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 The St. Elizabeths East Innovation Hub technology-related businesses and 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 commercial activities. Success will of Ward 8 and the District as a whole. 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 Section 01. Executive Summary

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 EVALUATION PROCESS relatively inexpensive surface parking, delivered entirely by the private sector. 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

4 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 01. Executive Summary

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.

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 5 Section 01. Executive Summary

Hub by lending to the synergy of The results of the study confirmed SUMMARY the educational component of the that the siting of an urban hospital 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.

6 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS SECTION 02. Project Overview

PROJECT INITIATIVES Center noted that UMC is financially • UMC’s inpatient share in Ward 7 is insolvent and unable to continue 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

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 7 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- HEALTHCARE NEEDS not meaningfully increase the art facility, affording the District 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

8 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 02. Project Overview

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 of a location within St. Elizabeths East South Capitol ID 00499 Low Income (LI) Brentwood ID 07855 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:

• Deaths due to accidents, Diabetes, LI Columbia Heights/Ft. Totten/Takoma 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 Department 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.

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 9 Section 02. Project Overview

FIGURE 9: DISTRICT AREA HOSPITALS Washington D.C. Area Hospitals. 1. Specialty Hospital of Washington- 10 Capitol Hill 6 2 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 1 6. Providence Hospital 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: Ancillary Uses: • Hospital Diagnostic and Treatment • 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

10 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 02. Project Overview

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.

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 11 Section 02. Project Overview

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital

natural disasters, such as hurricanes, Given its critical role in the community, RESILIENCY DESIGN tornados, earthquakes, flooding, a hospital is expected to serve as a 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.

12 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 02. Project Overview

Einstein Medical Center Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital

an environmentally sensitive approach pool and roof gardens that incorporate PROGRAM BENCHMARK to its site. By consolidating the rehabilitative functions. Principles of 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

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 13 Section 02. Project Overview

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.

14 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 02. Project Overview

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 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST economic development planning efforts centers for Ward 8. These anchors 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 community-serving amenities that will Pine St. 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 complete to prepare the site for future Pecan St. development.

OVERVIEW Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE Ave., Martin Luther King Jr. St. Elizabeths East Master Plan Maple Sycamore Dr. Sycamore serves as a framework for creating Quadrangle Saint Elizabeths a new community hub within the Hospital Congress Heights neighborhood, as well as promoting the District’s emerging innovation economy through Cypress St. redevelopment. The recommendations 13th St. found in the Master Plan call for residential, commercial, cultural, and Oak Dr. institutional uses intended to bring 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 be guided by detailed development Malcolm X Ave., SE Dogwood Dr. Congress Heights and preservation goals as well as Metro design principles outlined in the Master Plan. The District, the community, Alabama Ave., SE and the private sector will play key SE St., 13th Figure 2.38: The Saint Elizabeths East Campus Illustrated Plan 0 100’ 200’ 400’

M ASTER PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 75

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 15 Section 02. Project Overview

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

16 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 02. Project Overview

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

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 17 Section 02. Project Overview

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 Serviceslaws and regulations.Administration The Master (GSA) Plan assumed to followcontrol the of core the urban Therefore, design this Masterhave Plansite-specific is comprehensive architecture, in scope Westdesign Campusguidelines for are use intended as a futureto create federal principles government highlighted into the provide Master standardswelcoming for revitalizationand engaging public of places historic facility.a cohesive In and 2007, ordered the development US Department Plan. of The Homeland Master Plan highlightsresources, the land useand and views, development, identifiable landmarks infrastructure, and plan that carefully addresses importance of the arrangement and focal points, and a human element Securityhistoric preservation, (DHS) decided land touse consolidate and itsdesign operations of building on lots,building public spaces, height andestablished density, by public compatible open scales space, of and thedevelopment, West Campus and the and public redevelop realm. that site.transportation systems,sustainable services and measures development. in every Community sector of thesafety, 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 18 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS 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). demand for improved retail amenities and services. Moreover, proximity to DHS and the historic character Chapter One of this document provides background of the Saint Elizabeths campus provide a unique on the Saint Elizabeths East Campus and the planning advantage in attracting federal contractors and process. It includes analyses of its position in the region, security-related businesses to this area. Such economic contextual conditions in and around the planning area, activity, in turn, will help increase entrepreneurial and a summary description of the community process activity, venture capital investment, and workforce to develop this plan. development within the District.

4 Section 02. Project Overview

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

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 19 Section 02. Project Overview

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

20 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Section 02. Project Overview

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 -

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 21 SECTION 03. Initial Site Selection

INITIAL SITE SELECTION these sites offers distinct advantages SITE 1: and disadvantages. A summary of the 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

22 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS 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

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 23 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.

24 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS 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.

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 25 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.

26 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS SECTION 05. Next Steps

DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE building facilities that falls within the Partners was selected as the Phase 1 envelope of “Adjacent Construction” 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 and Hospital construction would be HOSPITAL RELATED COMPONENTS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OR The base program for an urban hospital PUBLIC / PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP anticipated to require 30 to 36 months includes the bed tower and two floors OPPORTUNITIES to complete after building permits of the main hospital (Diagnostic & are obtained. Innovation Center 100,000 SF 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 St Elizabeths Hospital (DMH) can be Additional 55,000 SF ripe for development by third parties accomplished in a number of ways: ACC Program * including private developers. Such 1) as a change order to the present Pediatric ED * 12,000 SF 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 development cost of the urban hospital TOTAL 442,000 SF with up to 442,000 SF of buildings project. Either way a conceptual and up to 915 parking spaces (surface * Private development opportunity only; estimated cost has been prepared not appropriate for public/private or garages). As of the date of this for these improvements. All site and development report, Redbrick LMD-Gragg Cardona

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 27 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.

28 ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS APPENDIX A Evaluation Process

EVALUATION PROCESS the actual weighting range was The criteria identified for analysis are arbitrary, but it was agreed that 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 Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 Appendix A. Evaluation Process

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EvaluationEvaluation Criteria Criteria SITESITE 1 1 SITESITE 2 2 SITESITE 2a 2aEvaluationEvaluation Criteria CriteriaSITESITE 2b 2b SITESITE SITE2c SITE2c 1 1 SITESITE SITE2d SITE2d 2 2 SITESITESITE 2eSITE 2e 2a 2a SITESITESITE 3SITE 3 2b 2b SITESITESITE 3aROUNDSITE 3a 2c 2c 3 SITESITEROUNDSITE 3cSITE 3c 2d 32d SITESITEROUNDSITE 3dSITE 3d 32e 2e SITEROUNDSITE SITE3eSITE 3e4 3 3 SITESITESITE 4SITE 4 3a 3a SITESITE 3c 3c SITESITE 3d 3d SITESITE 3e 3e SITESITE 4 4 ScoringScoring ScoringScoring ScoringScoring ScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoringSITE 2c ScoringScoringScoringSITEScoring 2d ScoringScoringSITEScoringScoring 3d ScoringSITEScoringScoring 3eScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoring ScoringScoring ScoringScoring ScoringScoring WeightWeight CriteriaCriteria RawRaw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Raw Raw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted WeightedWeightWeight Raw Raw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted RawCriteria RawCriteria (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Raw Raw 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 Raw Raw 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 Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) WeightedScoring Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5)Scoring Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Scoring(1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5)Scoring (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Raw Raw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Raw Raw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Raw Raw (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted SiteSite Conditions Conditions - topography,- topography, utilities, utilities, SiteSite Conditions Conditions - topography,- topography, utilities, utilities, 1.201.20 33 3.60 3.60 5 5 6.00 6.001.201.20 3 3 3.60 3.60 3 3 3.60 3.60 3 333 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 5 5 3.60 3.60 6.00 6.00 4 4 3 3 4.80 4.80 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 2 2 3 3 2.40 2.40 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 4 4 3.60 3.60 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 2 2 3.60 3.60 2.40 2.40 3 3 3.60 3.60 3 3 3.60 3.60 3 3 3.60 3.60 3 3 3.60 3.60 groundwater,groundwater, Metro Metro tunnel, tunnel, existing existing buildings buildings groundwater,groundwater, Metro Metro tunnel, tunnel, existing existing buildings buildings Weight Criteria Raw (1–5) Weighted Raw (1–5) Weighted Raw (1–5) Weighted Raw (1–5) Weighted PatientPatient and and Visitor Visitor Accessibility Accessibility - Metro- Metro access, access, PatientPatient and and Visitor Visitor Accessibility Accessibility - Metro- Metro access, access, 1.20 Site Conditions - topography, 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.003.00 33 9.00 9.00 4 4 12.00 12.003.003.00 4 4 12.00 12.00 4 4 12.00 12.00 5 533 15.00 15.00 9.00 9.00 5 5 4 4 15.00 15.00 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 9.00 9.00 5 5 15.00 15.00 5 5 15.00 15.00 5 5 15.00 15.00 2 2 6.00 6.00 vehicularvehicular access, access, pedestrian pedestrian access access vehicularvehicular access, access, pedestrian pedestrian access access utilities, groundwater, Metro tunnel, OperationalOperational accessibility accessibility (near (near term) term) - - OperationalOperational accessibility accessibility (near (near term) term) - - existing buildings 33 3.45 3.45 3 3 3.45 3.45 3 3 3.45 3.45 3 3 3.45 3.45 5 533 5.75 5.75 3.45 3.45 5 5 3 3 5.75 5.75 3.45 3.45 5 5 3 3 5.75 5.75 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 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 3.45 3.45 3 3 3.45 3.45 3 3 3.45 3.45 4 4 4.60 4.60 2 2 2.30 2.30 emergency,emergency, service, service, staff, staff, and and helicopter helicopter access access emergency,emergency, service, service, staff, staff, and and helicopter helicopter access access 2.302.30 2.302.30 3.00 Patient and Visitor Accessibility - 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 OperationalOperational accessibility accessibility (long (long term) term) - - OperationalOperational accessibility accessibility (long (long term) term) - - Metro access, vehicular access, 33 3.45 3.45 4 4 4.60 4.60 4 4 4.60 4.60 4 4 4.60 4.60 5 533 5.75 5.75 3.45 3.45 5 5 4 4 5.75 5.75 4.60 4.60 5 5 4 4 5.75 5.75 4.60 4.60 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 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 2.30 2.30 3 3 3.45 3.45 3 3 3.45 3.45 4 4 4.60 4.60 2 2 2.30 2.30 emergency,emergency, service, service, staff, staff, and and helicopter helicopter access access emergency,emergency, service, service, staff, staff, and and helicopter helicopter access access pedestrian access OperationalOperational efficiency efficiency - building- building layout layout and and OperationalOperational efficiency efficiency - building- building layout layout and and 2.602.60 11 2.60 2.60 2 2 5.20 5.202.602.60 4 4 10.40 10.40 4 4 10.40 10.40 4 411 10.40 10.40 2.60 2.60 4 4 2 2 10.40 10.40 5.20 5.20 3 32.30 4 4 7.80 7.80 10.40Operational 10.40 4accessibility 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 1 1 4 45 2.60 2.60 10.40 10.405.75 4 4 45 4 10.40 10.40 10.405.75 10.40 4 43 3 3 10.40 10.403.45 7.80 7.80 44 4 4 4 10.404.60 10.40 10.40 10.40 3 3 1 1 7.80 7.80 2.60 2.60 4 4 10.40 10.40 4 4 10.40 10.40 4 4 10.40 10.40 3 3 7.80 7.80 configurationconfiguration configurationconfiguration (near term) - emergency, service, AvailabilityAvailability of ofneighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities and and AvailabilityAvailability of of neighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities and and staff, and helicopter access 22 1.40 1.40 2 2 1.40 1.40 2 2 1.40 1.40 2 2 1.40 1.40 2 222 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 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 2.10 2.10 3 3 2.10 2.10 3 3 2.10 2.10 3 3 2.10 2.10 2 2 1.40 1.40 servicesservices (near (near term) term) servicesservices (near (near term) term) 1.401.40 1.401.40 Operational accessibility 5 5.75 5 5.75 3 3.45 4 4.60 AvailabilityAvailability of ofneighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities and and AvailabilityAvailability of of neighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities and and 33 2.10 2.10 4 4 2.80 2.80 4 4 2.80 2.80 3 3 2.10 2.10 3 333 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 4 4 2.10 2.10 2.80 2.80 3 3 4 4 2.10 2.10(long 2.80 2.80 term) 4- emergency, 4 3 3 2.80 2.80 service, 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 2.80 2.80 4 4 2.80 2.80 4 4 2.80 2.80 4 4 2.80 2.80 3 3 2.10 2.10 servicesservices (long (long term) term) servicesservices (long (long term) term) staff, and helicopter access 2.302.30 Visibility Visibility / branding/ branding opportunities opportunities 33 6.90 6.90 4 4 9.20 9.202.302.30 4 Visibility 4 Visibility 9.20 / 9.20 branding/ branding opportunities opportunities 3 3 6.90 6.90 4 433 9.20 9.20 6.90 6.90 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 42.60 4 4 9.20 9.20Operational 9.20 9.20 5efficiency 5 3 3 11.50 - 11.50 building 6.90 6.90 4 4 4 44 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.2010.40 5 5 44 4 11.50 11.5010.40 9.20 9.20 5 54 4 4 11.50 11.5010.40 9.20 9.20 54 5 5 5 11.5010.40 11.50 11.50 11.50 1 1 4 4 2.30 2.30 9.20 9.20 5 5 11.50 11.50 5 5 11.50 11.50 5 5 11.50 11.50 1 1 2.30 2.30 layout and configuration FlexibilityFlexibility - accommodate- accommodate future future growth growth / shifts/ shifts FlexibilityFlexibility - accommodate- accommodate future future growth growth / shifts/ shifts 2.702.70 11 2.70 2.70 2 2 5.40 5.402.702.70 4 4 10.80 10.80 5 5 13.50 13.50 5 511 13.50 13.50 2.70 2.70 4 4 2 2 10.80 10.80 5.40 5.40 3 3 4 4 8.10 8.10 10.80 10.80 3 3 5 5 8.10 8.10 13.50 13.50 1 1 5 5 2.70 2.70 13.50 13.50 3 3 4 4 8.10 8.10 10.80 10.80 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 1 1 8.10 8.10 2.70 2.70 3 3 8.10 8.10 3 3 8.10 8.10 3 3 8.10 8.10 3 3 8.10 8.10 inin program program or orphasing phasing inin program program or or phasing phasing 1.40 Availability of neighborhood 2 1.40 2 1.40 3 2.10 3 2.10 amenities and services (near term) 1.601.60 Building Building construction construction cost cost / complexity/ complexity 33 4.80 4.80 4 4 6.40 6.401.601.60 4 Building 4 Building 6.40 construction 6.40construction cost cost 3 3/ complexity/ complexity 4.80 4.80 3 333 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 4 4 4.80 4.80 6.40 6.40 4 4 4 4 6.40 6.40Availability 6.40 6.40 2of 2neighborhood 3 3 3.20 3.20 4.80 4.80 1 1 3 33 1.60 1.60 4.80 4.802.10 1 1 33 3 1.60 1.60 4.802.10 4.80 2 24 4 4 3.20 3.202.80 6.40 6.40 24 2 2 2 3.202.80 3.20 3.20 3.20 3 3 1 1 4.80 4.80 1.60 1.60 1 1 1.60 1.60 2 2 3.20 3.20 2 2 3.20 3.20 3 3 4.80 4.80 CompatibilityCompatibility with with existing existing entitlements entitlements - - CompatibilityCompatibility with with existing existing entitlements entitlements - - amenities and services (long term) 1.801.80 11 1.80 1.80 3 3 5.40 5.401.801.80 4 4 7.20 7.20 4 4 7.20 7.20 4 411 7.20 7.20 1.80 1.80 4 4 3 3 7.20 7.20 5.40 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 3.60 7.20 7.20 3 3 3 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 1 1 3 3 1.80 1.80 5.40 5.40 3 3 5.40 5.40 2 2 3.60 3.60 3 3 5.40 5.40 1 1 1.80 1.80 zoning,zoning, environmental, environmental, HPRB HPRB zoning,zoning, environmental, environmental, HPRB HPRB 2.30 Visibility / branding opportunities 4 9.20 4 9.20 5 11.50 5 11.50 CompatibilityCompatibility with with general general master master plan plan intent intent 1 1 0.67 0.67 3 3 2.00 2.00 3Compatibility 3Compatibility 2.00 2.00 with with general general 2 2master master 1.33plan 1.33plan intent intent 2 2 1 1 1.33 1.33 0.67 0.67 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 32.70 3 3 2.00 2.00Flexibility 2.00 2.00 - 2accommodate 2 2 2 1.33 1.33 future 1.33 1.33 1 1 2 25 0.67 0.67 1.33 1.3313.50 2 2 34 3 1.33 1.3310.80 2.00 2.00 3 33 3 3 2.00 2.008.10 2.00 2.00 43 4 2 2 2.678.10 2.67 1.33 1.33 3 3 1 1 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 2 2 1.33 1.33 3 3 2.00 2.00 4 4 2.67 2.67 3 3 2.00 2.00 growth / shifts in program or phasing IntegrationIntegration with with overall overall site site development development IntegrationIntegration with with overall overall site site development development 2.002.00 11 0.67 0.67 3 3 2.00 2.002.002.00 3 3 2.00 2.00 3 3 2.00 2.00 3 311 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 4 3 3 2.67 2.67 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 5 5 3 3 3.33 3.33 2.00 2.00 5 5 4 4 3.33 3.33 2.67 2.67 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 2.00 2.00 5 5 3.33 3.33 5 5 3.33 3.33 3 3 2.00 2.00 (innovation(innovation hub) hub) (innovation(innovation hub) hub) 1.60 Building construction cost / complexity 3 4.80 3 4.80 2 3.20 2 3.20 IntegrationIntegration with with overall overall site site development development (Phase (Phase IntegrationIntegration with with overall overall site site development development (Phase (Phase 1.80 Compatibility with existing 4 7.20 4 7.20 2 3.60 3 5.40 33 2.00 2.00 3 3 2.00 2.00 3 3 2.00 2.00 3 3 2.00 2.00 3 333 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 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 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 2.67 2.67 4 4 2.67 2.67 4 4 2.67 2.67 4 4 2.67 2.67 3 3 2.00 2.00 1 1development) development) 1 1development) development) entitlements - zoning, environmental, HPRB 1.401.40 Availability Availability of ofnatural natural light light / views/ views 44 5.60 5.60 5 5 7.00 7.001.401.40 2 Availability 2 Availability 2.80 2.80 of of natural natural light light 2 2 / views/ views 2.80 2.80 2 244 2.80 2.80 5.60 5.60 2 2 5 5 2.80 2.80 7.00 7.00 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 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 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 2.80 2.80 2 2 2.80 2.80 3 3 4.20 4.20 3 3 4.20 4.20 3 3 4.20 4.20 2.00 Compatibility with general 2 1.33 3 2.00 3 2.00 4 2.67 master plan intent 2.702.70 Political Political Viability Viability 22 5.40 5.40 1 1 2.70 2.702.702.70 1 Political 1 Political 2.70Viability 2.70Viability 1 1 2.70 2.70 1 122 2.70 2.70 5.40 5.40 1 1 1 1 2.70 2.70 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 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 5.40 5.40 2 2 5.40 5.40 3 3 8.10 8.10 3 3 8.10 8.10 2 2 5.40 5.40 Integration with overall site 3 2.00 3 2.00 5 3.33 5 3.33 TOTAL: TOTAL: 56.1356.13 77.5577.55 TOTAL: TOTAL:83.35 83.35 80.7880.78 89.5389.5356.1356.13 87.5087.5077.5577.55 85.3785.3783.35development83.35 (innovation82.0282.02 80.78hub)80.78 57.0857.0889.5389.53 81.6081.6087.5087.50 87.5087.5085.3785.37 92.2792.2782.0282.02 58.1058.1057.0857.08 81.6081.60 87.5087.50 92.2792.27 58.1058.10 Integration with overall site 3 2.00 3 2.00 4 2.67 4 2.67 RankRank 1311310692357106923571RankRank 1131310692357106923571development (Phase 1 development) 283112831111283112831111 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 LegendLegend LegendLegend TOTAL 89.53 87.50 87.50 92.27 RANK 2 3 3 1 RoundRound 4 Option4 Option RoundRound 4 Option4 Option

RoundRound 3 Option3 Option RoundRound 3 Option3 Option

RoundRound 2 Option2 Option RoundRound 2 Option2 Option

RoundRound 1 Option1 Option RoundRound 1 Option1 Option

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS v Appendix A. Evaluation Process

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluation Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria SITESITESITEROUNDSITE 1SITE 1 1 1 1 1 SITESITEROUNDSITESITE 2SITE 2 2 2 2 1 SITEROUNDSITESITESITE 2aSITE 2a 2a 2a 22a ROUNDSITESITESITESITE 2bSITE 2b 2b 22b 2b ROUNDSITESITESITESITE 2cSITE 2c 2c3 2c 2c SITESITESITESITE 2dSITE 2d 2d 2d 2d SITESITESITESITE 2eSITE ROUND2e 2e 2e 2e 3 SITESITESITESITEROUND 3SITE 3 3 3 3 3 SITESITESITEROUNDSITE 3aSITE 3a 3a 3a 3a 1 SITESITESITEROUNDSITE 3cSITE 3c 3c 3c 3c 1 SITEROUNDSITESITESITE 3dSITE 3d 3d 3d 23d ROUNDSITESITESITESITE 3eSITE 3e 3e 33e 3e ROUNDSITESITESITESITE 4SITE 4 44 4 4 ROUND 1 ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITE 1 ScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoring 2 ScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoring 2a ScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 2b SITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 2cScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITE 2d ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITE 2e ScoringScoringScoringScoringSITEScoring 3 ScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoring 3a ScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoring 3c ScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 3d SITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 3eScoring SITE 4 WeightWeightWeightWeightWeight CriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteria RawRawRaw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted SiteSiteSite SiteConditions SiteConditions Conditions Conditions Conditions - -topography, -topography, topography,- -topography, topography, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, 1.201.201.201.201.20 33333Scoring 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 5 5 5 5 5Scoring 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3 3 3 3Scoring 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 4 4 4 4 4 4.80Scoring 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3 Scoring 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 2 2 2 2 2 Scoring 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 3 3 3 3 3Scoring 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 Scoring3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 Scoring 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 PatientPatientPatientPatientPatient and and and andVisitor andVisitor Visitor Visitor Visitor Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility - -Metro -Metro Metro- -Metro Metro access, access, access, access, access, Weight3.003.003.003.00 Criteria3.00 333Raw33 9.00Weighted 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 4Raw 4 4 4 4 Weighted 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00Raw 4 4 4 4 4Weighted 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00Raw 4 4 4 4Weighted 4 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00Raw 5 5 5Weighted 5 5 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 5 5 5 5 5 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 4 4 4 4Raw 4 12.00 12.00 12.00Weighted 12.00 12.00 4 4 4Raw 4 4 12.00 12.00Weighted 12.00 12.00 12.00 3 3 3Raw 3 3 9.00Weighted 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 5Raw 5 5 5 5 Weighted 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Raw 5 5 5 5 5Weighted 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Raw 5 5 5 5Weighted 5 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Raw 2 2 2Weighted 2 2 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Raw Weighted vehicularvehicularvehicularvehicularvehicular 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) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) OperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperational accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility (near (near (near (near (nearterm) term) term) term) term)- - - - - 33333 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 2 2 2 2 2 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency, service, service, service, service, service, staff, staff, staff, staff, staff,and and and andhelicopter andhelicopter helicopter helicopter helicopter access access access access access 1.20 2.302.302.302.30Site2.30 Conditions - topography, 3 3.60 5 6.00 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 4 4.80 3 3.60 2 2.40 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 OperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperational accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility (long (long (long (long (longterm) term) term) term) term)- - - - - utilities, groundwater, Metro tunnel, 33333 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 2 2 2 2 2 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 2 2 2 2 2 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 existingemergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency, buildings service, service, service, service, service, staff, staff, staff, staff, staff,and and and andhelicopter andhelicopter helicopter helicopter helicopter access access access access access OperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperational efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency - -building -building building- -building building layout layout layout layout layout and and and and and 2.602.602.602.602.60 11111 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2 2 2 2 2 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 3 3 3 3 3 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 1 1 1 1 1 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 3 3 3 3 3 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 3.00 Patientconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfiguration and Visitor Accessibility - 3 9.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 3 9.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 2 6.00 AvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailability of of ofneighborhood neighborhood of neighborhoodof neighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities and and and and and Metro access, vehicular access, 22222 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 servicesservicesservicesservicesservices (near (near (near (near (nearterm) term) term) term) term) 1.401.401.401.40pedestrian1.40 access AvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailability of of ofneighborhood neighborhood of neighborhoodof neighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities and and and and and 33333 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.30 Operationalservicesservicesservicesservicesservices (long (long (long (longaccessibility (longterm) term) term) term) term) (near term) - 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 5 5.75 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 2.302.302.302.30emergency,2.30 Visibility Visibility Visibility Visibility Visibility / /branding /brandingservice, branding/ /branding branding opportunities opportunities staff,opportunities opportunities opportunities and 33333 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 3 3 3 3 3 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 1 1 1 1 1 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30

helicopterFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibility -access -accommodate -accommodate accommodate- -accommodate accommodate future future future future future growth growth growth growth growth / /shifts /shifts shifts/ /shifts shifts 2.702.702.702.702.70 11111 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2 2 2 2 2 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 4 4 4 4 4 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 5 5 5 5 5 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 5 5 5 5 5 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 4 4 4 4 4 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 1 1 1 1 1 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 Operationalinin inprogram program inprogramin program program or oraccessibility orphasing phasing or phasingor phasing phasing (long term) - 3 3.45 4 4.60 4 4.60 4 4.60 5 5.75 5 5.75 5 5.75 4 4.60 2 2.30 3 3.45 3 3.45 4 4.60 2 2.30 1.601.601.601.60emergency,1.60 Building Building Building Building Building construction construction constructionservice, construction construction coststaff, cost cost cost/ cost/complexity /complexityand complexity/ /complexity complexity 33333 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4 4 4 4 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 4 4 4 4 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4 4 4 4 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 2 2 2 2 2 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 1 1 1 1 1 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1 1 1 1 1 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 2 2 2 2 2 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 2 2 2 2 2 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 helicopterCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibility access with with with with existing withexisting existing existing existing entitlements entitlements entitlements entitlements entitlements - - - - - 1.801.801.801.801.80 11111 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 2 2 2 2 2 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 1 1 1 1 1 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 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 4 10.40 3 7.80 4 10.40 1 2.60 4 10.40 4 10.40 4 10.40 3 7.80 layoutCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibility Compatibilityand configuration with with with with general withgeneral general general general master master master master master plan plan plan plan intent planintent intent intent intent 1 1 1 1 1 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1 1 1 1 1 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 IntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegration with with with with overall withoverall overall overall overall site site site developmentsite developmentsite development development development 1.40 2.002.002.002.00Availability2.00 of neighborhood 111121 0.67 0.67 0.671.40 0.67 0.67 3 3 32 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.001.40 2.00 2.00 3 32 3 3 3 2.001.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 32 3 3 3 31.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.002 3 3 3 3 31.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 32 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.001.40 4 4 4 4 42 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.671.40 2.67 3 3 33 3 2.00 2.00 2.002.10 2.00 2.00 3 3 33 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.002.10 2.00 2.00 5 53 5 5 5 3.33 3.332.10 3.33 3.33 3.33 53 5 5 5 52.10 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.333 3 3 3 3 32.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 1.40 (innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation hub) hub) hub) hub) hub) amenitiesIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegration and with with with withservices overall withoverall overall overall overall site site site (neardevelopmentsite developmentsite development development development term) (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase 33333 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Availability11 development)1 development) 1development)1 development) development) of neighborhood 3 2.10 4 2.80 4 2.80 3 2.10 3 2.10 3 2.10 3 2.10 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 3 2.10 1.401.401.401.40amenities1.40 Availability Availability Availability Availability Availability and of of ofnatural natural ofservices naturalof natural natural light light light light /(longlight /views /views views/ /views views term) 44444 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 5 5 5 5 5 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3 3 3 3 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 3 3 3 3 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 3 3 3 3 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20

2.30 2.702.702.702.70Visibility2.70 Political Political Political Political Political Viability /Viability Viabilitybranding Viability Viability opportunities 222232 5.40 5.40 5.406.90 5.40 5.40 1 1 14 1 1 2.70 2.709.20 2.70 2.70 2.70 1 14 1 1 1 2.709.20 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 13 1 1 1 16.90 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.704 1 1 1 1 19.20 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 1 1 1 1 1 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2 2 2 2 24 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.409.20 2 2 2 2 24 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.409.20 5.40 2 2 25 2 2 5.40 5.40 5.4011.50 5.40 5.40 2 2 24 2 2 5.40 5.409.20 5.40 5.40 5.40 3 35 3 3 3 8.1011.50 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 35 3 3 3 311.50 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.105 2 2 2 2 211.50 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 1 2.30

2.70 Flexibility TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: - accommodate future 1 56.1356.1356.1356.132.7056.13 2 77.5577.5577.555.4077.5577.55 4 83.3510.8083.3583.3583.3583.35 5 13.5080.7880.7880.7880.7880.78 5 13.5089.5389.5389.5389.5389.53 87.5087.5087.5087.5087.50 485.3785.3785.3785.3785.3710.80 3 82.0282.0282.0282.0282.028.10 3 57.0857.0857.0857.088.1057.08 1 81.6081.6081.602.7081.6081.60 3 87.5087.508.1087.5087.5087.50 3 92.278.1092.2792.2792.2792.27 3 8.1058.1058.1058.1058.1058.10 3 8.10 growth / shifts in program or phasing 1131131311131310692357106923571069235710692357106923571283112831128311283112831111111 1.60 BuildingRankRankRankRankRank construction cost / complexity 3 4.80 4 6.40 4 6.40 3 4.80 3 4.80 3 4.80 4 6.40 2 3.20 1 1.60 1 1.60 2 3.20 2 3.20 3 4.80 1.80 Compatibility with existing entitlements - 1 1.80 3 5.40 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20 3 5.40 3 5.40 3 5.40 2 3.60 3 5.40 1 1.80 zoning, environmental,LegendLegendLegendLegendLegend HPRB 2.00 Compatibility with general master 1 0.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 2 1.33 2 1.33 3 2.00 3 2.00 2 1.33 1 0.67 2 1.33 3 2.00 4 2.67 3 2.00 planRoundRoundRound intentRound Round4 4Option 4Option Option4 4Option Option

IntegrationRoundRoundRoundRound Round3 3Option 3Option Option3 3 Optionwith Option overall site development 1 0.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 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 (innovation hub) IntegrationRoundRoundRoundRound Round2 2Option 2Option Option2 2 Optionwith Option overall site development 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 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 (Phase 1 development) RoundRoundRoundRound Round1 1Option 1Option Option1 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 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 3 4.20 3 4.20 3 4.20 2.70 Political Viability 2 5.40 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 2 5.40 2 5.40 2 5.40 2 5.40 3 8.10 3 8.10 2 5.40 TOTAL 56.13 77.55 83.35 80.78 89.53 87.50 85.37 82.02 57.08 81.60 87.50 92.27 58.10 RANK 13 10 6 9 2 3 5 7 12 8 3 1 11

vi ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix A. Evaluation Process

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluation Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria CriteriaROUND 1 SITESITESITEROUNDSITE 1SITE 1SITE 1SITE 1SITE 1 1 1 1 SITESITEROUNDSITESITE 2SITE 2SITE 2SITE 2SITE 2 22 2 2 SITESITEROUNDSITESITE 2aSITE 2aSITE 2aSITE 2aSITE 2a2 2a 2a 2a SITEROUNDSITESITESITE 2bSITE 2bSITE 2bSITE 2b3SITE 2b 2b 2b 2b SITESITESITESITE 2cSITE 2cSITE 2cSITE 2cSITE 2c 2c 2c 2c SITESITESITESITE 2dSITE 2dSITE 2dSITEROUND 2dSITE 2d 2d 2d 2d 3 SITESITESITESITE 2eSITE 2eSITEROUND 2eSITE 2eSITE 2e 2e 2e 2e 3 SITESITESITESITE ROUND3SITE 3SITE 3SITE 3SITE 3 3 3 13 SITESITESITESITEROUND 3aSITE 3aSITE 3aSITE 3aSITE 3a 3a 3a1 3a SITESITESITEROUNDSITE 3cSITE 3cSITE 3cSITE 3cSITE 3c 3c2 3c 3c SITESITEROUNDSITESITE 3dSITE 3dSITE 3dSITE 3dSITE 3d3 3d 3d 3d ROUNDSITESITESITESITE 3eSITE 3eSITE 3eSITE 43eSITE 3e 3e 3e 3e ROUNDSITESITESITESITE 4SITE 4SITE 4SITE1 4SITE 4 4 4 4 SITE 1 ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoring 2 ScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 2aScoring ScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring Scoring2bScoring ScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring Scoring2cScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoring ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITEScoring 2d ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoring 2e ScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoring 3 ScoringScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 3a ScoringScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring 3cScoring ScoringScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring Scoring3dScoring ScoringSITEScoringScoringScoringScoring Scoring3eScoringScoring ScoringSITEScoringScoringScoring Scoring4ScoringScoringScoring WeightWeightWeightWeightWeightWeightWeightWeight CriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteria RawRawRaw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5)Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Raw Raw Raw Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw(1-5) Raw (1-5) Raw(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted(1-5) Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted SiteSiteSite SiteConditions SiteConditions SiteConditionsSite Conditions SiteConditions Conditions Conditions Conditions - -topography, -topography, topography,- -topography, -topography, -topography, topography,- topography, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, utilities, 1.201.201.201.201.201.201.201.20 Scoring333333 Scoring3 3.603 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 5 5 5 5 5 Scoring 5 5 6.00 5 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3 3 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60Scoring 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.80 4Scoring 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Scoring 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 2 2 2 2 2 2 Scoring 2 2.40 2 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 3 3 3 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3Scoring 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 Scoring 3 3 3 3 3 3.60 3 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 groundwater,groundwater,groundwater,groundwater,groundwater,groundwater,groundwater,groundwater, Metro Metro Metro Metro Metro tunnel, Metro tunnel,Metro tunnel, Metrotunnel, tunnel, tunnel, existingtunnel, existing tunnel,existing existing existing existing existingbuildings buildings existingbuildings buildings buildings buildings buildings buildings PatientPatientPatientPatientPatientPatient andPatient and Patientand andVisitor andVisitor andVisitor andVisitor Visitorand AccessibilityVisitor AccessibilityVisitor Accessibility Visitor Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility - -Metro -Metro Metro- -Metro -Metro access,- Metro access, Metro-access, Metroaccess, access, access, access, access, Weight Criteria 3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00 Raw Weighted 333Raw333 3 9.00Weighted3 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 4 4Raw 4 4 4 4 4Weighted 12.00 12.004 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 4Raw 4 4 4 4 4Weighted 4 12.00 12.004 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00Raw 4 4 4 4 4Weighted 4 4 12.00 12.004 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 15.00 15.005 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 5 5 5 5 5Raw 5 5 15.00 15.005 15.00 15.00Weighted 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 4 4 4 4Raw 4 4 4 12.00 12.004 12.00Weighted 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 4 4 4Raw 4 4 4 4 12.00 12.004 12.00Weighted 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 3 3 3Raw 3 3 3 3 9.00Weighted 3 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 5 5Raw 5 5 5 5 5Weighted 15.00 15.005 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Raw 5 5 5 5 5 5Weighted 5 15.00 15.005 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Raw 5 5 5 5 5Weighted 5 5 15.00 15.005 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00Raw 2 2 2 2Weighted 2 2 2 6.00 2 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 vehicularvehicularvehicularvehicularvehicularvehicularvehicular access,vehicular access, access, access, access, access, pedestrianaccess, pedestrian access,pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian access access access(1–5) access access access access access (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) (1–5) OperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperational accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility (near (near (near (near (nearterm) (nearterm) (nearterm) (nearterm) term)- term)- term)- term)- - - - - 3333333 3.453 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.30 2 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency, service, service, service, service, service, service, staff,service, staff, service,staff, staff, staff,and staff,and staff,and staff,andhelicopter andhelicopter andhelicopter andhelicopter helicopterand helicopter helicopter helicopteraccess access access access access access access access 1.20 Site Conditions2.30 2.30-2.30 topography,2.302.302.302.302.30 3 3.60 5 6.00 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 4 4.80 3 3.60 2 2.40 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 3 3.60 OperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperational accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility accessibility (long (long (long (long (longterm) term)(long (longterm) term)(long term)- term)- term)- term)- - - - - utilities, groundwater, Metro tunnel, 3333333 3.453 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.75 5 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.30 2 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.45 3 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.60 4 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.30 2 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 existing buildings emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency,emergency, service, service, service, service, service, service, staff,service, staff, service,staff, staff, staff,and staff,and staff,and staff,andhelicopter andhelicopter andhelicopter andhelicopter helicopterand helicopter helicopter helicopteraccess access access access access access access access OperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperationalOperational efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency- -building -building building- -building -building -building building-layout layoutbuilding layout layout layout andlayout andlayout and layout and and and and and 2.602.602.602.602.602.602.602.60 1111111 2.601 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5.20 2 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7.80 3 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.60 1 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.40 10.404 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7.80 3 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 3.00 Patient and Visitor Accessibilityconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfigurationconfiguration - 3 9.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 4 12.00 4 12.00 3 9.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 5 15.00 2 6.00 AvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailability of of ofneighborhood neighborhoodof neighborhoodof ofneighborhood ofneighborhood neighborhood ofneighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities amenitiesand and and and and and and and Metro access, vehicular access, 2222222 1.402 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.40 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 servicesservicesservicesservicesservicesservices services(near (nearservices (near (near (nearterm) (nearterm) (nearterm) (nearterm) term) term) term) term) pedestrian access1.401.401.401.401.401.401.401.40 AvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailability of of ofneighborhood neighborhoodof neighborhoodof ofneighborhood ofneighborhood neighborhood ofneighborhood neighborhood amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities amenities amenitiesand and and and and and and and 3333333 2.103 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.80 4 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.10 3 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.30 Operational accessibilityservicesservicesservicesservices services(nearservices services(long (longservices (long (long term)(long term)(long (longterm) term)(long term) term) -term) term) 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 3 3.45 5 5.75 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 emergency, service,2.302.302.302.302.30 staff,2.30 Visibility2.30 Visibility2.30 Visibility Visibility Visibilityand Visibility Visibility/ Visibility/branding branding/ branding/ /branding branding/ /branding branding / opportunities brandingopportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities 3333333 6.903 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6.90 3 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.505 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.20 4 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.505 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.505 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11.50 11.505 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.30 1 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 helicopter access FlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibilityFlexibility Flexibility- -accommodate -accommodate accommodate- -accommodate -accommodate -accommodate accommodate- accommodate future future future future future growthfuture growthfuture growth future growth growth growth/ growth/shifts shifts/growth shifts/ /shifts shifts/ /shifts shifts/ shifts 2.702.702.702.702.702.702.702.70 1111111 2.701 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5.40 2 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.80 10.804 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 13.50 13.505 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 13.50 13.505 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 10.80 10.804 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.70 1 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 Operational accessibilityinin inprogram programin program in(long inprogram inprogram program in programor orprogram orterm)phasing phasingor phasingor orphasing orphasing phasing or-phasing phasing 3 3.45 4 4.60 4 4.60 4 4.60 5 5.75 5 5.75 5 5.75 4 4.60 2 2.30 3 3.45 3 3.45 4 4.60 2 2.30 emergency, service,1.601.601.601.601.60 staff,1.60 Building1.60 Building1.60 Building Building Buildingand Building Buildingconstruction Buildingconstruction construction construction construction construction construction construction cost cost cost cost/ cost/complexity costcomplexity/ cost complexity/ cost/complexity complexity/ /complexity complexity/ complexity 3333333 4.803 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6.40 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6.40 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6.40 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.20 2 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.60 1 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.60 1 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.20 2 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.20 2 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.80 3 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 helicopter access CompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibility with with with with existing withexisting with existingwith existing withexisting existing existingentitlements entitlements existingentitlements entitlements entitlements entitlements entitlements entitlements ------1.801.801.801.801.801.801.801.80 1111111 1.801 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7.20 4 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.60 2 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5.40 3 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.80 1 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 zoning,zoning,zoning,zoning,zoning,zoning, environmental,zoning, environmental, zoning,environmental, environmental, environmental, environmental, environmental, environmental, HPRB HPRB HPRB 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 4 10.40 3 7.80 4 10.40 1 2.60 4 10.40 4 10.40 4 10.40 3 7.80 layout and configurationCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibility with with with with general withgeneral with generalwith general withgeneral general mastergeneral master generalmaster master master masterplan masterplan planmaster plan intent plan intent plan intentplan intent planintent intent intent intent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.67 1 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.67 1 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.33 2 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 IntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegration with with with with overall withoverall with overallwith overall withoverall overallsite overallsite siteoverall developmentsite developmentsite developmentsite sitedevelopment developmentsite development development development 1.40 Availability of 2.00neighborhood2.002.002.002.002.002.002.00 2 1.40 11112111 0.671 0.67 0.671.40 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 3 3 32 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.001.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 32 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.001.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 32 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.001.40 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.001.40 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 32 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.001.40 2.00 2.00 4 4 4 4 43 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.672.10 2.67 2.67 2.67 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.002.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.002.10 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 5 53 5 5 5 5 5 3.33 5 3.332.10 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 53 5 5 5 5 5 5 3.332.10 5 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.332 3 3 3 3 3 31.40 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 (innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation(innovation hub) hub) hub) hub) hub) hub) hub) hub) amenities and servicesIntegrationIntegrationIntegration (nearIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationIntegration term)with with with with overall withoverall with overallwith overall withoverall overallsite overallsite siteoverall developmentsite developmentsite developmentsite sitedevelopment developmentsite development development development (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase (Phase 3333333 2.003 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.67 4 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Availability of neighborhood11 development)1 development) 1development)1 development)1 development)1 development) 1development) development) 3 2.10 4 2.80 4 2.80 3 2.10 3 2.10 3 2.10 3 2.10 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 4 2.80 3 2.10 amenities and 1.40services1.401.401.401.401.40 Availability1.40 Availability1.40 Availability (long Availability Availability Availability Availability Availability term)of of ofnatural naturalof naturalof ofnatural ofnatural natural oflight naturallight naturallight light /light /viewslight views/light views / light/views views/ /views views/ views 4444444 5.604 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7.00 5 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.80 2 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.20 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.20 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.20 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20

2.30 Visibility / branding2.702.702.702.702.702.70 Politicalopportunities2.70 Political2.70 Political Political Political Political PoliticalViability Viability Political Viability Viability Viability Viability Viability Viability 3 6.90 22224222 5.402 5.40 5.409.20 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 2.70 1 2.70 2.709.20 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 2.70 1 2.706.90 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 14 1 1 1 1 1 19.20 2.70 1 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.70 1 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 2.70 1 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.709.20 2.70 2.70 2 2 2 2 2 24 2 5.40 2 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.409.20 5.40 5.40 5.40 2 2 2 2 25 2 2 5.40 2 5.40 5.40 5.4011.50 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 2 2 2 24 2 2 2 5.40 2 5.40 5.409.20 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 2 2 25 2 2 2 2 5.40 2 5.4011.50 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 3 35 3 3 3 3 3 8.10 311.50 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 35 3 3 3 3 3 311.50 8.10 3 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.101 2 2 2 2 2 22.30 2 5.40 2 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40

2.70 Flexibility - accommodate TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: futureTOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1 2.70 2 56.1356.1356.1356.135.4056.1356.1356.1356.13 4 77.5577.5577.5510.8077.5577.5577.5577.5577.55 5 83.3583.3513.5083.3583.3583.3583.3583.3583.35 5 80.7813.5080.7880.7880.7880.7880.7880.7880.78 89.5389.5389.5389.5389.5389.5389.5389.53 87.50487.5087.5087.5087.5087.5087.5010.8087.50 385.3785.3785.3785.3785.3785.378.1085.3785.37 3 82.0282.0282.0282.0282.028.1082.0282.0282.02 1 57.0857.0857.0857.082.7057.0857.0857.0857.08 3 81.6081.6081.608.1081.6081.6081.6081.6081.60 3 87.5087.508.1087.5087.5087.5087.5087.5087.50 3 92.278.1092.2792.2792.2792.2792.2792.2792.273 8.1058.1058.1058.1058.1058.1058.1058.1058.10 growth / shifts in program or phasing 1131131311131131131311310692357106923571069235710692357106923571069235710692357106923571283112831128311283112831128311283112831111111111 1.60 Building constructionRankRank costRankRankRankRank /Rank complexityRank 3 4.80 4 6.40 4 6.40 3 4.80 3 4.80 3 4.80 4 6.40 2 3.20 1 1.60 1 1.60 2 3.20 2 3.20 3 4.80 1.80 Compatibility with existing entitlements - 1 1.80 3 5.40 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20 4 7.20 3 5.40 3 5.40 3 5.40 2 3.60 3 5.40 1 1.80 zoning, environmental, HPRB LegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegend 2.00 Compatibility with general master 1 0.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 2 1.33 2 1.33 3 2.00 3 2.00 2 1.33 1 0.67 2 1.33 3 2.00 4 2.67 3 2.00 plan intent RoundRoundRoundRound Round4 Round 4Option Round4Option RoundOption4 4Option 4Option 4Option Option4 Option

Integration with overallRoundRoundRound Roundsite Round3 Round 3Option Round3Option RoundOptiondevelopment3 3Option 3Option 3Option Option3 Option 1 0.67 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 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 (innovation hub) Integration with overallRoundRoundRound Roundsite Round2 Round 2Option Round2Option RoundOptiondevelopment2 2Option 2Option 2Option Option2 Option 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 3 2.00 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 (Phase 1 development) RoundRoundRoundRound Round1 Round 1Option Round1Option RoundOption1 1Option 1Option 1Option Option1 Option 1.40 Availability of natural light / views 4 5.60 5 7.00 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 2 2.80 3 4.20 3 4.20 3 4.20 2.70 Political Viability 2 5.40 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 1 2.70 2 5.40 2 5.40 2 5.40 2 5.40 3 8.10 3 8.10 2 5.40 TOTAL 56.13 77.55 83.35 80.78 89.53 87.50 85.37 82.02 57.08 81.60 87.50 92.27 58.10 RANK 13 10 6 9 2 3 5 7 12 8 3 1 11

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS vii Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Relatively Good Site Conditions • Ample Space for Proposed Program • Compatible Existing Zoning.

Disadvantages • Parcel 2 Presently Earmarked for Other Uses

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ix Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Relatively Good Site Conditions • Ample Space for Proposed Program • Compatible Existing Zoning

Disadvantages • Parcel 2 Presently Earmarked For Other Uses • Larger Footprint

x ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Adjacent To Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard • Relatively Good Site Conditions • Ample Space for Proposed Program 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 Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Adjacent To Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard • Relatively Good Site Conditions • Ample Space for Proposed Program • Compatible Existing Zoning • Good Accessibility and Functionality

Disadvantages • Parcels 1 and 2 Presently Earmarked For Other Uses • Very Large Footprint • Suburban Character • Very Low Density • Heavy Reliance on Surface Parking

xii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Adjacent To Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard • Relatively Good Site Conditions • Ample Space for Proposed Program • Compatible Existing Zoning • Good Accessibility and Functionality • Activates Pecan Street and MLK Blvd.

Disadvantages • Parcels 1 and 2 Presently Earmarked For Other Uses • Very Large Footprint • Suburban Character

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xiii Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Adjacent To Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard • High Density • Urban Character • Compatible Existing Zoning • Good Accessibility and Functionality • Activates Pecan Street and MLK Blvd.

Disadvantages • Parcel 2 Already Earmarked For Other Uses • Requires Revision of Parcel Boundaries

xiv ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Difficultopography T • Traversed By Metro Tunnel

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xv Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Centrally Located • Near Phase 1 Infrastructure

Disadvantages • Difficultopography T • Unusual Site Geometry • Traversed By Metro Tunnel

xvi ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Centrally Located • Near Phase 1 Infrastructure • Good Accessibility

Disadvantages • Difficultopography T • Unusual Site Geometry • Traversed By Metro Tunnel • Significant Above-Grade Structured Parking

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xvii Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Centrally Located • Near Phase 1 Infrastructure • Good Accessibility and Circulation

Disadvantages • Difficultopography T • Unusual Site Geometry • Traversed By Metro Tunnel • Additional Approvals Required for Street Changes

xviii ST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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 • Centrally Located • Near Phase 1 Infrastructure • Good Accessibility and Circulation

Disadvantages • Difficultopography T • Unusual Site Geometry • Traversed By Metro Tunnel • Additional Approvals Required for Street Changes

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS xix Appendix A. Evaluation Process

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) Campus Parcel and the North Parcel PARCEL 1 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 - maximum 4,800 FAR 0.2 be needed as the development of the 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 FAR 4.00 vehicle bay; one underground 55’ loading vehicle Height 75’ streams. bay; one 20’ service Loading One 30’ loading Parking Exempt from 4,800 vehicle bay. total parking space vehicle bay; one 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 limited for StE zone. vehicle bay; one - maximum 4,800 Possible restraint 55’ loading vehicle total parking spaces due to existing bay; one 20’ service limited for StE zone. underground vehicle bay. Possible restraint streams. Lot 75% due to existing Occupancy underground Loading One 30’ loading 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 PARCEL 12 Height 90’ 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 underground also be accommodated on this parcel. Parking Off-street parking - maximum 4,800 streams. total parking spaces Loading N/A limited for StE zone. Lot 75% PARCEL 9 Possible restraint Occupancy due to existing ZONING St. Elizabeths East LAND USE Residential underground -Site 1 – (StE-9) Commercial Office streams. FAR 1.5 Loading N/A Height 65’ Lot 75% Parking Off-street parking Occupancy PARCEL 16 - maximum 4,800 Overview: 1.73 acres; 8 stories with a LAND USE Residential total parking spaces mix of commercial office, residential, Commercial Office limited for StE zone. 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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) FAR 3.2 a framework that renews historic and • 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 Residential LAND USE • 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 FINDINGSxxvii Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 MhB Ub is accomplished in part through the CeD enforcement of its standards and guidelines which include: CwD CdC

1. Construction Management Manual U1 BeB CwD 2. Design and Engineering Manual U6 BeB 3. Manual on Uniform Traffic BeB CwD CwD Control Devices Ub 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 CdC Chillum-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 9. Standard Specifications CeD Christiana silt loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes StudyArea CwD Croom very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes / Mapped Soil Units CxD Croom-Urban land complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes EXHIBIT B 10. Temporary Traffic Control Manual MhB Matapeake-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes U1 Udorthents 0 200 400 600 Feet U6 Udorthents, smoothed NRCS Mapped Soils 11. Utility Work Zone Traffic Control Ub Urban land Plan (TCP) Typicals 12. Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy xxxiiST. ELIZABETHS EAST CAMPUS Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 (cfs) Regulations and Requirements Quality Criteria All abatement, whether removal Ravine located at 427.7 The DDOE stormwater regulations of tunnels or containment, will be northern end of require that: “Any stormwater discharge performed in compliance with EPA 13th Street facility which may receive stormwater 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, South West of Proposed 18.3 osw/hazard/. grease trap or other mechanism which Parcel 7 going Asbestos removal is regulated under prevents oil and grease from escaping southwest along Martin EPA’s NESHAP regulations – 40 C.F.R., the stormwater discharge facility in Luther King Jr. Ave Part 61, Subpart M concentrations that would violate or West of Proposed 27.3 contribute to the violation of applicable 6. EMERGENCY SERVICES Parcel 3 going north water quality standards in the receiving Unified Communications Center along Martin Luther waters of the District…” 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

events. The culvert was most likely and four sites were identified as being installed during the Metro access road B. ENVIRONMENTAL directly adjacent to the project area. construction to divert standing water 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

Locations of Known USTs EXHIBIT E At the time of the 1995 EPA RCRA 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 emergency tanks are provided with concrete pads dioxins and furans present at the site generator at the and curbing for secondary containment. should not pose a public health threat Rehabilitation to employees, patients, residents, or Medicine Building Documentation for the storage tanks 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 Building 100 Approx. 100-gallon Approximately 30 acres along the 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 Building 124 8,000-gallon was closed between 1983 and 1989, drums were open and filled with what diesel AST; approx. prior to regulation under the RCRA. appeared to be rainwater; the contents 300-gallon AST The District DOH determined that the of others, which were closed, could not (contents unknown) surface soil levels of polychlorinated be determined.

URBAN HOSPITAL SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY FINDINGSxxxix Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 C. GEOLOGY AND open field areas. 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 Appendix B. Due Diligence Report

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 E. MISCELLANEOUS a natural ravine which drains the study will exhibit ground-water flow direction 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 D. SURROUNDING REAL Historic Preservation, DCSHPO, aquifers or perched water tables also FHWA, NCPC and DHS regarding may occur. Shallow ground water ESTATE DEVELOPMENT the development of St. Elizabeths typically flows towards the nearest (IF APPLICABLE) National Historic Landmark stream or other water body; these (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