On October 17th, we reported that the DC Archives at UDC was winning the Zoning Commission’s approval. We based the report on an official-looking filing. Closer inspection revealed that what looked like an official draft order was actually added to the record by the law firm representing the applicant, the Department of General Services.
While we were taken in by the filing, we bear full responsibility and apologize for the error. And we thank the readers who brought this to our attention.
We asked the director of Zoning Commission, Sara Bardin, whether this is typical. She said anyone can write a draft order and include it in the filings, and that the Zoning Commission letterhead has been used in the past for draft orders. It is a statement of what the applicant “believes” to have transpired.
Bardin reiterated more than once that Zoning Commission will not make a decision until its October 26th hearing. The commission’s legal team will draft the official order using the material presented in the filings and testimony.
Find all the documents and testimony filed in the case here.
Discover more from Forest Hills Connection | News and Life in Our DC Neighborhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Carren Kaston says
Thanks for sending out this clarification/additional information on this important subject.
Helen Urquhart says
Thanks for the informaton about the putting putting the’archives in our local university–. Yes an arc hives would be a good employer but UDC might be a good pace to prepare students for a career…
We need our UDC !
Kesh Ladduwahetty says
Thanks, FHC, for the prompt retraction & correction!
In sharp contrast to FHC, ANC 3F has not yet taken action to correct its misleading October 13 email linking to this documen,t with no explanation as to its source and meaning. Many residents on the 3F email list will continue to believe that the Zoning Commission has issued its order. Now that Marilyn Slatnick has been elected ANC 3F01 commissioner, I hope future communications of the ANC will be accurate.
I also find it bizarre that project applicants can issue draft orders of the Zoning Commission (ZC) — even on official ZC letterhead! It may be past practice, but it is not only confusing to the public, it encourages laziness on the part of the Zoning Commission. Will the ZC simply copy & paste the applicant’s draft order? We’ll have to wait and see.
Caroline Petti says
Considering 1) the seriousness of the climate change issue, 2) the fact that new construction and buildings represent most of DC’s contribution to climate change emissions, 3) Mayor Bowser’s stated commitment to climate leadership, and 4) UDC’s stated commitment to being a model of urban sustainability, it’s disappointing how anemic (even hostile) DGS has been in its willingness to incorporate robust environmental measures into their new Archives project. Especially concerning when one considers what a high-profile project the Archives is. Even now, DGS is fighting to get out of applicable DC laws for Greener Government buildings.
Folks may be interested in my recent testimony to the Zoning Commission on this subject: https://bit.ly/ClimateFriendlyArchives
We can, and we must, do better and I can’t think of a better place to start.
Green Eyeshades says
The law firm for DC’s Department of General Services (DGS) filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on October 12, 2023. The proposed order is Exhibit 92, which is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/CaseReport/ViewExhibit.aspx?exhibitId=324194
As we know, DGS is acting as the “Applicant” in the Zoning Commission case, possibly because DGS will be responsible for demolition of UDC Building 41 if the Zoning Commission approves demolition. Or possibly because DGS will be responsible for supervising construction of an all-new building for the DC Archives. Or possibly both.
It is probably common for an applicant to give the Zoning Commission a draft of the order they want the commission to issue. I didn’t bother checking the law firm’s citations to the various rules of practice & procedure adopted by the Office of Zoning and the Zoning Commission.
DGS and UDC look like weasels in Exhibit 92 because the identity of the “applicant” is described in totally contradictory ways. The transmittal letter (page one of Exhibit 92) states “On behalf of the Applicant D.C. Department of General Services (the ‘Applicant’), please find enclosed the Applicant’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.” (Exhibit 92 p.1.)
Similarly, on the first page of the proposed order, the law firm for DGS describes “the application (the ‘Application’) of D.C. Department of General Services (‘Applicant’), on behalf of the University of the District of Columbia (‘UDC’) ….” (Exhibit 92, p.3.)
But in paragraph numbered 2 on that same first page of the draft order, the law firm states the following:
“The Applicant is pursuing the Project on behalf of its client-agency, D.C. Office of Public Records (‘OPR’). OPR is a division of the D.C. Office of the Secretary ….” (Exhibit 92, p.3).
According to its website, the formal name of OPR is the Office of Public Records and Archives:
https://os.dc.gov/page/office-public-records-and-archives
Suddenly, OPR and the Office of the Secretary of DC are now the main beneficiaries of the Project, not UDC! It appears that UDC no longer wants to be considered the “client-agency.” Instead, OPR (including DC Archives) have been magically put in UDC’s place.
This could be an innocent adjustment in the posture of the Zoning Commission case, to prepare for possible court appeals of whatever orders the Zoning Commission issues. UDC might only be trying to avoid responsibility for defending appeals. But UDC is obviously washing its hands of some part of this case, even if we can’t see which part right now.
At the same time, the law firm for DGS is also weaseling out of admitting that DOEE was right to tell the Office of Planning that demolition would violate the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act. This sentence is buried in a very long paragraph 15 on page 20 of the proposed order:
“The Commission defers to DOEE on the applicability of the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022.” (Exhibit 92, p.20.)
In lawyer talk, that is an admission and an avoidance. The DGS no longer claims that the DGS Office of General Counsel is forming an opinion whether that law applies to the Project. The DGS essentially admits that DOEE is correct, that the law applies to the Project, and the Project violates that law if DGS builds an entirely new building as described in the architectural plans. DGS is tossing into the Zoning Commission’s lap the many problems created by DOEE’s conclusion that the project violates that law.
So whether or not UDC is trying to wash its hands of the Project, DGS is quite clearly washing its hands of any responsibility for complying with the Greener Government Buildings Amendment Act of 2022.
Green Eyeshades says
The Zoning Commission took what it called “Final Action” on the UDC Building 41 issues today, October 26. The video of the Commission’s meeting is here:
https://play.champds.com/dczoning/event/986/s/765
At least three of the commissioners expressed skepticism about the placement, sun exposure and accessibility of the proposed replacement square footage for the community garden. One commissioner expressed skepticism about UDC’s compliance with its duty to hold quarterly meetings with the community regarding the community garden. The commissioners stated they would work with counsel for the Zoning Commission to develop the terms of their order regarding those issues.
Other than those few issues, the Zoning Commission approved the application by the Department of General Services (DGS) to demolish Building 41 and replace it with an all-new structure. No written order has been issued yet, according to the home page (master index) for the case, which is here:
https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Home/ViewCase?case_id=20-33B