the remnant ditch
to Wetland 1 and flows during rainfall
Exhibit C
xxxviST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

events. The culvert was most likely and four sites were identified as being
installed during the Metro access road directly adjacent to the project area.
construction to divert standing water
B. ENVIRONMENTAL
into Wetland 1. REPORTS AND FILINGS District of Columbia Regulatory
File Review
1. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY
Data Point A does meet the criteria of a Based on the EDR and USEPA database
APPROVALS
wetland for hydrology and hydrophytic searches, Freedom of Information Act
• Final Environmental Impact
vegetation but does not appear to meet (FOIA) requests were submitted to the
Statement (FEIS) (March 2, 2012)
the criteria for soils, and therefore was District Department of the Environment
• NEPA Compliance - Record
not considered to be a wetland. (DDOE) for permission to review files of
of Decision (ROD) for the
sites that could affect the project area
Amended Master Plan for the DHS
Data Point B based on documented reported releases
Headquarters Consolidation at St.
Data Point B documents a second of hazardous or toxic materials to the
Elizabeths in Southeast Washington,
260-square-foot remnant depression environment. Documents from the UST
D.C. (May 2012)
that appears to have been created and Hazardous Waste Divisions were
when the Metro access road was reviewed.
2. HAZARDOUS WASTE INFORMATION
constructed in or around 1999. The
Federal and state databases were
remnant depression is located adjacent Asbestos
reviewed to identify former and current
to the access road to the south, near the Asbestos is a potential concern when
land uses that could result in the
above ground Metro structure (Exhibit a project requires demolishing or
contamination of soil or groundwater
B). As with Data Point A, water pools in modifying buildings or other structures
within the project area. The objective
the low lying area, possibly a product of with ACM. USEPA and the Occupational
of the review was to identify and
rutting from the construction activities, Safety and Health Administration
document reported releases of
and stands for a sufficient time to allow (OSHA) regulate the remediation of
hazardous or toxic materials to the
for hydrophytic vegetation growth. ACM. Asbestos fiber emissions are
environment as well as to locate
Data Point B does meet the criteria of a regulated in accordance with Section
businesses and industries that use,
wetland for hydrology and hydrophytic 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which
generate, store, transport, or dispose of
vegetation but does not appear to meet established the National Emissions
regulated hazardous materials.
the criteria for soils, and therefore was Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
not considered to be a wetland. (NESHAP). These standards regulate
In April 2011, Environmental Data
the demolition or rehabilitation of
Resources, Inc. (EDR), conducted
A ditch runs parallel to the gravel access buildings with ACM.
a computerized search of available
road between Data Points A and B.
environmental databases, including
Ditches that parallel roadways, were Two categories are used to describe
those of the U.S. Environmental
apparently created in a non-hydric soil, asbestos-containing material. Friable
Protection Agency (USEPA), for known
and do not represent the relocation of ACM is defined as any material
and suspected contaminated sites
a natural channel, are not considered to containing more than 1 percent asbestos
within a 1-mile radius of the project
be jurisdictional wetlands even though (verified by polarized light microscopy)
area. Some of the sites appeared in
they support wetland vegetation. These that, when dry, can be crumbled,
more than one database. Irregularities
ditches were considered “drainage pulverized, or reduced to powder
in site locations, information, and the
ditches” or “ditches through uplands,” by hand pressure. Nonfriable ACM is
current status of USTs for some sites
which are generally not regulated as material that contains more than 1
were noted.
waters of the United States under the percent asbestos and does not meet
CWA (USACE, 1999). Therefore, this the criteria for friable ACM.
Sites that were located more than 2
ditch was also excluded as a wetland.
blocks from the project area were noted
ACM was commonly used in buildings
but not evaluated because they are not
and structures before the 1970s, when
as likely to affect the project as those
laws regulating its use and disposal
sites identified within or adjacent to the
were established. Asbestos can be
project area. One site was identified as
found in a variety of building materials,
being located within the project area,
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGSxxxvii

including exterior siding, roofing Lead-Based Paint STORAGE TANKS

shingles, linoleum flooring and vinyl LBPs were used extensively before 1977.
asbestos tile, sprayed-on fireproofing, After 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
insulation, soundproofing, and ceilings. Commission prohibited the sale of LBP Based on a 1995 RCRA Compliance
Asbestos was commonly used as a to consumers and banned the use of Evaluation Inspection conducted by
major component of heating systems, such paints where consumers may have EPA on the St. Elizabeths Campus,
including steam or hot water pipe direct contact with the paint. LBP is there were 10 USTs. At that time, only
coverings, gaskets, pipe wrapping, and regulated under OSHA, RCRA, and Toxic four were in compliance of the UST
wire duct linking. Substance Control Act (TSCA). regulations (fitted for leak detection).
These four tanks were located at
Asbestos study results were not No site-specific surveys were conducted Building 81 (motor pool located on the
readily available for review during this to identify LBP hazards within the North Parcel). The remaining tanks
assessment. EHT (2011) performed an project area, and LBP study results were were used for emergency generators or
intensive survey of St. Elizabeths East not readily available for review during heating fuel for onsite buildings or have
buildings, during which suspected this assessment. According to EHT been removed from service.
ACM vinyl tiles and pipe insulation (2011), LBP is suspected in the interior
were observed. In addition, during the wall and ceiling paint and in the wood The buildings within the project area on
site reconnaissance activities, exposed trim. Based on the age of the buildings St. Elizabeths East that are associated
piping with possible ACM insulation was on St. Elizabeths East (those built prior with known USTs are listed below. The
observed through open windows under to 1977), it is highly likely LBP may have approximate locations of the known
a ramp at Building 116. Based on the been used to paint the exterior of the USTs are shown in Exhibit E.
age of the buildings (those built prior to buildings. There is also the possibility
1970) and utilities on St. Elizabeths East, that maintenance of the painted
it is highly likely that ACM is present in exteriors of these buildings may have
the buildings and utilities there. led to LBP chips falling on the ground
surrounding the buildings, which would EXHIBIT D: RADON POTENTIAL OF
PCB in turn lead to possible elevated lead ROCKS AND SOILS IN THE GREATER
Prior to 1978, PCBs were industrial concentrations in the soil. WASHINGTON, DC METROPOLITAN
compounds used in electrical AREA (USGS 2005)
equipment, primarily capacitors and Radon
power transformers, because they are Radon gas is a naturally occurring,
electrically nonconductive and stable odorless, and colorless radioactive gas
at high temperatures. Because of produced by the decay of naturally
their chemical stability, PCBs persist radioactive materials such as potassium
in the environment, bio-accumulate in and uranium. Atmospheric radon is
organisms, and become concentrated diluted to insignificant levels; however,
in the food chain. when concentrated in enclosed areas,
radon can present human health risks.
No site-specific surveys were Radon gas is a Class “A” carcinogen
conducted to identify PCB hazards and is associated with the long-term
within St. Elizabeths East project health risk of lung cancer. USEPA and
AR - Arlington County
area. During the site reconnaissance, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
AL - Alexandria
power transformers were observed at have compiled a map of radon zones
Buildings 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 117, 119, for counties within Maryland and the
and 124. Power transformers within District. The rocks and soils found in RADON POTENTIAL
the project area are owned by either the vicinity of St. Elizabeths East were High
General Services Administration or the mapped as having low radon potential
Moderate
District. The power transformers on St. (average readings of 0 to 4.0 picocuries
Elizabeths East are non-PCB- containing per liter (pCi/L). (See Exhibit D.) Low
transformers (ERM, 2003).
xxxviiiST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Locations of Known USTs

At the time of the 1995 EPA RCRA EXHIBIT E
UST Location UST Description
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Building 109 6,000-gallon
Report, the USTs located at Buildings
diesel UST used
109 and 124 were not regulated for
to operate an
leak detection.
emergency
generator at the
Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)
CT Kitchen
There are two 10,000-gallon
aboveground diesel storage tanks and Building 119 Suspected UST of
multiple smaller sized aboveground unknown size and
diesel storage tanks located around St. content
Elizabeths East for emergency fueling of Building 124 3,000-gallon
the boilers and generators, respectively diesel UST used
(ERM 2003). These emergency fuel to operate an
tanks are provided with concrete pads emergency
dioxins and furans present at the site
and curbing for secondary containment. generator at the
should not pose a public health threat
Rehabilitation
to employees, patients, residents, or
Documentation for the storage tanks Medicine Building
landfill workers (FHWA 2008). It is
was not readily available or provided. recommended that core sampling be
Therefore, this assessment relied performed in landfill areas of future
primarily on site reconnaissance. construction that would be at depths
AST Location AST Description
greater than 1 foot (FHWA 2008).
Locations of Known ASTs Building 89 Approx. 500-gallon
The ASTs listed are used as emergency In the late 1990s, the area of the fly ash diesel AST with
fueling sources for generators. During on St. Elizabeths East was disturbed secondary containment
the site reconnaissance, staining and during the construction of the Congress Building 94 Approx. 40-gallon
diesel odor was noted around the ASTs Heights Metro Station. Prior to the diesel AST with
at Buildings 95, 100, and 111, and many construction of the metro line, WMATA secondary containment
of the ASTs appeared in poor condition conducted an investigation of the fly Building 95 Approx. 40-gallon
and exhibited poor housekeeping. ash on St. Elizabeths East. The results diesel AST with
of the WMATA investigation were not secondary containment
Fly Ash and Fill Materials available for review at the time of the
Approximately 30 acres along the Building 100 Approx. 100-gallon
publication of the EA.
northern most portion of St. Elizabeths diesel AST with
East, between Suitland Parkway and secondary containment
Hazardous Materials Associated
Building 81, were formerly operated by with Electrical Equipment Building 102 Approx. 300-gallon
the District Department of Public Works The chiller plant at Building 125 contains diesel AST with
as a landfill under Permit 1-83 (FHWA two electric chillers without back-up secondary containment
2008). The landfill was split into four fuel sources (ERM 2003). During the Building 111 Approx. 10,000-gallon
sections and the materials disposed site reconnaissance, several unlabeled diesel AST with
of in the landfill included storm sewer 55-gallon drums and two 55-gallon secondary containment
cleanings, street sweepings, road Freon drums on pallets were observed Building 119 Suspected AST of
construction debris, and incinerator fly behind the building; a small drum of unknown size and
ash from the Benning Road Incinerator refrigerant was observed in front of content
(FHWA 2008, ERM 2003). The landfill the building. Many of the unlabeled
was closed between 1983 and 1989, Building 124 8,000-gallon
drums were open and filled with what
prior to regulation under the RCRA. diesel AST; approx.
appeared to be rainwater; the contents
The District DOH determined that the 300-gallon AST
of others, which were closed, could not
surface soil levels of polychlorinated (contents unknown)
be determined.
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGSxxxix

The East Substation (Building 129) Process. In October 1989, a Preliminary

is associated with the operations 3. REGULATORY REVIEW Assessment (PA) determined that the
at Building 119. Possible hazardous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) site does not qualify for the NPL based
materials that may be related to the National Priorities List (NPL) on existing information, and assigned it
substation include mineral oil (used The Comprehensive Environmental a No Further Remedial Action Planned
as an insulation medium and coolant Response, Compensation and Liability (NFRAP) status. In September 1991, a
for electrical equipment), batteries Act (CERCLA) established the Site Inspection (SI) of the site assigned
for electrical equipment, and sulfur National Priorities List (NPL) of federal it a low priority for further assessment.
hexafluoride gas (used as an insulator “Superfund” sites. This list identifies In May 2003, a Removal Assessment
and arc suppressor in circuit breakers). Superfund sites that have been was completed; however no specific
designated as national priority clean-up details were included regarding
Medical and Radioactive sites and targeted for immediate action this Removal Assessment. No other
Waste Materials due to their high assigned ranking, in information was provided.
According to EHT (2011), the Blackburn terms of potential public health effects,
Laboratory (Building 88) was used by the EPA. The CERCLIS-NFRAP list contains
as a laboratory with a medical focus; information pertaining to facilities that
therefore there are some unique • The subject property does not have been removed from the EPA’s
hazardous materials present. appear on the NPL. CERCLIS Database. NFRAP sites may
• There are no facilities noted on the be sites where, following an initial
• During the visual site inspection, NPL within approximately one mile investigation, either no contamination
the interior of Building 88 exhibited of the subject site. was found, or contamination was
evidence of poor housekeeping, removed quickly without need for the
and an apparent lack of institutional EPA Comprehensive Environmental site to be placed on the NPL, or the
controls (e.g., “space inhabitable,” Response, Compensation and Liability contamination was not serious enough
“infectious materials,” and Information System (CERCLIS) to require federal Superfund action or
“biohazard” signs). The following The CERCLIS lists and identifies NPL consideration.
waste and equipment were observed suspected contamination sites No other CERCLIS or NFRAP listings on,
in Building 88 during the visual throughout the nation; CERCLIS adjacent to, or surrounding the subject
site inspection. contains information on sites identified property appear in the database.
• 15-gallon drums with potential by the US EPA as known or suspect
medical waste abandoned, inactive, or controlled Based on this and other regulatory
• Two full cabinets of biological hazardous waste sites which may database information for the subject
slide boxes require cleanup. property discussed below; it is assumed
• “Red bags” with medical waste that this information does pertain to the
• Biological safety cabinets • The subject property is listed on the subject property. As such, despite the
• Chemical fume hoods CERCLIS list. NFRAP status and determination that
• Nine-shelf cadaver refrigerator unit • There is 1 facility noted on the the site does not qualify for the NPL,
• Autopsy room with floor drain and CERCLIS list within approximately this is considered to be a REC, since
no waste tank observed. The drain one half mile of the subject area. on-site soil and ground water may be
may have discharged to the sanitary impacted to some extent.
sewer system. This facility is identified as “St.
• Radioactive material and waste Elizabeths Hospital” located at 2700 EPA Resource Conservation and
storage area. It was unclear where Martin Luther King Avenue; however Recovery Information System (RCRIS)
the associated radiological labs were the site is mapped at the same location RCRIS is the EPA database of facilities
located in the building. Multiple as the New St. Elizabeths Hospital that generate, transport, treat, store,
Cobalt-57 lead-lined film cans and located east of the John Howard or dispose of hazardous wastes.
plastic vials and containers were Pavilion. Review of the CERCLIS related Generators and transporters are
observed. information indicates the subject found on the RCRIS List of Notifiers.
property was initially evaluated in Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD)
1987 and 1988 during the Discovery facilities are found on the RCRIS TSD
xl ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

List, and TSD facilities with corrective (Quercus prinus), were identified during consolidated limestone. Others contain
action activities are found on the the tree survey, scattered along the far predominantly sands and chalky or
CORRACTS List. Facilities that do not slope near the current hospital. porous limestones with local lenticular
currently generate wastes are listed on deposits of highly plastic clays.
the RCRIS Non-Gen list. Scrub areas are largely dominated by
invasive species, including tree-of- The specific soil associations mapped
• The subject property is listed on the heaven, amur honeysuckle, Japanese at the site include the Beltsville
RCRIS Non-Generators (NonGen) list. honeysuckle, smooth sumac (Rhus association. Beltsville soils are described
• One adjacent site appears on the glabra), and kudzu. as nearly level to moderately sloping.
RCRIS Conditional Exempt Small They are further described as having a
Quantity Generators (CESQG) List. Open field areas, along the northeastern silt loam texture, and are well drained
• One nearby surrounding property is corner of the study area and along with an intermediate water holding
on the RCRIS NonGen list. the hospital access road embankment, capacity. The depth of the water table
include planted grasses such as fescue can be as shallow as 3 and 6 feet
4. LANDSCAPING (Festuca sp.), herbs such as crown below ground surface; with a slow
The majority of the study area is vetch (Securigera varia), red clover infiltration rates (Class C). Beltsville
developed, with manicured lawn and (Trifoilum repens), Queen Anne’s lace soils generally have layers impeding
mature landscape street trees between (Daucus carota), and purple dead nettle downward movement of water, and fine
buildings and pavement. The developed (Lamium purpureum), and, in some textures. These soils do not meet the
area comprises nearly 90 percent of the locations, small trees and shrubs such as requirements for hydric soil. It should
study area. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), be noted that recently completed
black cherry, boxelder, and blackberry geotechnical borings indicate the site-
Unmaintained, natural, and naturalized (Rubus sp.). specific depths to ground water, where
areas comprise about 9.5 acres along encountered, are between 16 and 20
the eastern edge of the study area. This feet below ground surface.
area includes woodland, scrub, and
open field areas.
C. GEOLOGY AND The study area is generally underlain
HYDROLOGY by the Sunderland Formation of lower
The remnant forest is classified as Pliestocene age and the Potomac
1. GEOLOGIC SETTING
early sucessional. Dominant trees Group of lower Cretaceous age. The
St. Elizabeths East is located in the
include yellow poplar (Liriodendron Sunderland consists of coarse gravel,
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province.
tulipifera), elm species (Ulmus sp.), including cobbles and boulders a foot
The Coastal Plain consists mainly
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), or more in diameter, cross-bedded
of marine sediments, which were
and black cherry (Prunus serotina). sand, silt and clay. Color ranges from
deposited during successive periods
Boxelder (Acer negundo), tree-of- orange-red to pink, yellow and blue-
of fluctuating sea level and moving
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), river birch gray. The Sunderland extends to about
shorelines. The formations dip slightly
(Betula nigra), black locust (Robinia 40 to 50 feet below ground surface. The
eastward and several are exposed at the
pseudoacacia), bigtooth aspen (Populus Potomac Group consists of gray to pink
surface in bands paralleling the coast.
grandidentata), and honeylocust silty to clayey feldspathic sands that
Many beds exist only as fragmental
(Gleditsia triacanthos) are minor overlie greenish-gray, mottled red and
erosion remnants sandwiched
components. The understory contains brown silts and clay that are moderately
between more continuous strata
prolific amounts of invasive species to highly plastic and montmorillonite
above and below.
such as English ivy (Hedera helix), amur and illite rich.
honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), kudzu
The soils in this province are typical of
(Pueraria montana), garlic mustard 2. SURFACE DRAINAGE
those laid down in a shallow slopping
(Alliaria petiolata), multiflora rose (Rosa The land surface of the study area is
sea bottom: sands, silts, and clays
multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle located on a small plateau southeast
with irregular deposits of shells. Some
(Lonicera japonica). Several large trees, of the Anacostia River and is
of the existing formations contain
including sweetgum (Liquidambar approximately 175 feet above mean
predominantly plastic clays interbedded
styraciflua) and Eastern chestnut oak sea level (amsl). The study area slopes
with strata of sands and poorly
URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xli

gently to the southeast toward the It is likely that those portions of the
Anacostia River, and northeast toward study area adjacent to Alabama Avenue
a natural ravine which drains the study will exhibit ground-water flow direction
E. MISCELLANEOUS
area and the surrounding area to an toward the south and southeast toward 1. RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES
unnamed stream flowing northwest drainage features in the Congress Park • MOA for Proposed Transportation
along Suitland Parkway, and ultimately and Congress Heights neighborhoods. Network for the St. Elizabeths
the Anacostia River. Curbs, gutters, and These features discharge to Oxon Hospital, East Campus
storm drains control flow of surface Run, which flows southwest to the (June 26, 2012)
water on the subject property, and in Anacostia River. • MOA for Transportation
surrounding areas limit run-off from Improvements along a segment of
off-site facilities; although some run-on It should be noted that surface MLK Jr. Avenue and Construction of
from off-site facilities likely migrates topography does not always reflect the FEMA Headquarters within the
onto portions of St. Elizabeths East. the actual hydraulic gradient, and Federal Use Parcel on St. Elizabeths
that fluctuations are sometimes East of St. Elizabeths National
3. GROUND WATER encountered. Ground water flow Historic Landmark (April 19, 2012)
In the geologic setting of the subject direction measurements would be • St. Elizabeths Redevelopment
property, shallow ground water necessary to establish the actual on-site Framework Plan
typically occurs as an unconfined (water direction and gradient. (December 16, 2008)
table) aquifer, and the water table is • Programmatic Agreement among
usually a subdued reflection of the GSA, the Advisory Council on
surface topography. Locally, confined Historic Preservation, DCSHPO,
aquifers or perched water tables also
D. SURROUNDING REAL FHWA, NCPC and DHS regarding
may occur. Shallow ground water ESTATE DEVELOPMENT the development of St. Elizabeths
typically flows towards the nearest National Historic Landmark
stream or other water body; these
(IF APPLICABLE) (December 9, 2008)
topographically low areas commonly 1. DC OWNED AND • Memorandum of Agreement by and
consist of local drainage features that OPERATED BUILDINGS among the Offices of DMPED, GSA
have eroded deeply enough to intersect Gateway DC and DHS (November 23, 2008)
the water table or to act as ground- 2700 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave.,
water discharge zones. Based on Washington, D.C. 20032 2. LITIGATION
interpretation of the local topography, There are no known legal actions or
it is assumed that the ground-water R.I.S.E. Demonstration Center liens against the Real Property.
flow direction within the majority of the 2730 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave.,
study area is east-northeast toward the Washington, D.C. 20032
unnamed stream and Suitland Parkway.
xlii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Hospital Feasability Study in Uk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hospital Feasability Study in Uk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hospital Feasability Study in Uk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St.

Elizabeths East Campus

SECTION 02. PROJECT OVERVIEW 7

SECTION 03. INITIAL SITE SELECTION 22

SECTION 04. SITE RECOMMENDATION 24

SECTION 05. NEXT STEPS 27

APPENDIX A: EVALUATION PROCESS i

APPENDIX B: DUE DILIGENCE REPORTS xxi

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND VISION OF An essential element of the Master

2 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

• The educational and health services

The health care and educational

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 3

FIGURE 3: COMBINED REVIEW PROCESS

4 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Advantages FIGURE 4: SITE 3E – PARCEL COMPOSITION

FIGURE 5: ILLUSTRATIVE DRAWING - SITE OPTION 3E

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 5

Hub by lending to the synergy of The results of the study confirmed

6 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

PROJECT INITIATIVES Center noted that UMC is financially

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 7

8 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

These needs are underscored by the

LI Columbia Heights/Ft. Totten/Takoma

• Ward 8 residents have the highest

from 3 zip codes: 20019, 20020, and

• Prevalence and mortality associated

• While 50 percent of youth live in

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 9

FIGURE 9: DISTRICT AREA HOSPITALS

PROPOSED PROGRAM Base Program:

10 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

FIGURE 10: PROPOSED PROGRAM (gross square feet of required area)

Hospital Beds (150 beds) 125,000

Ambulatory Care Center* 28,000

Additional ACC Program* 55,000

Pediatric ED* 12,000

Utility Plant 3,500

Long Term Care (120 beds)* 105,000

Medical Education Component 100,000

TOTAL AREA 742,500

* Private development or public/private partnership opportunity

FIGURE 11: RECOMMENDED PARKING SPACES

Additional ACC Parking 275

MOB Parking 210

Educational Parking 100

TOTAL PARKING 1,810

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 11

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital

12 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS

Einstein Medical Center Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital

an environmentally sensitive approach pool and roof gardens that incorporate

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 13

Anticipated 20 percent reduction

• Anticipated 29 percent reduction in

The facility was completed in 2012, and

RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

The cornerstone of a long-term