St. Elizabeth's West Campus - GSA Development of St. Elizabeths ...

St. Elizabeth’s West Campus 

Consulting Party Meeting December 1, 2009 

Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 7023 

1:30 – 4:30 pm 

I. Welcome and Introductions – Connie Doyle (CI International) 

Connie Doyle (CI): Welcomed the group to the meeting. 

Group: (Participants introduced themselves. Attendance list attached.) 

II. Project Updates (GSA) 

Global Project Updates – Shapour Ebadi (GSA): We are proceeding on demolition, and continuing to 

progress on the contracts. We are also proceeding with energy and environmental issues. We continue to 

address the design of Shepherd’s Parkway, and are moving very quickly with our progress. 

East Campus MP Updates - Dawud Abdur-Rahman (GSA): There will be a tour of the East Campus 

tomorrow, December 2, 2009 from 10 until 12 noon tomorrow to provide background and context. The open 

house will address sustainable transportation. The GSA is looking at transportation issues as they plan the 

East Campus. The planning is taking a broad, comprehensive look at transportation. 

III. Security Perimeter, Gatehouse and Gate Entry Updates (P+W) 

NOTE: Due to SBU (Sensitive But Unclassified) subject matter, portions of these meeting notes have been 

omitted/edited from this version. For access to full version of meeting notes, please contact GSA. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - There are two options for perimeter fence types and we are asking for advice regarding 

the fence running along MLK Blvd. These would take into consideration the existing brick wall, and a stone 

wall. There are a few options for a no-climb wall. Multiple conversations with the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) and about the cost effectiveness of a chain link fence on the north and south sides (which 

Clinch explained differed from his PowerPoint slide). Along the west side, an 8 foot wrought iron fence with a 

retaining wall is proposed. On the east side, there are options - a no climb fence vs. an aesthetically pleasing 

option that is more expensive. The no-climb fence would be mesh, and the aesthetically pleasing, more 

expensive option is a wrought iron fence. The fence will take into account the historic wall on the premises. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) – An example should be brought to the next meeting. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - What is the transparency of the fence? 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Specify no climb fences (which no climb fence is being used). Changes of 

seasons, views from the point are very up-close and personal. Chain link fence is apparent and visible from 

the point. 

Chris Mills (DHS) - Minimum requirement is no climb fence. Any change over and above no climb fence is a 

mitigation cost. Physical security is funded by GSA – difference between requirement and what is agreed to is 

a mitigation cost. 

Page 1 of 21




1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - We shouldn’t put something out there that we can’t afford, we have enough budget in 

capitol request that we did consider historical and structural integrity. We need to make sure that there’s a 

design to budget, need to be sensitive about location, historical integrity. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Galvanized vs. Black? 

(Consensus from group is Black.) Both chain link and no climb; plastic coating will be black. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - As long as it’s not the bare minimum. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) addressed the Bollard System vs. Cable System near brick wall. The cable system would 

be painted black and would have not as much physical presence of a system (compared to a bollard system). 

The profile is thinner and the intention of the vertical bars is to keep the cables from sagging. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Which is more expensive? Bollards are more expensive than cables? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - No, about the same 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - I’m not sure it’s a clear cut decision, bollards are fairly standard. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Proliferation Bollards make them less visible, Cable system reads like an electrified 

fence, not that you can see it. Not coming down one way or another, the lesser amount of material might be 

noticed more. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - I need more information; there is a lot going on at the gates, if the cable 

system terminates at the gates, we need that information. View from central building – what you’ll see is two 

lines of cable but also the connection to no-climb fence and the poles that go down from the no-climb fence. If 

you’re standing at end of central building and you will see the wall, see no-climb fence, etc. The composite 

view would be helpful to see – a diagonal, oblique view. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Bollards as a landscape solution? I oppose long, unbroken lines of bollards. This 

would be a long unbroken line of bollards. Showing middle of the segment is simple; it would be useful to see 

a photo simulation of where all these things are coming together. Show the dead men, etc. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) – Having hard time visualizing ‘dead man’ thing. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Places where bollards or cables would go, I would like to see foundations being six 

inches below ground so grass can grow. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Option 2 foundation looks to be above ground? 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Decorative wrought iron fence has decorative elements. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

The security Fence in Eagle’s Nest buffer zone was then addressed. Engineers and security have started to 

site where security fence will be. There will be a no-climb inner fence and chain link fence on the outside. The 

PowerPoint shows the fence on the side of the hill that will work with the topography. 

George Oberlander (NCSOM) – Is the fence visible from residential properties to south? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - No. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Vehicular path that has to be made on one side or the other? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - Inside, only on certain areas, for electronic vehicles. It may be woodchips, stone. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Granular, not necessarily paved. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - No, not paved, path needs to be put in; there’s a post at the top, a post at the bottom. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Are there any starred trees in clear zone? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - No. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) Updates for Gate 5 (day care entrance gate). DHS is trying to reduce size of building 

(2500 sq ft.). There were also discussions regarding a double fence and vehicle barrier. There are questions 

regarding a move further south, to create less disturbance to site, blast zone and buildings, still 100 ft off of 

building. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) – (commenting on moving the gate further south) There would be less disturbance, 

less time for construction, planting, etc. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) – Do we all agree to go in this direction for moving further south? 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Any in favor for old location? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - In the new location it may be more visible, but it’s minor. Visibility seems to be the only 

potential reason for keeping the original location. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) Updates for Gate 6 (warehouse at NW corner of site). There is a concern about media 

parking spaces was raised (regarding the location and planning of such spaces). Interim plan and Final plan 

were demonstration on board with thorough discussion regarding the various phases of development. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - That gooseneck from out parking lot, the road, under temporary fence; why holding 

on to geometry, doesn’t make sense, etc? Why is this like this? Two right angles don’t make sense with the 

way people drive. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Paul Clinch (P+W) – We don’t want to go farther east. [Tom clarifies his confusion regarding the shape of the 

drive, advocating for a diagonal, straight road instead of a curvy road. Tom uses Paul Clinch’s laser pointer to 

specify where this should be. Paul Clinch nods in agreement] 

George Oberlander (NCSOM) - Specify where the chain link fence and wrought iron fence come together? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - Yes, we’ll have that for later. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Go over broadly, little ground things, like how big the warehouse is? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - [points with laser pointer toward PowerPoint, clarifying Sarah 

Batcheler’s points of concern, which appear as small brown dots, saying the name of each as he points] “pump 

houses, new building for large trucks, gatehouse.” 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Service entrance to campus, traffic? 

Chris Mills (DHS) - Shipping, receiving, etc. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - What is the scale? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - 1 bay. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - When we talked earlier about gate, 18 wheelers were on the road. Done 

operationally. Most 18 wheelers will be going to warehouse and that’s where deliveries go, separate 

intercampus transport. Could it go around pump house site, rather than Sweet gum Lane? Topography lends 

itself to it. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Diagram needs scale for Semi and Truck on the map. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Minimize intrusion of landscape, road itself leads from Sweet Gum Lane, is there a 

historic significance to the area? 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) – It has to be undercut. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Where it lands now, there is existing access road parallel to 295; is that entrance at 

same location? How does it tie into existing roads? Sweet Gum Lane empties to access road, correct? 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - Separate. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - We need a bigger scale drawing, and one that shows topography. Like cemetery 

parking area map – condense the diagram a bit. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - It would be helpful to know what it would look like from the point. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - Temporary Fence locations; the idea is that the construction staging area, temporary 

fence. Future will be 8ft wrought iron fence, change to chain link and no climb fence. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Will there be temporary fence, phasing? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - Yes. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Sequencing of phase 3, tell us about the rest of campus? 

Chris Mills (DHS) - DHS headquarters, FEMA, pavilions area developed. Coast guard building occupied, 

won’t have construction access. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - How long will temp be there? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - 2013-2016. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Concerned about same in landscape. Is there not an easier way to do this? Why 

can’t this thing go right around the complex? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - We’ll go into the site. You can’t visualize any access or disturbance. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Logic? Need to see contours, there seems to be a better way to do this. 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - The area is too steep. We will bring cross sections. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Run fence as edge of warehouse? 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) – What is the advantage of putting fence there? 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - Very important piece of construction, wider you have the easier for materials. There 

will be areas up there. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - What if you took the temporary fence and followed outside perimeter of the 

warehouse, is that conceivable? 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - it’s an option, we’ll take some photos. 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - It will allow access for construction. Temporary fence must be in secure perimeter. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) – There needs to be a reduction to the impact on the landscape, fewer disturbances to 

property. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Chris Mills (DHS) - Amount of space necessary? 3 phases at one time. Competition for lay down space 

huge, we need to work on minimizing that. Space for each contractor? Secure areas? 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Lay down area – where the construction fence is? Playing field at top, etc. 

Anything up here? Concerned that if you take the fence up, whole corner is the lay down area. 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - If there are open spaces, it’ll be used for construction lay down area. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Fence restrains the lay down area. Detailed look at contours, etc. Would be helpful. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - Utility package in there, look at it next time. 

IV. Shepherd Parkway/Access Road Updates (FHWA/R&A/JMA) 

Cultural Landscape Assessment Part 1 – History 

Judy Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation and discussed each of the slides. The slides were a set of 

images, mostly photographs and maps that showed the progression of development along the site since the 

middle of the 19 th century. Judith outlined the progression of the landowners, the civil war defenses, the 

character of the land, the C&O, the development of roads, the plans to create a commemorative drive in the 

area, the changing topography of the land (including the ravines), and the proximity to other historical 

landmarks. The progression of images and Judith Robinson’s commentary is as follows -- 

1861 Map, Giesborough Estate 

1865 Map, civil war defenses 

1878 Map, undeveloped and rural character of the land, C&O through 

1892 Map, good illustration of topography, flood plain, simple network of roads 

1901 Map, commemorative civil war drive, became a parkway south of St Elizabeth 

McMillan Commission Plan 

1921 Map. Ownership by several different people. Platted and subdivided as if the land 

would be purchased. Portland Street became Malcolm X. Congress heights. 

1932 -- Land purchases for Shepherd Parkway took place over several years. 

1937 -- Park owned much of the land necessary 

1933 -- Congress heights neighborhood developed 20s and 30s. 

1959 -- Anacostia Freeway 

1968 -- Land developed as system of parks. Fort Circle Parks, as opposed to a drive. Approved 1974. 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - Continuing to bring it up to date with the planning efforts? At this point ‘68 planning 

not relevant. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Plan was done in 2004, General Management plan. One comment 1968 -- 

information about stops along the way? In terms of mitigation, it would be helpful to know what the markers 

are. [In this question, Kristin is referring to the potential historical markers for the site] 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) -- The markers referenced were a picnic area, tot lot -- not historic sites. I would like 

to see [any potential markers] before getting posted. 

FHWA Updates and Discussion 

Jack Von Dop went over the horizontal adjustments to the road, as well as the profile of the road. He 

answered questions and addressed concerns regarding the width of the road as well as the overall design. 

The following points were made -- 

Horizontal Adjustments: Road laid out wider, more generous. Minimization drive by 4(f). Minimization 

is not necessarily compatible with the building of a road. Balance -- road complement to the site vs. 

minimization. 

 

Footprint from the cut wall to the fill wall. Profile hasn’t changed much. 10ft wall or lower. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Retaining wall to retaining wall. Is there a piece of land between road and St 

Elizabeth? 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) Follow existing grade line. Interface between Shepherd Parkway and Campus. Very 

little retaining will on interface. High walls between access road and the interstate. Profile follows Green Line 

v closely. Not in 2 areas though – warehouse, and fill section. Pond in front of the coast guard building. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Looks like “we took your old idea working fine trying to balance cutting and filling 

and now we have high points.” Not apples to apples. Why the curves are so high, old one is much steeper. 

Not explaining what the logic is. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Different from existing grade. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Things have changed. Is there still a way to minimize retaining conditions in those 

two locations. If you can make it as steep, you would not have to retain as much (steep near garage). We 

asked for like diagrams to compare. You’re saying there’s new information. Please show us developed 

drawings can you not minimize things. Please respond to this. I asked you to minimize retaining walls than 

they were in the previous scheme. We need to go through this. Is this clear? 

Stacy Stone (G&O) - I didn’t have information to tie into those buildings. Site development has evolved, and 

was adjusted upward to a maximum slope allowable for emergency access vehicles. Road coming off access 

road allows for fire truck on the new diagram. It needed to be about 8 ft higher, that’s why it’s a difference. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Why are there areas that are steeper? If you look at the area between the green line 

below and orange line below, make area come down steeper and bowl it out faster, you could reduce the 

retaining wall. Where is the access point? 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - The elevation of the roadway 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - It has never been documented on these diagrams where we came in. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Are you asking if we can lower this? 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Through 120 notation where road was. Upside down T sign? Is the upside town tee 

sign where the entrance is? You have never marked where the entrance is. In which case, maybe this is the 

right thing. 

Stacy - We can show elevation 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - And the correct location horizontally. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Point out where the curve cuts are going to exist? 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Day care parking moved, it is still in flux. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Warehouse entrance, 10 ft higher? How did we get off by that much? This looked 

good previously, how could you be that far off? Is this still the best solution, I’m expressing frustration. 

Minimize the retaining walls, I don’t know if we can get any better than this. Get those lines a little lower, dig 

them down, as they feed into the access road can they be made lower? 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Total vertical height of wall needs to be accounted for somewhere. 17 on low side 3 

on high side, need to balance that out. 

Paul Clinch specifies questions about fire truck access - very little given that we can do. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Marking the curb cuts, I think it would be helpful if we could have hard copy of this, 

plot, of a scale, I realize not everybody will be able to look at the same time, but everyone can read it. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) – Provided an overview of the summary of Work Session on Oct 21 2009 which 

entailed: Natural stone wall vs. straight concrete, etc; Streetscape, landscaping, maximizing building; Planning 

to Minimize Harm to St Elizabeth; Diagram, Cross Sections; Maintain existing vegetation, allow 5 ft of space for 

retaining wall; Diagram with stone, vegetation, grass, etc. Discussion included length of roadway, lighting, 

signage, landscape, view at west campus and Shepherd Parkway etc. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - Figure out the security and perimeter before anything else. Nobody knew about 

guard booths, etc. 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - Guard booths 6x6 v small, some 2-3 person, small little dots. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - Anything else we need to know that we don’t know? We need to know. 

Chris Mills (DHS) - All guard booths have been shown, little black squares. That was the function of 

consultation. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Paul Clinch (P+W) - We have shown on them on the PowerPoint There’s that, the guard booths. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Looking at slide showing people on sidewalk. I cannot imagine people on the 

walkway next to the road. Would it help if bikeway was removed in some areas? 

Chris Mills (DHS) - The Department of Transportation needs more people to walk and ride bikes. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - Not about guard booths, but more electronic things. There’s a wall at MLK, there’s 

a wall around perimeter. We need information that’s a little more of value? 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - Regarding the Bikeway; DDOT has connections? We need to see them, where 

these people are going to go once they’re here? This is the point of discussion; signs, lighting etc. Can we 

see them on the visualizations? Many are already scoped out. Minimizing roadway to NHL and Shepherd 

Parkway, does taking it down to 2 lanes, but does it reduce height of retaining walls? Pertinent information 

about 2 lane road is needed. One visualization shows access road parallel to 295. Significant 3 lanes of 

roadway parallel to the interstate – this is a cause for concern. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - To underline Tim’s point. Lots of talk about pieces of perimeter, etc. Path, etc. 

We’ve asked to see them together, it would be helpful. More detailed info as we go through is necessary. We 

need to understand all pieces being asked to comment on. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - 3 lanes shown, we’d like 2 lanes, can one be treated as flex. Allowing for 

more gradual topography? Walls not as high, a green street? There could be alternatives to a wide swath of 

pavement and asphalt. Cutting into area by gate 5 – more than normal distance between two fences? 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Minimize. Very large piece up and down. Most effective way to minimize? Take it 

down one full lane. This is a serious taking out of natural parkland. 62.5 feet can be done. Design for Easter 

Sunday. You guys manage problems and crises, and having 3 lanes is over the top. We don’t need 3rd leg of 

295 in parkland. 2 lanes. I’m sure you could make it work. 

Chris Mills (DHS) - Will get more clarity on traffic. What’s being lost here. 2 lanes require breakdown lane 

on either side. There is no difference with 2 6ft breakdown lanes, 3 lanes without breakdown lanes. Net 

difference is one foot wider for 2 lane. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - To clarify – are 2 lanes plus breakdown lanes is wider than 3 lanes? 

Chris Mills (DHS) - It’s a safety issue. 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - It would be useful if homeland security would substantiate. In terms of traffic? No. 

Traffic management practices in order to deal with breakdowns, and manage it. 

[Person in back of room] -- DDOT, metro busses also, Ward 8 traffic management. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - It is not clearly stated in purpose and need for the access road. Not with a fleet of 

metro busses. 

Chris Mills (DHS) - Transportation management part of it. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Center relief area 6 ft wide. In this unusual event of a breakdown, space to 

maneuver. Minimize it as much as possible is what we’re saying. 

(Jack explains interchange with Google maps image. Reduced with profile of wall. Shows examples Clara 

Barton, and GWP.) 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - On this wall, they don’t need the barrier. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Stone wall extended above the roadway. 

Thomas Luebke (CFA) - Needs to be discussed. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Green space. Parkway curb. Curb against bottom of curb. Stone wall treatments. 

Sarah Batcheler (CFA) - Speed of traffic? 

Answer -- designed for 35, not 55 or 65. Posted at 30 mph. 

V. Memorandums of Agreement (GSA) 

USCG MOA Update 

Joan Brierton, (GSA) began a discussion about brevity, what repeats and doesn’t repeat. She and others 

agreed that there’s room for improvement. Asked the room about clauses or stipulations that we have to 

repeat. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Need for brevity vs. function of document in own right. Each document needs 

to function as if it’s the only document. I suggest having everything in there. 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Titles and signatories are not set in stone. We’re hitting major key issues. Comments 

on framework for next meeting so we can structure for more content. Take note of comments, work them in. 

We are continuing updating content with comments. 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - MOA schedule? 

Danielle Breaux (GSA) - (Explains MOA schedule, etc.) 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - These MOAs unusual because large parts of stipulations are reciting what’s already 

happened. MOA comes at the end. Seen other instances where advisory council is strict about structure of 

document since it’s very unusual. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) – In these documents we are concerned about brevity. Language reduced so 

that attachments speak for themselves. Design reviews. Something can be attached that explains it all. 

Stipulation vs. whereas clauses for CG MOA, a lot of design review has occurred, more should occur about 

lighting, etc. Design review that has occurred but is guidance for construction activity. It says “this has been 

mitigated,” but the construction hasn’t been occurred. It would be mitigated if put into place during construction. 

How does that work? If we’re putting things in now, and agreement is later? 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - We can manage it. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Design review in case of something happening during construction. Additional 

design review not necessarily necessary for the Coast Guard. 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Focusing on USCG MOA. Here are two copies of document- clean copy and track 

changes version. Thank you for comments. Take a look and have comments back by this Friday morning 

10am. That would be tremendously helpful. Not going line by line today, we’d like to manage this electronically 

and through comments. 2 or 3 outstanding issues. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Section 4(f). Several additional whereas clauses, we’ve added references to 

Sept 1, Nov 6 letters. Issues around determination of use of land for transportation purposes to the 

west campus, which we state. 

Joan Brierton (GSA) We state in current MOA that a portion of Shepherd Parkway may be used. Though that 

determination has been made, ongoing consultation is necessary and we’ve run through consultation, citing 

specific meetings. Progressing toward subsequent MOA through 106 process. Betsy that does not satisfy 

what you think is compliance with our PA? 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - On line 143 and 150, introduces Dec 2008 agreement. Line 143, “and which have 

been satisfied.” Final 4f determination in PA. Line 50, “final” is omitted there. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - We state “here is supplemented 4f,” still holding original sign as original final 4f 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - But you can’t submit as final until comments are received. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - We’ve submitted and distributed to DOI. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Extra verbiage to describe detail is more nuanced. Line 143 and Line 50. Omission of 

word “final” is substantial. 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - 162 and 163 another concern about “final.” 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Line 184. Determination for use. Final determination is still dependent. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - 143 and 150 yes, 162? 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Use recognition, consultation chronologically, acknowledging what’s left to do. In 

terms of satisfying, is it that an acknowledgement, recognizing that it’s in process, is there a better way to state 

it. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - When we talk about final, it’s almost like there’s a small f final and a large F Final. 

There’s a section that says 106 consultation design for phase 2. Do you think that all the planning to minimize 

harm needs to be available? 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Final determination by FHWA, and that is required before construction can 

commence. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Two parts of 4f. At what stage? 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Final determination? One thing new verbiage accomplishes, to have the whereas 

clauses in this MOA not attempt to be deposited on this unresolved legal issue, you want to take another. 

You’ve made progress, MOA as a way to say “we are hereby morphing fed highway letters into something 

called final.” 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Create a whereas clause. Everything documented here. Try to build this off 

programmatic agreement, we can reinforce that. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - In line 143, deleted or satisfied “thus far” 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - If this doesn’t take a position to say that those conditions can be satisfied and allow 

this to play out, we’ll be more comfortable with that. We’re going to continue to object if it does. Instead of 

putting bait out there, let’s not use this document as a way to try to push that issue. Agree to disagree. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - Brevity. Why do we have a page about 4f. It’s to satisfy [Betsy’s] concern. It is 

mixing this up with 106. Yes, the PA says there should be a final 4f. At the time we said, everyone agrees that 

if this access is not built, this project is not going to work. We need the access. If you can’t get that access, 

you cannot proceed. Now we’re at a point where it’s getting somewhere, we’re doing minimization and 

availability, everyone’s proceeding in good faith, and while the PA say this, I’m willing to have this document 

allow a little flexibility in terms of trusting. Good track record of trying to resolve this. Most of us are 

reasonably satisfied. 

Jack Van Dop (FHWA) - Starting construction vs. MOA. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - Right. This MOA confirms that we still won’t do construction until the plan is 

approved. 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - We can work through those together. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Tim’s right. pp 4 and 5, in response to some of these concerns. 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Concerns from advisory council, Tim’s issue, what’s been mitigated what will be, we 

will comb through that before Friday. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Language will be changed. Seems that list of minimized efforts being 

discussed – is it really necessary. Page 5 line 243. 

Tammy Stidham (NPS) - Agreed, Paragraph and that that follows. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Under mitigation, resources. If a change does occur it would be dramatic, 

they also apply to the general requirements, maybe that’s something that GSA would consider. Not just the 

historic building. 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Construction is largely new construction. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Should we have a meeting to discuss attachments? 

Joan Brierton (GSA) - Yes and the next revision of the MOA will be available electronically by Thursday. 

VI. East Campus North Parcel 

Cultural Landscape Assessment History and Existing Conditions 

Judy Robinson (R&A) - The presentation about the cultural landscape and history of the East Campus North 

Parcel was given by Judith Robinson and followed a similar format as her earlier presentation about the history 

of Shepherd Parkway. Robinson covered specific conditions of the land, building history, the progression of 

farming and agriculture on the site, the changing topography, and specified contributing and non-contributing 

structures. Various photographs were shown to document the change over time in terms of landscape, 

structure, topography (particularly the ravines), and Robinson made specific connections to the various 

agricultural buildings (equestrian barn, piggery, dairy facility, etc) and the overall impact of those buildings 

upon the environment at St. Elizabeth Hospital over the 20th century. 

Christine Saum (NCPC) - Water tower site? 

Judith Robinson ( Robinson and Associates) - 1861 map – agriculture on west campus immediately 

(hospital patient therapy), by end of civil war, original procreation across public road. Shepherd Farm track. 

Initially a plateau, and forested to the east. The 1873 topo map showed deep ravines separating lands which 

was used for cattle grazing, the old barn. Next slide – agricultural labor, great success of crops and livestock. 

Piggeries, Employee cottages, etc. Landscape features also include unpaved farm roads. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Phase IB Archeology 

Donna Seifert (JMA) - presented images and explained the archeological findings in the area. The conclusion 

was that there are no archeological resources contributing to the NHL. There was one possible prehistoric 

native American finding, but very little of anything else. Seifert used historical maps, especially those 

documenting topography to determine the possibility of findings. Seifert also addressed the potential heavy 

metals in the area, as well as the fly hash left from incinerator dumping in the 1970s. 

Units Identified – farm units (topographical, spatial organization). Dix (do not have much left associated with 

natural historic landmark), woodland unit (topography and vegetation similar), 

15-20 features Identify, mostly in agricultural area, a few around Blackburn lab. 

Archeology work/testing -- subsurface testing for historic resources, or prehistoric resources. 

Very small area was available. A lot of fill and a lot of fly hash on the premises caused great concern about the 

area containing hazardous material. Map with Findings – no archeological resources contributing NHL. 

Identified one possible prehistoric native American finding. Historic map predating Dix building – area has 

been filled, little area with two lobes is the only one with the possibility of findings. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Disturbance? ANS construction could be planned. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - So what is fly ash? 

Donna Seifert (JMA) - Incinerator dumpings in the 1970s. Trash dumped, etc. Heavy metals are the big 

worry. 

Site Planning Opportunities and Constraints 

WRT presented slides showing the area mapped out in blue from various views. Planning framework slides in 

the PowerPoint were briefly presented before Yogesh Saoji addressed parking, FEMA programs on East 

Campus, Security, and slides on a one campus functionality relationship. 

The building is to be 750,000 gsf, and will have 775 parking spaces for employees as well as visitor parking on 

the West Campus. Security ISC Level V Campus was addressed. There will be double fence security. 

Regarding the gates on West Campus, Yogesh Saoji of WRT also addressed a potential new access between 

gates 2 and 3, as well as different options for connecting the FEMA facility. A shuttle loop, as well as a 

connection to Anacostia were mentioned, in addition to existing transit options. Existing bus lines, the potential 

for a Martin Luther King Blvd street car, and the MLK expansion (which will occur in the future) were discussed 

as well. 

Topography/Building Heights 

A slide with a map of the area was presented and color coded. Flat area was one color, orange and red show 

greater than 10 percent increase in height. Specifically, the heights of various buildings are listed below, along 

with the height of MLK. 

Viewshed Slides were then presented as a means of showing the views of buildings, how each new building 

would influence the existing and future landscape. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

One particular site selection outlined lines of sight from west campus, 7 stories off the radar screen from West 

Campus view. Also presented was the Historic Context, existing Landscape, existing trees, existing storm 

water, pre-development surface coverage - 49% impervious, 51% pervious, sustainability 

Potential Planning Objectives/Assumptions 

Objectives and assumptions outlined in packet, particularly minimizing footprint as much as possible, to 

maximize the east campus. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Page 9, study line has changed through the presentation. What about Smith 

and Blackburn buildings in the images? 

Antonio (WRT) - It’s a matter of making sure the relationship between buildings was presented. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Call all of them the same thing (north, left, and west? Names should be 

consistent) East Campus North Parcel. Stations identified, considering what’s been discussed with security, 

are the historic resources existent within that area? p. 21 – can’t see Dix building because of wall and trees, 

but if the trees have to go b/c of the perimeter, that’s a consideration. 

Antonio (WRT) – We will correct that. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Moved in 1954 - will that cottage still exist? 

Antonio (WRT) - Cottages were moved, ingloriously placed on cinderblock base and very little original 

character is visible. They were moved for the Dix building, again for the UCC. 

Tim Dennee (DCSHPO) - They moved a lot. Any suggestions? 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - p. 16 diagram about MLK avenue – timing of widening of MLK and development of 

East Campus. Will FHWA involved? 

Dawud Abdul-Rahman (GSA) – It is slated to be complete 2014. GSA will conduct the acquisition and will 

coordinate with city 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - p. 21, dotted line? 

Antonio (WRT) -- Campus connection. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Digging a new tunnel? 

Antonio (WRT) -- It will be a connection between the east and west campuses for DHS. There has always 

been relationship between the two campuses. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Will the new tunnel will have vehicles? 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Antonio (WRT) - It is primarily pedestrian, maybe golf carts. It will facilitate the connection between the two. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Provide developable sites for supporting commercial use? 

Antonio (WRT) -- Outside the FEMA campus. 

Shapour Ebadi (GSA) - GSA will have nothing to do with commercial. We’re building an office building. 

What DC does with what’s left, is unknown. 

Dawud Abdul-Rahman (GSA) - We want the East Campus to be developed by the district for DHS 

employees to patronize such development. 

Beth Savage (GSA) - That is the intent of bullet; we don’t want to do something that would negate 

developable sites that may come out of this. 

Betsy Merritt (NTHP) - Will that be included in the boundaries of campus? 

Dawud Abdul-Rahman (GSA) - No. 

Kirstin Brinker Kulis (ACHP) - Underground connection that exists currently should be considered when we 

discuss what has been there. 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Attendance List 

12/01/09 First Name Last Name Org./Affiliation Telephone E-Mail 

X Dawud Abdur-Rahman GSA 202 260-3368 dawud.abdur.rahman@gsa.gov 

X Michael Abernathy GSA OIG 202-489-2031 Michael.abernathy@gsa.gov 

Tom Amoroso Andropogon 

Richard Bartholomew WRT 215-772-1475 rbartholomew@ph.wrtdesign.com 

Bill Bartling Clark Construction 202-359-6964 BillBartling@clarkconstruction.com 

X Sarah Batcheler CFA 202-504-2200 sbatcheler@cfa.gov 

Batcheler 

(CFA) 

Mark Bauman PriceWaterhouseCooper / 703-232-4837 mark.bauman@us.pwc.com 

DHS 

Charles Bergen McKissack & McKissack 202-256-8142 Charles.Bergen@McKissackdc.com 

X Danielle Breaux Turk Advisory 202-288-1298 daniellebreaux@turkadvisory.com 

William Bresnick DHS/OGC 202-447-3545 william.bresnick@headquarters.dhs.gov 

X Joan Brierton GSA 202-244-7917 joan.brierton@gsa.gov 

X Kirsten Brinker Kulis ACHP 202-606-8517 kkulis@achp.gov 

James Byrd W8BC 202-562-1671 jbyrdw8bc@aol.com 

X Bob Cannon DHS 202-713-7710 robert.cannon@dhs.gov 

Jean Carroon Goody Clancy/HDR 617-262-2760 jean.carroon@goodyclancy.com 

Bruno Carvallio Caravllio & Good 202-857-7720 brunoc@carvalliogood.com 

Ralph Casella DHS 202-510-4894 ralph.casella@associates.dhs.gov 

Charles Cheek John Milner Associates 203-354-9737 ccheek@johnmilnerassociates.com 

Chris Cherry GSA 202-252-0024 Christopher.cherry@gsa.gov 

Michelle Choe GSA 301-509-4358 

202-360-2128 

mchoe@proconsulting.com 

Michelle.choe@gsa.gov 

Mina Clark Greenhorne & O’Mara 301-982-2999 mclark@g-and-o.com 

X Paul Clinch Perkins+Will 312-755-4506 jpaul.clincy@perkinswill.com 

Sam Condit McKissack & McKissack 202-347-1446 samc@mckissackdc.com 

202-220-0198 

Otto Condon XGF 202-380-3015 Otto.condon@zgf.com 

Terri Cooper GSA 202-205-1991 terri.cooper@gsa.gov 

Emily Creel GSA 202-501-4209 emily.creel@gsa.gov 

Bryana Davis GSA 202-205-9754 bryana.davis@gsa.gov 

Harry Debes GSA 202-260-9583 harry.debes@gsa.gov 

Paula DeMuth GSA 202-708-9870 Paula.demuth@gsa.gov 

X Tim Dennee DCSHPO 202-442-8847 Timonthy.dennee@dc.gov 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

X Connie Doyle CI International 301-275-7885 cdoyle@ciinternational.com 

301-216-9797 

Tim Duffy Leo A. Daly 202-955-9191 tjduffy@leoadaly.com 

X Shapour Ebadi GSA 202-302-4672 Shapour .ebadi@gsa.gov 

Bonnie Echoles GSA 202-441-2912 bonnie.echoles@gsa.gov 

Stephanie Eiler Ch2m Hill 651-367-8543 Stephanie.eiler@ch2m.com 

X Jane Engvall DHS 202-447-5039 jane.engvall@dhs.gov 

202-591-0689 

Thom Ennen GSA 602 708 6278 Thom.ennen@gsa.gov 

Jon Ericson Coast Guard 202-475-5602 jon.ericson@usCoast Guard.mil 

Christine Ewing GSA 202-504-4010 chriistine.ewing@gsa.gov 

Aaron Feldman-Gross Rhodeside & Harwell 703-683-7447 aaronfg@rhodeside-harwell.com 

X Abigail Fiske DHS 202-684-5595 abigail.fiske@dhs.gov 

Tom Fleming HNTB 703-253-5875 tfleming@hntb.com 

Kim R. Ford OVP/ST 202-395-3825 kford@omb.eop.gov 

X Jim Fortinsky GSA 202-708-5976 james.fortinsky@gsa.gov 

202-329-1545 

Nia Francis GSA 202-205-1937 nia.francis@gsa.gov 

X Ramon Garcia DHS 202-669-0667 ramon.garcia2@dhs.gov 

Geraldine Gardner DCOP 202-442-8970 Geraldine.gardner@dc.gov 

Michael Gerwin DHS 202-731-4234 

Steve Goley LSA 301-948-2750 sgoley@lsassociates.net 

Jana Gross GSA 202-208-1867 Jana.gross@gsa.gov 

Susan Gygi HNTB 703-253-5850 sgygi@hntb.com 

Faisal Hameed DDOT 202-671-2326 faisal.hameed@dc.gov 

Bill Hellmuth HOK 202-339-8819 bill.hellmuth@hok.com 

Karen Handsfeld CEQ 202-456-5242 khandsfeld@ceq.eop.gov 

Jamie Henson DDOT 202-671-1374 Jamie.henson@dc.gov 

Alexander Hernandez NTHP 305-801-9722 alexander_hernanadez@nthp.org 

Ashley Howell SMA 703-354-9737 ahewell@johnmilnerassociates.com 

Lisa Howe Goody Clancy 617-262-2760 lisa.howe@goodyclancy.com 

X Thomas Jester QEA 202-591-2537 tjester@quinnevans.com 

Elizabeth Johnson GSA 202-708-7877 Elizabeth.johnson@gsa.gov 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Janet Crist Kausner 202-234-2333 

Jeremiah Kamerer WH Gordon 703-263-1900 jkamerer@whga.com 

Evelyn Kasongo DCOP 202-442-7613 evelyn.kasongo@dc.gov 

Steve Kelley WJE 312-560-0697 skelley@wje.com 

Tim Kerr Robinson & Associates 202-234-2333 tkerr@robinson-inc.com 

Giri Kilim CH2M Hill 703-376-5227 Giri.kilim@ch2m.com 

Jim Kinkead Clark Construction 301-367-0209 jim.kinkead@clarkconstruction.com 

Duncan Kirk HOK 202-944-1463 duncan.kirk@hok.com 

Dan Koenig HDR 

Jennifer Lewis NTHP Jennifer_lewis@nthp.com 

Joyce Lewis DHS 202-343-4131 Joyce.lewis@dhs.gov 

X James Lindsay CI International 202-258-1772 jlindsay@ciinternational.com 

Frederick Lindstrom CFA 202-504-2200 flindstrom@cfa.gov 

William Logan US Coast Guard 202-475-5635 william.g.logan@usCoast Guard.mil 

X Thomas Luebke CFA 202-504-2200 tluebke@cfa.gov 

X Paul Malatino GSA OIG 202-208-0021 paul.malatino@gsa.gov 

Matt Manofsky US Coast Guard 202-372-4004 matthew.c.manofsky@usCoast Guard.mil 

Joshua Marnitz National Trust 202-588-6485 joshua_marnitz@nthp.org 

Alana McCullough PriceWaterhouseCooper / 703-855-3541 Alana.mccullough@us.pwc.com 

DHS 

X John McDaniel GSA 202-205-8893 john.mcdaniel@gsa.gov 

Richard McDaniel FHWA 703-303-7523 richard.mcdaniel@dot.gov 

Rich McGruder DHS 202-834-4621 richard.McGruder@dhs.gov 

Joe McNamara ZGF 202-380-3040 Joe.McNamara@zgf.com 

X Elizabeth Merritt National Trust 202-588-6026 betsy_merritt@nthp.org 

(Betsy) 

Rebecca Miller DCPL 202-783-5144 rebecca@dcpreservation.org 

X Chris Mills DHS 202-447-5032 chris.mills@dhs.gov 

Beate Moss DHS 202-713-7688 beate.moss@dhs.gov 

Thomas Mozina Perkins+ Will 312-755-4552 thomas.mozina@perkinswill.com 

Rob Nieweg NTHP Robert_neiweg@nthp.org 

Patricia O’Donnell Heritage Landscapes 802-425-4330 odonnell@heritagelandscapes.com 

Ralph O’Mara-Garcia GSA 202-501-2635 ralph.omara-garcia@gsa.gov 

George Oberlander NCSOM 301-816-1153 goberlander@verizon.net 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Carlos Ostria LSA 301-948-2750 costria@lsassociates.net 

Thornell Page 202-258-2532 

Joseph Parello DHS 202-420-1971 joseph.parello@dhs.gov 

Edward Payabyab NTHP 510-331-3865 edward_paabyab@nthp.org 

X Davin Pirkola Perkins+Will 312-755-0770 davin.pirkola@perkinswill.com 

Dennis Plouff Greenhorne & O’Mara 301-270-2607 dplouff@g-and-o.com 

Gary Porter GSA 202-205-7766 gary.porter@gsa.gov 

Kathryn Prigmore HDR 703-518-8511 Kathryn.prigmore@hdrinc.com 

Rob Prunty CH2M Hill 571-296-0214 Rob.prunty@ch2m.com 

Feras Qumseya DMPED 202-340-7264 Feras.qumseya@dc.gov 

William Randolph DHS USM/COS 202-497-5854 William.randolph@dhs.gov 

Christine Reynolds WJE 703-641-4601 creynolds@wje.com 

Elliot Rhodeside Rhodeside & Harwell 703-683-7447 elliotr@rhodeside-harwell.com 

Vincent Rigg Perkins+Will 312-755-4794 vincent.rigg@perkinswill.com 

Peter Rizzo GSA 202-501-0940 peter.rizzo@gsa.gov 

Kevin Robbins DHS 202-525-9290 kevin.robbins@dhs.gov 

X Judith Robinson Robinson & Associates 202-234-2333 jrobinson@robinson-inc.com 

Kelvin Robinson Symmetra Design 202-370-6000 krobinson@symmetradesign.com 

Jennifer Rose HDR Jennifer.rose@hdrinc.com 

Ray Ruhlman Leo A. Daly 202-955-9108 rruhlman@leoadaly.com 

X Yogesh Saoji WRT 215-430-5309 ysaoji@ph.wrtdesign.com 

X Christine Saum NCPC 202-482-7200 christine.saum@ncpc.gov 

202-482-7245 

X Beth Savage GSA 202-208-1936 beth.savage@gsa.gov 

Kristina Schroeder FEMA 202-646-8178 Kristina.schroeder@dhs.gov 

Steve Schwartz GSA 202-708-5905 stephen.schwartz@gsa.gov 

X Donna Siefert JMA 703-354-9737 dsiefert@johnmilnerassociates.com 

Gary Scott NPS 202-619-7279 gary_scott@nps.gov 

X Matthew Sellers STG 703-548-2000 msellers@stepgood.com 

George Siekkinen GSA 202-501-0150 George .siekkinen@gsa.gov 

Baird Smith QEA 202-591-2507 bsmith@quinnevans.com 

202-298-6700 

David Smith CHMS 202-345-3282 Pearlcoalition2chmsil.com 





1:30 – 4:30 pm 

Patrick Solomon HDR 703-752-7755 Patrick.solomon@hdrinc.com 

X George Stephanos US Coast Guard 202-475-5775 George .j.stephanos@usCoast Guard.mil 

X Tammy Stidham NPS 202-619-7474 tammy_stidham@nps.gov 

X Stacy Stone G2O 410-583-6700 sstone@g-ond.o.com 

X Gill Thompson DHS 202-680-2344 gill.thompson@dhs.gov 

Minh K. Tonthat HNTB 703-253-5952 mtonthat@hntb.com 

Tim Tozer GSA 202-708-9882 Timothy.tozer@gsa.gov 

X Jack Van Dop FHWA 703-404-6282 jack.j.vandop@fhwa.dot.gov 

Rob Walker WH Gordon 703-263-1900 rwalker@whgA.com 

Earl Ward US Coast Guard 434-960-5745 new3m@wirginia.edu 

Jeff Way CI International 610-820-4455 jway@ciinternational.com 

Nicole White Symmetra Design 202-370-6000 nwhite@symmetradesign.com 

Brenda Williams QEA 734-926-0419 bwilliams@quinnevans.com 

William Willis GSA 202-441-0088 williamb.willis@gsa.gov 

Nancy Witherell NCPC 202-482-7239 nancy@ncpc.gov 

X Carter Wormeley GSA 202-401-9691 carter.wormeley@gsa.gov 

Craig Wright McKissack & McKissak 202-220-0144 craigw@mckissackdc.com 

Mina Wright GSA 202-406-4520 

Tamara Zalcim Georgetown Law Tt2@law.Georgetown.edu 

Nell Ziehl NTHP 202 588-6040 nell_ziehl@nthp.org

St. Elizabeth's West Campus - GSA Development of St. Elizabeths ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?