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

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmI. Welcome and Introductions - Amy Hymes (CI International)Amy: Welcome to the meeting. My name is Amy Hymes and I’ll be facilitating this meeting. We want to givethe consultants a chance to meet and consult. The objective is to provide project updates, talk about thedesign build team, the transition process, and updated garage processes.Group: (Participants introduced themselves. Attendance list attached.)Amy: Any questions in reference to the introductions? We want to move on to project updates. We’re going tostart with Shapour.II. Project UpdatesGlobal Project Updates – Shapour Ebadi (GSA)Shapour Ebadi (GSA) introduced the Clark Design Build who is the team working on the USCG building. Theteam consists of Clark, HOK, WDG, McKissack, QEA and other subcontractors. He noted the Clark DesignBuild team will present their understanding of the design and discuss the Consulting Parties previous concernsassociated with a design build contract. He reiterated that the concept design of the building will not change,however it will be enhanced.East Campus MP Updates – Dawud Abdur-Rahman (GSA)Dawud Abdur-Rahman (GSA) provided updates on the Master Plan Amendment noting that the Master PlanAmendment contract was awarded at the end of July. GSA and the MP team are still doing due diligence andhope to have something to present to the Consulting Parties by the October/November timeframe. Currentlythe team is: looking at site construction constraints and opportunities; meeting and talking with stakeholders;looking at Shepherd Parkway; reviewing the cultural landscapes and resources on the site; conductingextensive coordination efforts with DC local government as part of an overall move forward strategy. He addedthat transportation will figure prominently as we move forward in the process. The scoping meeting will be onOctober 8 th at 6pm.Kirsten Brinker Kulis (ACHP): In earlier meetings, it was said that we were going to have a representative ofthe design build team. Are those the people here or will others be at the consulting party meetings?Shapour (GSA): The nucleus, you’ll see at the meeting today. This is our design build team.Kirsten (ACHP): This team will be at each meeting?Beth (GSA): At each meeting we’re talking about design build, they will be here.Shepherd Parkway Update - Jack VanDop (FHWA)Page 1 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmJack Van Dop (FHWA) provided an update on Shepherd Parkway and the Access Road noting the intent is tokeep the 4(f) process running in parallel with the S106 processes. He added that FHWA and GSA are hopingto get consensus on a work session pulled together for the interested parties to attend and GSA will coordinateinvites to that work session. He provided a hand out which denoted the road laid out with the Malcolm Xinterchange. He noted that the current plans denote three lanes and discussions are currently underway withDHS, DDOT and GSA to work through the planning efforts associated with the roadway, noting that these werenot final but work in progress for discussion purposes.He then reviewed the detail drawings and cross-sections identifying that what is shown is the retaining wall onone side and fill on the other. He added that the concepts are to minimize shoulder widths to 11 ft lanes ratherthan 12ft, add a multipath on the campus side, and provide a small amount of open space between wall andwalkway. The intent of the sections and designs are to save some of the vegetation along 295 to the extentpossible. He provided additional views from Haines Point toward the site identifying the various retaining wallheights. He added that GSA, FHWA and NPS continue to meet to discuss the 4(f) to obtain additional input toinform the 4(f) and design processes. The overall intent of the concepts would be to minimize impacts to theslope, preserving existing vegetation to the extent possible, and looking at overall design opportunities with thewall height, materials etc to further minimize the associated impacts.DiscussionKirsten (ACHP): This is definitely a step in the right direction. It’d be good to have more information and wewould support a separate breakout session or a breakout session before or after a CP meeting. In earliermeetings, we mentioned that we’d prefer to have cars or bikes to have scale; a key map as it is hard to figureout where these are taken from; fences and guardrails; water be blue; labels for landmarks. It seems like thisis really at early stages so we look forward to more detail in the future.Thomas Luebke (CFA): I have a couple of comments and questions and this is a great start. We appreciatethe work; however it is a little hard to understand. It would be useful if there was an overall plan (topographicallines) in the map in one or some sections so we can understand elevation. It looks like rural Scotland. And I’ma little concerned about cheap walls that come out of nowhere.Finally, one of the biggest issues with the entire undertaking is the preservation of the park and its greencharacter, changes to that landscape in terms of wide roadways, large buildings. As a general concern with ourcommission, we’re looking at the cross sections here & the trail. I probably missed meetings where this trailwas extensively discussed. Why is it leveled with the roadway? Why not make it a less broad cut if it’s at aseparate elevation?Jack (FHWA): The Park Service even brought this up and suggested possibly splitting the retaining walls. Theone thing is about safety and people feel safe if the sidewalk is next to the road. And lighting and signage aregoing to be an issue.Tom (CFA): If you could elevate it by 2-3 ft, it could change the amount of land by 60% of that land that needsto be removed. I don’t know what design work or concepts are going in.Page 2 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmJack (FHWA): One of the down sides to minimizing is that we get another road that is mostly curb & asphalt.And we have that conflict with 4(f) and visibility.Tammy Stidham (NPS): NPS hasn’t made a determination. We have been in discussion with FHWA as acourse. We have an ongoing discussion of moving the 3 lanes into 2 - 11 foot lanes.Gary Scott (NPS): I noticed in your design that you have a parking lot for the cemetery. You’re proceedingwith the assumption that the cemetery will be outside the wall?Joan Brierton (GSA): Gary, those folds into future meetings. It hasn’t been resolved.Jack: We are showing the worst case in these drawings today.George Oberlander (NCSOM): About the cemetery parking lot - haven’t determined the size of the area orhave you?Jack (FHWA): The master plan showed a size, but it is still more of an area to be discussed.Tammy (NPS): If we could talk about the effects on Shepherd Parkway. Are you going to model theappearance?Jack: Yes, we’ll have it next time.Tim Dennee (DCSHPO): About the cemetery parking lot. We should be more accurate to say that it’s for thedaycare center. It does raise more questions about excavation with retaining walls. This is more evidence thatthis should not be going there.Chris Mills (DHS): To bounce off Tom’s comment - the reason we have the multipurpose trail was to minimizethe area we would need for bike access, pedestrian access. We were trying to minimize how much buildingthat needs to be done. We’re okay to minimize as long as we have both bike and pedestrian access.Jack (FHWA): We were trying to minimize what’s being done and that is still part of a larger ongoing. Themultiuse trail would achieve all those.Tom (CFA): That’s great and I appreciate the effort. All I’m saying is the section could be adjusted.Something Tim raised with the nature of the retaining walls and bringing them up to be guardrails. While it is aclean, simple treatment, it makes the walls higher than they need to be. I’m not trying to solve it. If you canminimize, great, but maybe terrace instead of leveling.Betsy Merritt (NTHP): Is there going to be any connectivity between north and south, and is there a map? Oris this just a trail within St. Elizabeth?Page 3 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmJack (FHWA): We’re working with a trail system that already exists and with DC’s plans. We’ve been in talkswith NPS. We haven’t gotten far, but that is the idea. The other question, we have to start something.Betsy (NTHP): I also see it as relevant to mitigation. Is there’s an opportunity for the public? Will the trail onlybe used by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel or will the public be able to? If it’s exclusive toDHS personnel, then it’s different.Jack (FHWA): My understanding is that it’s open, no guards and will be open to public access.Betsy (NTHP): We’d like to look at that for mitigation - historical sites, future connectivity, etc. Has GSAformally initiated a consultation for this?Beth (GSA): We believe that consultation has never stopped. We stopped on the action of the master plan.Betsy (NTHP): This part of the project was intentionally excluded.Beth (GSA): We’ll be writing letters about the ongoing 106 process, initiating consultation specifically onShepherd Parkway. This is coming at us through the 4(f) process. You will get a letter, same way as with theCoast Guard.Betsy (NTHP): This was part of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) project we talked about at the lastmeeting.Joan (GSA): The security perimeter was its only MOA. Shepherd Parkway would be a separate MOA.Betsy (NTHP): And your letter will clarify that?Beth (GSA): Yes.Betsy (NTHP): The other thing I want to say is that I agree with a lot of the comments made earlier. I find thisgrid presentation helpful to visualize the contours more so than this other. I just wanted to encourage you togive us more details. That presentation helps to identify where some of the projects are. The cemetery parkinglot looks like it’ll be one of the roughest ones.Jack (FHWA): We talked about having some of the images, but they’re too long and that is why we want tohave the working group because then we could have a long section we can roll out.Betsy (NTHP): Both are good, but sometimes, like with the cemetery parking lot, we want to get up close to it.It helps to better understand impacts.Joan (GSA): I think all of these comments have set up a good outline in how to develop the next meeting orfor the session.Page 4 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmJack (FHWA): Yes, I agree. As the issue of signage was raised, we can discuss that in more detail.Kirsten (ACHP): Just working off Betsy’s comment. When will we be receiving an update of the MOA?Beth (GSA): Before the next meeting. We are trying to work out the different needs and consider schedulesso everyone can look at theirs. We’re looking at priorities that will impact the project. You may have it before,but by the next meeting.III. USCG Design Build Team Introductions and Transition ProcessShapour (GSA): I’ll introduce Jim Kinkead. He’s the project manager for Clark Construction. His experience isin design build projects.Jim (Clark): Hello and thank you for having me here. I’ve been with Clark for over 25 years. We have workedwith many of you on various projects.I want to introduce our team. We selected this team, and I believe it’s an assembly of the most qualifiedprofessionals in this area. All these firms are local. We felt that was important because we live, we work in thiscommunity. Bill is the president of HOK. He’s been leading the DC office for more than 15 years. We’re happyto have Bill with us. John Lowe is a principal for WDG. Sam Condit is a principal for McKissack. We alsothought it was important to have a component to this team that would be sensitive to the historical elements,Baird Smith and Judy Robinson. We have other components, but I thought it was important to bring theprincipals. I’ll turn it over to Mr. Hellmuth.Bill (HOK): Thank you very much. We know there’s been a lot of work that’s been done. Design, GSA, all ofyour input, we tremendously respect that. We’re standing on the shoulders of everyone who’s brought it this far.We’ve worked on both sides and we usually do the first 35% - the bridging documents. We have a respect forthe process having been on both sides of this and we have tremendous respect for the design that was done.We just want to develop the details. There will be a couple of enhancements, particularly in the parking garagestructure. Architects are horrible critics of architects. When we got the bridging documents, we were verypleased. Here, we got a really good set. Your consultants did really good work.It’s a long-winded way to say that we respect the work that’s been done. This is the Perkins & Will concept andwe are working with that. That doesn’t mean that we won’t find some areas that might need enhancing which Iwill discuss in the next part of our presentation.Jim (Clark): Any questions for the team?Beth (GSA): If you would point out the team members.(Members stood and introduced themselves):Duncan Kirk - HOKPage 5 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmJohn Lowe - architect of recordBarrett Smith - Quinn Evans architects: compliance for 106 and architects for utilities, historicallandscapeCharlie LeeDecker - Louis Berger GroupBill (HOK): I wanted to add, HOK is overseeing all of the aspects as well as the landscapes and interiors.IV. USCG Updated Garage Concepts - Bill Hellmuth (HOK)Bill (HOK) presented the USCG updated garage concepts for Consulting Party review and comments. Henoted that the garage has two portions: DHS - 1000 cars, and the USCG part - 1000 cars. Both garages havea green roof with vegetation and comports with overall concept. He presented renderings of the garage fromthe Perkins + Will bridging documents noting that the intent of the revised concepts is to reduce the scale ofthe garage. The refined concepts reduce the garage height by pushing the garage 2-3 levels further into theearth. The garages would have the same entry, exit and would function in the same manner. This conceptwould lowers the garage by 3 floors, the lower section by 2 floors. 3.1 meters (one meter is about 10 feet)about 30 feet lower than before and 20 feet lower than the bridging documents.He then presented the relationship between the building and garage to show the relationship of mass and keepthe green roof and green wall facades. He presented additional renderings showing the various views of theconcept versus the bridging document design.Tom (CFA): Our biggest concern is the site in terms of scale, green, protecting resource. Clearly, we’re goingto be supportive of reductions. Is this an accepted alternative?Shapour (GSA): These are proposals. We’re going back and forth on mechanisms on executing this. Twothings are time potential. We need a clear understanding of the schedule and Clark has 1100 days to bring thisfrom the awarding of the contract. Any lowering, any enhancements have to be negotiated with the schedulemitigation. One of the points we’ll talk about how we can enhance the schedule.Tom (CFA): So it’s something being worked on. We’d be supportive of reductions. There are some nice thingsas the green screens that are nice. With the higher side there is too much attention to itself.George (NCSOM): Is there a possibility of adding trees to the top of the garage? When you look at theschedules, it calls out for something on top.Bill (HOK): I think it will change the cost structure of the garage. You would need big tree pits and would needto add a layer of 4-5 feet or remove some of the parking.In some of these views, there are trees behind that would be filled in more than would be in the picture. Addingto the building would be difficultPage 6 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmGeorge (NCSOM): I’m thinking about the view from National Airport. Whatever could be done, the green roofis great, but in my opinion, not enough.Sarah Batcheler (CFA): I just wanted to underscore what Tom said. We support a lower garage. I want to saywe continue to not support the higher garage. This is not just a preference. His comments about the flat screenplan and the rotated view of the lobby would detract from the main part of the building, perhaps this issomething that could be addressed with design options.Kirsten (ACHP): I would like to second Tom and Sarah’s comments about the renderings about perspectives.Reduction height is impressive. Just works better. Just like to add that if we see more of these in finalliterations, we could have a better understanding of planned and existing trees.Shapour (GSA): One thing about planting trees on top of building. Bill said it eloquently - cost and structuralissues. We also have contamination issues. Under green environment the worst case scenarios is seedplanning should be more than 6-8 inches. If we add trees, then we have to increase water-proofing, sprinklersystem and planting trees takes away from LEED points.Betsy (NTHP): It’s very encouraging to see this. We’re definitely not supportive of a higher garage. Whatwould be the height at the front end of the revised garage?Bill (HOK): From 39.5 meters on the lower part to 32.6 meters. The upper portion was 45.7 meters inelevation and we are lowering it to 35.7 meters – 10 meters roughly 30 feet.Hits is at 35…this is at 27 meters.Betsy (NTHP): Do you need to expand the vent structures?Bill (HOK): Yes. If you lower the roof, then you lower the vents. It’ll remain the same.Betsy (NTHP): Is the size the same?Bill (HOK): It’s our understanding is that it’ll be a slight change. We think we can fit it in within this. If not, we’llbring it back to you.Betsy (NTHP): My last question is a question to Shapour. You referenced that they have 1100 days in whichto complete construction. I want to know more about when it starts.Shapour (GSA): It’s already started. If we didn’t start, we couldn’t start this. We have to issue a notice toproceed. That constitutes that the 1100 days have already started. These are proposals that are on the table,but we really want to do them. Clark wants to do them. Bill wants to do them. But we need some help from youguys because we need to be confident in the plans.Betsy (NTHP): Includes design and build construction can’t begin until some of these issues are resolved.How do we avoid running into a problem with the 1100 days?Page 7 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmGary (NPS): Since the park service won’t be a signatory on this MOA, how do we get our views expressedabout the cemetery since this MOA will decide whether it will be inside or outside the wall?Beth (GSA): You’ll have ample opportunity to provide a written statement on that including by email.Gary (NPS): Will the consulting parties be signatories?Kirsten (ACHP): Because NPS is a neighboring park owner, their participation should be discussed.Beth (GSA): I think that’s a question for NPS. We vociferously invited the NPS to be a signatory.Gary (NPS): We definitely want to be part of Shepherd Parkway.Beth (GSA): We’d certainly have NPS be a signatory. I think that would be an internal conversation you hadwith NPS.Joan (GSA): That would be good to know before the next meeting. Who has a role and responsibility to thestipulations of the agreement?If you do have comments on this annotated outline, please have them to me by this Friday the 25 th . As Bethnoted earlier, we also hope that in the distribution of an updated draft outline, we’d be sending out the revisedconsultation MOA and time schedule.Kirsten (ACHP): I just want to quickly add to the group, the title of the document. The preservation of thecemetery should be addressed in the agreement. This is more than headquarters and parking and thecemetery might also need to be addressed in title.Joan (GSA): There will be a section addressing staging. The cemetery needs to be addressed in the overalltreatment of the plan. This is really to deal with the perimeter around the cemetery. We don’t call the parkingfacility out. Do people have a strong opinion?Gary (NPS): But where the fence goes will be treatment.Tim (DCHPO): I’m reluctant to make the title longer.Baird Smith (QEA): Forgive me, because we’re new to the table. This very last sentence on page 5 coreexhibits. Could you just clarify; architectural drawings for CB building will be an attachment of this?Joan (GSA): If it’s added as an attachment, if they are referenced as such to satisfy the NCPC submission.Baird (QEA): You’ll have also completed the MOA?Page 10 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmJoan (GSA): We’re required to complete 106 before NCPC submission. I wouldn’t have picked that day. We’rerequired to do it before NCPC.Kirsten (ACHP): If the drawings will be attached, I’d like to better understand when the design review be done.Do we need a design review stipulated?Joan (GSA): What we did in the PA was to post those exhibits to the project website. We referenced wherethey were. It could be about anticipated dates.Shapour (GSA): Design review is NCPC.Tim (DCHPO): If we’re going to solve this substantially before we do the MOA.Beth (GSA): That is correct.Betsy (NTHP): What is the anticipated timetable to submit to Fine Arts? January in their regular dateBeth (GSA): In November.VI. Outstanding Issues & Wrap UpBetsy (NTHP): I just want to clarify. When is the next meeting October 6 th ? Or will we meet before that?Beth (GSA): October 6 th . One thing we are trying is the potential work session for Shepherd Parkway maybebefore the 6th. If we can get a core group of people to work on it, but keep it open to everyone. The Octobermeeting is 1-4pm in the same room (7023).Kirsten (ACHP): If, because of the design issues to be vetted out before November. 5 th , can we get a betterunderstanding of what those design issues are.Beth (GSA): The design issues include:a. 1. Settle on the design of the garageb. Westward elevationc. Potential enhancementsd. Childcare center and location, and how it relates to parking for daycare/cemeterye. Landscape (trees)f. Location of security perimeter within cemeteryg. Air intakes above the garageh. Erosion control staging package for site preparation/Site stabilization packageThe meeting concluded.Page 11 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmAction Items1. FHWA Working Groupa. Input for view of West Campusb. Resources requiredc. Time commitment and when to meet2. More details in FHWA imagesa. Bikes and carsb. Key mapc. Fences and guardrailsd. Water in bluee. Labels for landmarksf. Topographical linesg. Long, roll out images3. 106 Process letter4. MOA update before next meeting5. HOK Presentationa. Correct error on Slide 16 (HOK Presentation)b. Have more accurate depictions of existing and planned trees near garagec. Information regarding vent size increases due to lowering of garaged. Alternatives for current similar design of garage to lobby6. Information/schedule regarding construction staging7. Roles and responsibilities to the stipulations of the agreement8. Design Issues to Be Addressed:i. Settle on the design of the garagej. Westward elevationk. Potential enhancementsl. Childcare center and location, and how it relates to parking for daycare/cemeterym. Landscape (trees)n. Location of security perimeter within cemeteryo. Air intakes above the garagep. Erosion control staging package for site preparation/Site stabilization packagePage 12 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmAttendance ListFirst Name Last Name Org./Affiliation Telephone E-MailDawud Abdul-Rahman GSA 202 260-3368 dawud.abdur-rahman@gsa.govSarah Batcheler CFA 202-504-2200 sbatcheler@cfa.govDanielle Breaux JLL 202-288-1298 danille.breaux@am.jll.comJoan Brierton GSA 202-244-7917 joan.brierton@gsa.govKirstin Brinker Kulis ACHP 202-606-8517 kkulis@achp.govMina Clark Greenhorne & 301-982-2999 mclark@g-and-o.comO’maraSam Condit McKissack 202-347-1446 samc@mckissackdc.comEmily Creel GSA 202-501-4209 emily.creel@gsa.govTim Dennee DCSHPD 202-442-8847 timonthy.dennee@dc.govMike Downey DHS 202-680-2253Shapour Ebadi GSA 202-205-9190 shapour.ebadi@gsa.govJane Engvall DHS 202-591-0689 jane.engvall@dhs.govTom Ennen GSA Thom.ennen@gsa.govJim Fortinsky GSA 202-708-5976 james.fortinsky@gsa.govNia Francis GSA 202-205-1937 nia.francis@gsa.govCharles Garrison DHS 202-447-0721 charles.garrison@dhs.govBill Hellmuth HOK 202-339-8819 Bill.hellmuth@hok.comLisa Howe Goody Clancy 617-262-2760 Lisa.howe@goodyclancy.comJim Kinkead Clark Construction 301-367-0209 jim.kinkead@clarkconstruction.comDuncan Kirk HOK 202-944-1463 Duncan.kirk@hok.comCharlie LeeDecker Louis Berger 202-303-2667 cleedecker@louisberger.comGroupJohn Lowe WDG 202-857-8300 jlowe@wdgarch.comThomas Luebke CFA 202-504-2200 tluebke@cfa.govJohn McDaniel GSA 202-205-8893 John.mcdaniel@gsa.govRichard McDaniel FHWA/EFLHD 571-434-1580 Richard.mcdaniel@dot.govElizabeth Merritt National Trust 202-588-6026 betsy_merritt@nthp.orgChris Mills DHS 202-447-5032 chris.mills@dhs.govGeorge Oberlander NCSOM 301-816-1153 goberlander@verizon.netRalph O’Mara-Garcia GSA 202-501-2635 ralph.omara-garcia@gsa.govJoseph Parello DHS 202-420-1971 joseph.parello@dhs.govGary Porter GSA 202-205-7766 gary.porter@gsa.govJudith Robinson Robinson & Asso. 202-234-2333 jrobinson@robinson-inc.comKevin Robbins DHS 202-525-9290 kevin.robbins@dhs.govPage 13 of 14

St. Elizabeth’s West CampusConsulting Party Meeting September 22, 2009Meeting Notes GSA ROB Room 702310:30 – 1:30pmBeth Savage GSA 202-208-1936 beth.savage@gsa.govSteve Schwartz GSA 202-708-5905 steve.schwartz@gsa.govGary Scott NPS 202-619-7279 gary_scott@nps.govBaird Smith Quinn Evans 202-298-6700 bsmith@quinnevans.comTammy Stidham NPS 202-619-7474 tammy_stidham@nps.govJack Van Dop FHWA 703-404-6282 jack.j.vandop@fhwa.dot.govWilliam Willis GSA 202-708-6278 williamb.wills@gsa.govCarter Wormeley GSA 202-401-9691 carter.wormeley@gsa.govTamara Zakim Georgetown 202-306-3699 ttz@law.georgetown.eduPage 14 of 14