Sheridan School (4400 36th Street NW) is planning to build a two-story addition. It is seeking zoning exemptions in three areas: the expansion of the private school, the requirement for walls surrounding rooftop mechanical equipment, and minimum parking requirement.
Sheridan wants to build the addition on the parking area in front of the school, and it will lose all eight parking spots by doing so. The school, in its zoning application, says the addition is a “necessary safety improvement,” creating an entrance vestibule that allows school employees to see who is visiting before they allow entry.
The project is on the DC Zoning Commission’s November 15th agenda, and it’s on ANC 3F’s September 19th agenda because Sheridan will asking our neighborhood commissioners to support its application for zoning relief when the ANC meets in October.
ANC 3F will be voting Tuesday night on whether to support an amendment to UDC’s campus master plan to allow for the demolition of Building 41 and construction of a permanent DC Archives facility in its place. The Zoning Commission hearing on that project takes place the following Thursday.
And, the two candidates for the vacant ANC 3F01 seat will be given a chance to introduce themselves. Registered voters who live in 3F01 will choose between the candidates during an October 14th special election, to be held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on the UDC campus. The precise location is to be determined.
Here is the full draft agenda:
ANC 3F – Regular Meeting Agenda
Sept 19, 2023; 7:00 pm to 9:14 pm
______________________________________________________________________________
ANC 3F is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting at bit.ly/anc3fmeet
___________________________________________________________________
Welcome (7:00pm)
Call to Order (7:01pm)
Roll Call (7:02 pm)
I. Adoption of the Sept 19, 2023 ANC 3F meeting agenda (7:03pm)
II. Approval of ANC 3F meeting minutes for July 18, 2023 (7:04pm)
III. Approval of ANC 3F expense (7:05)
– Wix website
– personnel tax payments
III. Regular Agenda – Commissioner Updates and Announcements (7:07pm-7:17pm)
IV. Regular Agenda – Committee Reports (7:18pm – 7:28pm)
● Streets & Sidewalks
● Parks & Watersheds
● Schools & Universities
● Housing & Neighborhoods
V. Regular Agenda – Community Forum (community leaders and agencies give brief updates) (7:29 – 7:39pm)
● University of the District of Columbia
● Van Ness Main Street
● Ward 3 Councilmember Matt Frumin’s Office
● Other updates
VI. Regular Agenda – Information Items (ANC 3F will not take a vote on these items) (7:40pm – 8:21pm)
● MPD Update with Lt. Bredet Williams (7:40pm – 8:00pm)
● DC Water Update with Emmanuel Briggs (8:01pm – 8:21pm)
● ANC 3F01 candidate introductions with Marilyn Slatnick and Leroy Fykes
(8:22pm – 8:32pm)
● Special Exception for 2726 Brandywine Street, NW (8:33pm-8:43pm)
● Special Exception for the Sheridan School (8:44pm – 8:54pm)
VII. Regular Agenda – Action Items (ANC 3F will take a vote on these items) (8:54pm – 9:13pm)
● Permit for zoning relief required to construct a new D.C. Archives building on UDC’s Van Ness Campus with State Archivist and Public Records Administrator for DC, Dr. Lopez Matthews (8:54pm – 9:13pm)
VIII. Adjournment (9:14pm)
Thank you for joining us this evening.
3F01 residents, please vote for your next Commissioner on Saturday, Oct 14, 11am-3pm at UDC.
The next ANC 3F meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2023.
Green Eyeshades says
The formal application to the Zoning Commission to approve the demolition of UDC Building 41 was filed on June 9, 2023 by the DC Department of General Services (DGS), acting as “agent” for UDC. The Zoning Commission’s “case summary” describes the application, in part, as follows:
“Campus Plan Amendment & Further Processing of Bldg. 41 for D.C. Archives project, 4200 Connecticut Ave. NW ….”
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Home/ViewCase?case_id=20-33B
The Zoning Commission has a very helpful docket of exhibits filed in that case:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibitsReport.aspx?case_id=20-33B
For convenience, choose the option to “View 100 entries” in the upper-left corner.
The law firm for DGS filed 14 exhibits on June 9, 2023 to begin the case, including a cover letter (Exhibit 2), a statement in support (Exhibit 3) and twelve attachments to Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 3 is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=313141
On page 14 of Exhibit 3, the law firm for DGS wrote the following:
“I. Referral to the District of Columbia Office of Planning, District Department of
Transportation, and the Department of Energy and Environment (Subtitle X Section
101.13)
“The Applicant has met with OP [DC Office of Planning] and DDOT. The Application will be referred to all three agencies for their review and report.”
The face of the 6/9/23 statement in support from the law firm for DGS admits that DGS or its lawyers did NOT meet with DOEE.
On 9/1/23, the law firm for DGS filed Exhibit 23, which is a supplemental statement in support of the application. Exhibit 23 is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=321068
Exhibit 23, p.1, says this about obtaining review and reports from agencies other than DC government agencies:
“The Applicant is enclosing revised architectural plans (the ‘Revised Plans’) at Tab A. The Revised Plans primarily reflect changes to the Project design that are responsive to comments from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (‘CFA’) and National Capital Planning Commission (‘NCPC’). The Applicant’s agency outreach, including to CFA and NCPC, is detailed in Section III below.”
Section III of the supplemental statement filed 9/1/23 is on Exhibit 23, p.3. It states as follows:
“III. Update on Agency Outreach
“As outlined in the application, the Project is subject to review by CFA and NCPC. The Applicant presented the Project to CFA at its public meeting on June 15, 2023. After receiving comments, the Applicant revised the plans and presented to CFA for a second time on July 20, 2023. Following the second meeting, CFA approved the concept submission for the Project. A copy of the CFA approval letter is attached at Tab C.
“The Applicant also presented the Project to NCPC at its public meeting on July 6, 2023. While the Project was well received, NCPC requested additional information from the Applicant. Accordingly, the Applicant intends to make a follow-up presentation to NCPC in Fall 2023.”
The DC Office of Planning (OP) filed its report on 9/8/23, a week after the law firm filed the supplemental statement, so the 9/1/23 supplemental statement from the law firm is silent about what OP reported. Recall that the law firm admitted on 6/9/23 that the application would be referred to OP, DDOT and DOEE “for their review and report.”
OP reported on 9/8/23 (Exhibit 26) and DDOT reported on 9/11/23 (Exhibit 29).
Exhibit 26 (OP Report) is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=321616
Exhibit 29 (DDOT Report) is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=321748
As of September 14 (yesterday), DOEE had not filed its report, although OP included about a page and one-half of statements from DOEE in the OP report filed on 9/8/23 (Exhibit 26, pp.13-15).
As the law firm for DGS stated above, it met with OP and DDOT, but the law firm never met with DOEE. Because OP’s report and DDOT’s report both came after the law firm’s 9/1/23 supplemental statement, the law firm for DGS has still not given its “Update on Agency Outreach” or any other response to OP’s report, DDOT’s report or DOEE’s statements to OP contained in the OP report.
DOEE’s statements to OP about the demolition of UDC Building 41 and building an entirely new structure to replace it will be described in another comment.
Green Eyeshades says
As will become clear in a later comment, this particular portion of the statement in support of the DGS application to the Zoning Commission is reformatted to show that the law firm cited what looks like a section of law:
On page 14 of Exhibit 3, the law firm for DGS wrote the following:
“I. Referral to the District of Columbia Office of Planning, District Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy and Environment (Subtitle X § [Section] 101.13)
““The Applicant has met with OP [DC Office of Planning] and DDOT. The Application will be referred to ALL THREE AGENCIES for their review and report.” [all capitals added]
Green Eyeshades says
Thanks to Forest Hills Connection for allowing commentary about the Zoning Commission case concerning the demolition of UDC Building 41, which ANC3F will vote on next week. ANC3F’s website is essentially incapable of providing information to the neighborhood, including information about the possible demolition of UDC Building 41.
On September 8, 2023 (last Friday), the DC Office of Planning (OP) reported comments and analysis from DC’s Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) about the proposal to demolish UDC Building 41 and build an entirely new structure.
DOEE’s views were revealed in the “OP Report” filed by the Office of Planning as Exhibit 26 to the Zoning Commission case about UDC Building 41.
Exhibit 26 (the OP Report) is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=321616
At the end of Exhibit 26, from the last line on page 13 through the middle of page 15, the Office of Planning paraphrases the DOEE’s views about the plan for UDC Building 41. As of late Friday afternoon, September 15, 2023, DOEE has not filed its own “report” to the Zoning Commission.
DOEE notified OP of, and provided a link to, a law passed by DC Council in 2022 officially named the “Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022,” which is posted on DC Council’s website here:
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-306
In parts of the OP Report filed 9/8/23, the name of that law is abbreviated into the “Greener Government Buildings Act.”
DOEE told the Office of Planning that the new law will be fully funded and in effect starting October first, and that the proposed demolition of UDC Building 41 and construction of an all-new replacement does not comply with that law.
In the first paragraph on page 14 of Exhibit 26, the Office of Planning wrote as follows:
“DOEE believes that, based on the information available in the applicant’s exhibits, the project does not appear to comply with the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022, which requires District-owned and financed new construction and substantial improvement projects to be all-electric and adhere to net-zero energy (NZE) standards. According to this law, the project must be designed to comply with Appendix Z of the DC Energy Conservation Code, which is the District’s current, voluntary NZE building code. The law also prohibits the project from installing building systems that combust fossil fuels on-site (i.e., the building must be all electric), with the exception of backup power generators.”
Paragraph two on page 14 of Exhibit 26 (the OP Report) reads as follows:
“The Greener Government Buildings Act has been funded in the FY24 Budget Support Act, meaning it will be applicable beginning October 1, 2023. The law does not currently have any transitory provisions allowing for a phase-in of enforcement. DOEE is not responsible for enforcement of this law but cautions that the applicant may be unable to obtain a building permit from DOB if they cannot demonstrate that the building complies with the NZE standard.”
Paragraphs four and five on page 14 of Exhibit 26 read as follows:
“Embodied Carbon Impact – Adaptive Reuse and Deconstruction”
“The proposal to demolish the existing building and construct an entirely new building will have a far greater environmental impact than any of the three potential outcomes for Building 41 envisioned on the current UDC Campus Plan. The three current options involve adaptively reusing the Building 41, which would drastically reduce the project’s embodied carbon footprint. Embodied carbon is the sum of all greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the construction of buildings, including materials and construction activities. It is estimated that 23% of the world’s GHG emissions result from construction. Most of these embodied emissions are associated with the production and use of concrete and steel, common structural elements.
“DOEE acknowledges the applicant’s commitment to sustainable design strategies and LEED Gold certification, but notes that even a high-performance new construction project will take decades before the operational energy savings outweigh the upfront impacts of the building’s construction and demolition of the existing building. DOEE encourages the applicant to conduct a life-cycle analysis (LCA) to measure the impact of the proposed project and to explore strategies to reduce the project’s upfront embodied carbon impact. The following report from a DOEE grantee is an excellent local example of an LCA comparing the impacts of renovating vs. demolishing and rebuilding a DCPL library:”
Page 15 of Exhibit 26 links to this external document, but do not click on the PDF link unless you are prepared to download a 2.4 megabyte file:
“Embodied Carbon Life Cycle Assessment for Southeast Neighborhood Library by Quinn Evans”
https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/SE%20DC%20Library%20LCA%20Grant%20Final%20Report.pdf
Green Eyeshades says
The example of a Life-Cycle Analysis given by DOEE at the end of its report to the Office of Planning (end of OP Report, Exhibit 26) is a 55-page deck of slides created by the architecture and preservationist firm Quinn Evans. The slide deck uses many obscure acronyms, but only two need to be defined for this comment — “GWP” and “EPD.” GWP means Global Warming Potential and EPD means Environmental Product Declarations, according to a source recommended by Quinn Evans.
The recommendations from Quinn Evans include the following (parts of slides 49 & 50), which may interest the Commissioners of ANC3F as they deliberate over their vote on the demolition of UDC Building 41 and construction of an all-new structure for the DC Archive, scheduled for September 19, 2023:
“Designers
“1. ***
“2. Reuse existing buildings wherever possible, particularly the structure.
“3. Use as little new material as possible: right-size, limit waste.
“4. Focus on Concrete Improvements or Alternatives: Include performance based GWP targets in the concrete spec. Work with local contractors and suppliers to help communicate the importance.
“5. ***
“Policy Makers –How can we make this standard practice faster?
“1. Reference other jurisdictions that require low carbon concrete (Marin County for example)
“2. Carbon Leadership has great tools for policy makers https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-policy-toolkit/
“3.Require GWP of the mix designs (either calculated or verified EPD) to be submitted as part of permit.
“4. ***
“5. Start with big projects and/or DC funded.”
The Quinn Evans recommendation to consult the tools for policy makers from the Carbon Leadership Forum links to a “Policy Toolkit” created by the Carbon Leadership Forum at the University of Washington in Seattle, WA.
The home page for the Carbon Leadership Forum’s Policy Toolkit is here:
https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-policy-toolkit/
The first tool, “Embodied Carbon 101,” is here:
https://carbonleadershipforum.org/embodied-carbon-101/
“Embodied Carbon 101” is a tutorial on basic concepts underlying the kind of Life-Cycle Analysis that DOEE urged the Office of Planning and Department of General Services to perform for reusing UDC Building 41 and/or building a possible replacement.
Here are some basic concepts presented in the “Embodied Carbon 101” tool:
“Understanding Embodied Carbon”
“Measuring embodied carbon”
“In the building industry, embodied carbon refers to the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials. In contrast, operational carbon refers to the greenhouse gas emissions due to building energy consumption.
“In order to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential effects on climate change, scientists use a method called life cycle assessment (LCA) to track the emissions produced over the full life cycle of a product or process. These emissions are converted into metrics that reflect their potential effects on the environment. One of these metrics is global warming potential (GWP), which is quantified in kilograms of CO2 equivalent (kg CO2e). This quantity is also commonly referred to as a carbon footprint.”
Another tool in the Carbon Leadership Forum’s toolkit is “Steps to Develop a Buy Clean Policy” for government procurement:
https://carbonleadershipforum.org/steps-to-develop-a-buy-clean-policy/
That tool explains some aspects of a “Buy Clean Policy” this way:
“Buy Clean legislation varies widely depending on its geographic and political context. Geographically, the carbon footprint of materials and availability of embodied carbon disclosure data varies widely due primarily to the carbon intensity of the energy available in the region (for local products); and the quantity of environmental product declarations (EPDs) available in the region to set global warming potential (GWP) standards. GWP targets are measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2eq) per functional unit of product. See Embodied Carbon 101 for additional guidance.
“City, state, and federal agencies can all implement Buy Clean type procurement policies, but they all have different project types, purchasing power, incentive levers, and environmental data availability that will influence the scope of policy. A federal Buy Clean program may have more funding available to incentivize research, whereas a state Buy Clean program may be able to set regionally appropriate GWP targets earlier.”
Green Eyeshades says
Two weeks ago, a group of DC consultants known as the “Archives Advisory Group” (created by DC Council in 2021) filed a statement with the Zoning Commission asking to be treated as a party to the case in support of demolishing UDC Building 41. Exhibit 25 (filed 9/6/23). The seven-page statement included a list of witnesses who would testify on behalf of Archives Advisory Group, including an architect, a historian and a person identified as the chair of Archives Advisory Group. Exhibit 25, p.2.
The Archives Advisory Group request for party status filed 9/6/23 was signed by the person identified as chair of that Group, and previewed the expert testimony of the architect in this way: “[the expert] will present his opinion on the difficulties of converting Building 41 into residential or dormitory uses and the impacts renovation would have on the campus, irrespective of demolition.” Exhibit 25, p.2.
However, only three days before the Zoning Commission hearing scheduled for September 21, 2023, the Archives Advisory Group withrew its request for party status in a single page filing giving no explanation for the reasons it was withdrawing. Exhibit 35, filed 9/18/23. Because it was as brief as possible (and not signed by the chair of that Group), there was no information about what would happen to the proposed expert testimony by the architect, who supposedly would have given an opinion about “the difficulties of converting Building 41 into residential or dormitory uses and the impacts renovation would have on the campus, irrespective of demolition.”
Then, today, one day before the hearing, the person who had been identified as the chair of Archives Advisory Group in Exhibits 25 and 35 filed her own, separate statement in support of demolition of UDC Building 41, speaking only for herself and not for Archives Advisory Group. Exhibit 63 (filed 9/20/23).
Exhibit 63 is here (you can display the exhibit without downloading the PDF):
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=322554
The separate statement by the chair of Archives Advisory Group admits that DC’s Department of General Services (DGS) “concluded that only the structure of Building 41 could be preserved.” Exhibit 63, p.2, first complete paragraph (all capitals added). That admission directly contradicts claims made by various UDC officials in various public meetings hosted by ANC3F that Building 41 must be destroyed because it is structurally unsound. There is no need to demolish Building 41 for structural reasons.
The chair of that Group also expressly agreed with “DOEE’s recommendation that DGS perform a lifecycle carbon analysis as early as possible and use that to identify ways to reduce embodied and operational energy.” Exhibit 62, p.2, second complete paragraph. That paragraph quotes comments from another member of Archives Advisory Group, but does not cite the source for those comments. Those comments by the other member of that Group include the assertion that “DGS has made only vague promises of sustainability appropriate for 2026.
Perhaps more importantly, the chair of that Group expressly agreed that any new DC Archives “building should be designed to the standard of the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022 ….” Exhibit 62, p. 2, second complete paragraph.
But it is quite clear from DOEE’s report to the Office of Planning (OP) quoted in my comments last Friday that the law firm for DGS NEVER MET WITH DOEE to discuss the requirements of the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act, and that DOEE expressly told OP (which OP reported to the Zoning Commission) that “the project does not appear to comply with the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022, which requires District-owned and financed new construction and substantial improvement projects to be all-electric and adhere to net-zero energy (NZE) standards. According to this law, the project must be designed to comply with Appendix Z of the DC Energy Conservation Code, which is the District’s current, voluntary NZE building code. The law also prohibits the project from installing building systems that combust fossil fuels on-site (i.e., the building must be all electric), with the exception of backup power generators.”
And DOEE stated further ““The proposal to demolish the existing building and construct an entirely new building will have a far greater environmental impact than any of the three potential outcomes for Building 41 envisioned on the current UDC Campus Plan. The three current options involve adaptively reusing the Building 41, which would drastically reduce the project’s embodied carbon footprint.”
It appears that members of Archives Advisory Group thought (or still think) that compliance with the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act is a matter of expert opinion, or is somehow optional. It is not optional. It is mandatory, beginning October 1, 2023. And the project proposed by DGS currently before the Zoning Commission will be unlawful as of October 1, 2023.
Green Eyeshades says
Today, September 20, a fourteen page exhibit was filed in opposition to demolition of UDC Building 41 as one of three dozen exhibits filed just today (33 in opposition). That fourteen page exhibit (Exhibit 75) stated the following on pages 3-4:
“III. The ANC should not be given ‘great weight’ in this decision
“ANC3F has consistently refused to include the public or students in their
deliberations.
“Many, many letters were sent to ANC3F members in opposition to this plan but
received no response.
“Requests for in-person meetings with ANC Commissioners were ignored.
ANC Commissioners refused to put students on the agenda of their ‘public
meeting’ on September 6th, although students, including the president of the
Graduate Student Government Association, John Irungu, attended an ANC
meeting specifically to ask.
“The ANC delayed the election for the open seat for ANC3F01 until ‘after all this is over,’ eliminating the possibility that the candidate in opposition to the Building 41 plan could vote against the plan at the ANC meeting on September 19th.
‘In a lengthy interview with Commissioner James Tandaric on August 4th, he and I
agreed that I would be the incoming chair of the ANC Schools & Universities
Committee. It was to be announced at a committee meeting on August 29th.
After requesting to the ANC that students be put on the agenda of the September
6th “public meeting,’ my appointment was put ‘on hold,’ and the agenda item
where my appointment was to be announced was skipped over.
“At the ANC meeting on September 19th, the ANC voted on the demolition plan
After the vote, Avis Russell, the general counsel for UDC offered to write a
resolution for the ANC relating to the Building 41 plan. The ANC agreed, in a
clear conflict of interest. When elected officials become a mouthpiece of those in
power, they are no longer representing their constituents.”
If and when ANC3F posts the YouTube video of last night’s monthly meeting, I will link to it in a reply to this comment. The most recent video posted on ANC3F’s YouTube channel is the video of its special meeting on September 6:
https://www.youtube.com/@advisoryneighborhoodcommis188
Green Eyeshades says
ANC3F continues to refuse to make the YouTube video of its September 19 meeting available on its own website or on its YouTube channel (42 hours and counting since that meeting ended), possibly in order to frustrate any effort to expose to the Zoning Commission the improper conduct by UDC’s general counsel and ANC3F itself at that meeting. The Zoning Commission hearing is going on now, and is available on YouTube as a commenter on another blogpost pointed out this morning:
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/why-build-a-dc-archives-instead-of-student-housing-at-udcs-building-41-a-sept-6-meeting-sought-to-provide-answers/#comment-707795
Whatever ANC3F may have done at its September 19 meeting to allow a party to the Zoning Commission case (UDC) to draft an official document to be filed with the Zoning Commission, it is now obvious that the “report” filed by ANC3F with the Zoning Commission was not drafted by UDC’s general counsel. ANC3F’s “report” is Exhibit 86, filed today. Exhibit 86 is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=322719
Time will tell if ANC3F attempts to file with the Zoning Commission a longer “resolution” or other writing drafted for ANC3F by UDC’s general counsel approving of the demolition of UDC Building 41.
But at this moment, ANC3F has filed only a rudimentary, handwritten, “report” on a form created by the Zoning Commission (Form 129) for ANCs to support or oppose a request pending before the Zoning Commission. The single page, handwritten Form 129 filed by ANC3F as Exhibit 86 states the following, and only the following, as its “recommendation” to the Zoning Commission:
“The ANC voted in favor of ZC20-33B and supports the case.” The vote was reported as “5-0-0.”
Green Eyeshades says
YouTube video of ANC3F’s monthly meeting on September 19, 2023 was not posted until the evening of Monday, September 25, six days after that meeting ended:
Green Eyeshades says
The Department of General Services (DGS) has just admitted, through its law firm, that it cannot comply with (obey) the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022. That admission appears at pages 4-5 of “Applicant’s Post-Hearing Submission” which is Exhibit 90 in the Zoning Commission’s docket.
Exhibit 90 is here: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=323947
Page four of that post-hearing submission begins the discussion of the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022 this way:
“During the hearing, there were questions raised regarding the applicability of the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022 (the ‘Act’) to the Project. The Applicant testified that it is working with its Office of General Counsel to assess whether the legislation applies; however, the Project presents unique challenges to meet the requirements of the Act as it pertains to ‘net zero’ energy standard. The Commission requested follow up information on these factors.”
On page five, the law firm for DGS then argued that Net Zero Energy (NZE) would be achieved by three different methods, then immediately stated that DGS could not perform any of those three methods:
The three methods for achieving NZE are, according to the law firm for DGS, “(1) Installing Geothermal Wells, (2) Installing Solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels and, (3) Eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
“However, there is insufficient space to install geothermal wells within the Project area that is controlled by the Applicant.” [snip]
“While the Project will be incorporating PV [photo-voltaic, i.e., solar] panels, the number of PV panels needed would require seven times more square foot area than is available within the footprint of the building.
“Finally, eliminating the use of fossil fuels would not result in energy savings. The Act references Appendix Z to the D.C. Energy Conservation Code. The intent of Appendix Z is to reduce energy consumption as much as possible by utilizing geothermal and water-source heat pumps. Since geothermal cannot be used, the building requires large boilers for heating. Gas-powered boilers are more energy efficient and are a more sustainable solution than electric boilers. DGS’s Sustainability and Energy Management Division (DGS-SE) concurs with this assessment that using electric boilers would increase energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and long-term electricity costs. In this situation, the use of fossil fuels is actually more energy efficient for the Project.
“The Applicant will work with DOEE to review the above factors and the Act and request the Commission defer any issues regarding the Act to DOEE and permit any flexibility required by DOEE.”
Exhibit 90, pages 4-5.
Notice the element missing from this long-winded list of convoluted excuses?
The missing element is CARBON. In six pages of single-spaced text, the law firm for DGS does not mention the word “carbon” even once in its post-hearing submission (Exhibit 90). Same for its initial statement in support filed in June (Exhibit 3): not one mention of “carbon” in fifteen single-spaced pages.
The Office of Planning (OP), however, did quote DOEE’s numerous mentions of “carbon” in pages 14-15 of the OP Report (Exhibit 26) filed September 8, beginning with this sentence in the middle of page 14:
“All-electric, net-zero energy buildings are essential for the District to achieve its climate commitment to be carbon neutral by 2045.”
“Carbon neutral.” That is the goal and the District’s commitment. To get there, new buildings must be net-zero energy (NZE). In order to be “carbon neutral by 2045.”
DOEE then referred half a dozen times to “embodied carbon” or “embodied emissions,” as my previous comment at 5:05 pm on September 15 demonstrated. But in its post-hearing submission, the law firm for DGS acts as if it never heard or saw the word “carbon” and thinks “energy savings” is the goal rather than becoming “carbon neutral.”
Also notice that DGS does not claim through its lawyers that it is exempt from the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act. It merely claims it is “working with” its own in-house general counsel to form an opinion “whether the legislation applies.” This is extraordinary obfuscation. DOEE has already informed Office of Planning (OP), and through OP the Zoning Commission, that the “legislation” most certainly DOES apply.
It is obvious that DGS is flim-flamming the Zoning Commission because DGS used this weasel phrase: “request the Commission defer any issues regarding the Act to DOEE ….” DGS wants DOEE to become responsible for DGS’s failure to obey the law. But that’s not how the law works. And DOEE already told OP that DOEE does not enforce that law.
The law applies to any DC government agency constructing a brand new building. The law applies to DGS if it demolishes Building 41 and tries to build an all-new structure in its place. The law is not optional. DOEE can’t give DGS an exemption from that law.
DGS has no defenses to its failure to comply with the law. If it had any defenses, it would have raised them in this post-hearing submission. The Zoning Commission should reject the DGS application to demolish Building 41.