Francis Gregory Cost Benefit Analysis

Francis Gregory Library
3660 Alabama Avenue. SE, Washington, DC
Facility Condition Assessment & Cost Benefit Analysis

May 2, 2008
Prepared for
Prepared by
The Argos Group Wiencek + Associates Architects + Planners DC, LLP

631 D Street NW, Suite 638, Washington, D.C. 20004 1814 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
WIENCEK + ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS DC, LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 1

ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER STATEMENT....................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION I – PROJECT SUMMARY
EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................................3
EXISTING SPACE BREAKDOWN ..........................................................................................................................................4
SECTION II – METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 9
SECTION III – REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. SITE IMPROVEMENT.................................................................................................................................................11
2. FACILITY STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................................21
3. NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS .......................................................................................................................28
4. SERVICE SYSTEMS....................................................................................................................................................38
5. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................53
6. ENVIRONMENTAL.....................................................................................................................................................55
7. SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................59
SECTION IV – MAJOR SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE COST EVALUATION .......................................................................... 60
SECTION V – FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST EVALUATION ............................................................................... .63
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Argos Group and Wiencek + Associates Architects + Planners, DC, LLP conducted a Facility Condition Assessment of the Francis Gregory
Library to determine the best use for the facility. The options under consideration were 1) demolition of the facility and 2) renovation of the
facility, in whole or in part.
Our assessment followed a four-step process: 1) Baseline Data Collection, 2) Facilities Inspection, 3) Analysis and Reporting, 4) Reports and
Recommendations.
The results of the assessment show that the facility is in poor condition, the building systems are outdated, and the building does not meet current
building codes and ADA requirements for a public facility. It was determined the building is not energy efficient and requires substantial
modifications to bring it up to current building standards. In addition, the Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) identified several potential
lead and asbestos-containing materials. Our assessment determined that the cost to bring the facility up to code compliance and to current design
standards is high in relationship to the cost of building a new facility.
Based on the high replacement cost and poor condition of the building, we recommend that the District of Columbia Public Library pursue the
design and construction of a new building to replace the Francis Gregory Library.
Page 1
ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER STATEMENT
The purpose of this report is to provide a written opinion regarding the condition of various physical, functional, and environmental components
of the Francis Gregory Library. Specific attention was directed toward major work items that in our opinion represent existing or potential
problems or defects in the site, design, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems, or the site layout and configuration.
This report was assembled following a visit to the site and visual observation of the grounds and various public spaces. Additional information
was gathered through conversations with management and maintenance personnel.
This report intends to represent our professional opinion of the condition of the project and the component parts to which reference is made as
seen on the dates of our visits. No physical demolition of the structure was conducted, and it was not possible or feasible to remove portions of
the construction in order to expose concealed and, therefore, hidden conditions. Similarly, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment and
systems were not shut down or disassembled for detailed inspection or review
Therefore, this report does not constitute a representation or warranty of such conditions and should not be viewed or construed as such. It does
reflect our professional opinion as stated in this report and as qualified above.
Page 2
SECTION I
PROJECT SUMMARY
Existing Conditions
Project Name: Francis Gregory Public Library
Location: 3660 Alabama Avenue. SE

Washington, D.C.
Year Constructed: Circa 1961
Number of Stories: Two (2) stories and basement
Current Applicable Codes:
Building: IBC, 2003 Electrical: NFPA

DCMR Supplement NEC, 1996
DEMR-2003, Existing Building Code DCMR Supplement
Mechanical: IMC, 2003 Energy: IECC, 2000

DCMR Supplement DCMR Supplement
Plumbing: IPC, 2003 Fire: IFC, 2000

DCMR Supplement DCMR Supplement
Accessibility: ANSI A117, 1998

DCMR Supplement
Page 3
Existing Space Breakdown
Note: all square footages are approximate
Page 4
Page 5
1. Site:
COMPONENT TYPE AGE

a) Parking lot Asphalt Original/re-sealed
b) Driveway Concrete Original
c) Sidewalk Concrete Original
d) Retaining Wall Concrete Original
e) Retaining Wall Brick on CMU Original
f) Guardrails Painted Steel Original
g) Handrails None N/A
h) Storm Water Drainage Underground with inlets Original
i) Landscaping Grass areas, miscellaneous shrubs and small caliper trees Original
j) Dumpster Enclosure None
2. Facility Structure:
COMPONENT TYPE AGE

a) Exterior Wall Face brick over CMU Original
b) Floor Deck Reinforced Concrete Slab Original
c) Floor Structure Reinforced Concrete Joist, Beam and Column Original
d) Roof Deck Reinforced Concrete Slab Original
e) Roof Framing Reinforced Concrete Joist, Beam and Column Original
f) Roofing Material Membrane Roofing with Aggregate Ballast 2 Years
g) Roof Drainage Internal Cast Iron Original
h) Stairs Steel Original
i) Building Insulation None N/A

3. Non-Structural Systems:
COMPONENT TYPE AGE

a) Windows Single Pane Aluminum Awning Original
b) Storefront Entry Glass/Single Pane Aluminum Original
c) Doors Hollow Metal Steel Original
d) Interior Walls Painted CMU Original
e) Ceiling Suspended Acoustical Ceiling Tile and Painted Drywall 1-2 Years
f) Flooring Vinyl Composition Tile Original
g) Flooring Ceramic Tile 5 Years
h) Restroom None ADA Compliant Original
4. Service Systems:
COMPONENT TYPE AGE

Conveying System
a) Elevator Hydraulic Renovated/1 Year
b) Elevator Machine 1 Year
Note: Elevator recently upgraded with new cab finish over existing cab and new equipment with auto recall.
Elevator is not ADA Compliant
HVAC
a) Boiler Gas Fired Steam 5 Years
b) Chiller Air Cooled Chilled Water 7 Years
c) Distribution Piping Insulated Steel Original
Plumbing
a) Domestic Water Copper Original
b) Waste Galvanized and Cast Iron Original
c) Boiler Gas Fired 4-12 Years
Page 7
d) Gas Distribution Black Steel Original
COMPONENT TYPE AGE
Electric
a) Main Service 600 amps, 208/120 volts, 3 phase, 4 wire Original
b) Feeders and Branch Copper in concealed Conduit Original
Wirings
5. Fire and Emergency Systems:
COMPONENT TYPE AGE

a) Fire Sprinkler None N/A
b) Fire Alarm System Line Voltage None Addressable Original
c) Emergency Power None N/A
d) Emergency Lights Battery power 2 years
6. Environmental:
COMPONENT TYPE AGE

a) Asbestos Floor tile mastic, pipe insulation Original
b) Lead Paint Wall paint New over original
c) UST N/A Removed
Page 8
SECTION II
METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
For analysis purposes, we have divided the facility into six (6) distinct categories. Each category has a maximum point value in the assessment of
the facility as follows:
BUILDING ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES
CATEGORY COMPONENT EXAMPLE MAXIMUM POINTS

1. Site Improvements Parking structures, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, 5 Points
utilities, exterior lighting, life safety (exterior),
landscape.
2. Facility Structure Foundations, structural members, slab-on-grade, 35 Points
building envelope, masonry, curtain walls, building
roof, canopies, terraces, balconies, stairs, floors
(structural), walls (structural).
3. Non-Structural Components Windows, miscellaneous metals, floors, interior 10 Points

walls (non-structural), partition systems, ceilings.
4. Service Systems HVAC, plumbing, electrical, vertical/horizontal 35 Points

transportation.
5. Fire Detection and Emergency Systems Fire alarm system, sprinkler system. 10 Points
6. Environmental Phase I and Phase II if required 5 Points
Total Possible Points 100 Points
Page 9
Each of the six categories were evaluated based on the relationship between estimated value and repair/replacement cost. The analysis
technique is shown below:
REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COST ANALYSIS TABLE
Excellent-Satisfactory-Suitable Continued normal use - no repairs required. 95-100 %

In need of alterations or repairs not greater than 25% of the
Good-Adequate 75-94 %
Estimated Value.
Not adequate, in need of repairs not greater than 50% of the
Fair 55-74 %
Estimated Value.
In need of major repairs no greater than 75% of the Estimated
Poor-Deficient 35-54 %
Value.
In need of complete replacement, if repairs are greater than 75%
Failing-Unsatisfactory 0-34 %
of Estimated Value.
The point value generated for each component within a Building Assessment Category is the basis for developing the Repair/Replacement Cost
Analysis. The Repair/Replacement Cost Analysis shows the condition of the different categories of the facility with respect to estimated value.
Once a particular piece of equipment or part of the building is evaluated using the Repair/Replacement Cost Analysis, the information is
“weighted” by multiplying the Maximum Point value according to the Building Assessment Categories. As an example:
A boiler is inspected and assessed to be in “Good-Adequate” condition and is given a score of 75% according to the Repair/Replacement Cost
Analysis table above. Because the boiler is part of the mechanical equipment, it is classified as a component in the “Service Systems” category
and carries a weight of 35 points in the overall assessment of the facility. The assessment of the boiler is as follows:
Boiler = Good Adequate 75% X 35 Points = 26.25 points
When the components in each category are evaluated and weighted, the average of all components generates a total score for the category.
The final building score shown on the Summary Form in Section III is achieved by evaluating and combining the total score for each of the
categories.
Page 10
SECTION III
REPAIR/REPLACEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. SITE IMPROVEMENT
The site is in fair to poor condition due to the deterioration of various elements and lack of updated amenities. Particular attention
should be paid to the items listed below:
• Deteriorated concrete driveway with cracks and spalling requiring immediate repair.
• Existing designated handicap parking spaces do not meet the cross slope requirement of ICC/ANSI A117.1 due to steep
grade at the existing parking lot.
• The existing parking lot can only accommodate eight to ten vehicles. Current zoning code requires 22 parking spaces for
the facility.
• The masonry retaining wall requires immediate repair to prevent further deterioration. Install new caps to prevent water
penetration.
• Handrails are missing at areaway stairs. New handrails are required per the current building code.
• Guardrails at top of the retaining wall do not meet current code height requirements.
The result of this analysis yields a score of 1.93 out of a possible 5 and a Repair/Replacement cost of $86,700.
Refer to the following pages for detailed Repair/Replacement Evaluation and existing condition photos.
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
1. SITE IMPROVEMENT
Planting area stone border is

coming loose
Broken concrete curb and

outdated rail design
Page 14
Landscaping is in fair condition.
Additional planting will enhance
overall appearance
Existing asphalt parking lot is in fair

condition but needs minor recaulking and
sealing
Page 15
Existing concrete driveway with
many cracks and deterioration
Existing designated handicap

parking space does not meet cross
slope requirement (greater than 2%)
Page 16
Existing dumpster needs to be
enclosed for security and site
appearance.
Deteriorated retaining wall with

missing caps, loose brick, and
parging.
Page 17
Existing pre-cast concrete retaining
wall requires minor patching,
cleaning, and caulking.
Loose and deteriorated parging at front

retaining wall.
10
Page 18
Broken retaining wall guardrail post
connection in need of repair.
11
Missing wall rails are not code

compliant.
12
Page 19
Original building sign should be
replaced with new, updated,
illuminated sign for better identity.
13
Page 20
2. FACILITY STRUCTURE
The building’s concrete superstructure is generally in excellent condition with no major repairs needed at this time.
The masonry exterior wall has a few movement cracks at the building’s northeast corner. Repair and re-pointing at these areas
will be necessary to prevent further deterioration.
There are many loose and deteriorating mortar joints around various window openings, which will require immediate attention.
The recently replaced roof is in good condition; however, it is in need of overflow drains or scuppers.
Other areas of concern are as follows:
• The guardrails at top landings need to be replaced to meet code requirements. The existing stair landing guardrail is only
34 inches above the finished landing, the current building code requires 42 inches.
• The existing stair wall rails need to be replaced to include the proper rail extension at all landings.
• The exit from the east stairwell is not level with the exterior grade. The ramped sidewalk adjacent to the east side of the
building needs to be reconfigured to provide a level exit outside of the stair door (no step down).
• All rusted break metal trims concealing steel lintels at all window openings require replacement.
• The existing building does not meet current Energy Code requirements due to lack of insulation at building roof and
exterior wall.
The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 19.09 out of a possible 35 and a Repair/Replacement cost of $211,400.
Page 21
Page 22
2. FACILITY STRUCTURE
Movement cracks at building

corner.
Loose and broken mortar joints at window heads.
Page 23
Rail extension at landing requires 12”.
Guardrails at top landing are 34” (42” is required).
Page 24
Existing ballasted membrane roof
with two roof drains. New overflow
drains or scuppers should be installed.
Existing roof ladder is in poor

condition and should be replaced.
Page 25
Need to perform further inspection to
ensure connection between existing
and new flashing is sealed properly.
Rusted and deteriorated metal cover

at windows needs to be replaced.
Page 26
Insulation not provided at existing
masonry perimeter wall.
Page 27
3. NON-STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
The recently upgraded finishes in the general public areas (Circulation, Reading, and Book Stacking) are in good condition and
major repairs are not required at this time.
With the exception of the elevator and corridor ceilings, the original finishes and layout at the back offices, storage areas, utility
areas, and rest rooms are in poor condition and require a complete upgrade.
The existing restrooms are not ADA compliant, doors to the restrooms are not wide enough for wheelchair access, and the
plumbing fixtures do not have proper access clearance.
The Meeting Room in the Basement, which recently underwent a partial renovation, is in fair condition, but many items were left
unfinished (e.g. newly installed mechanical system left exposed in the corner of the room; water damaged plaster finish
surrounding the abandoned mechanical equipment was not replaced).
Other areas of concern are as follows:
• A majority of the fire doors do not self-latch properly due to multiple layers of paint and sagging hinges. These doors
need replacing immediately to ensure proper fire resistance continuity.
• All existing windows and storefront entrance systems are the original single-pane, non-insulated system. They have
exceeded their anticipated life expectancy and should be replaced.
• The existing building interior signs are non-ADA compliant and should be replaced.
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
3. NON-STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
VCT flooring at Reading and Book

Stack areas was recently upgraded.
Suspended ceiling system and light

fixture at Reading and Book Stack
areas was recently upgraded.
Page 31
Original floor finish at back offices
and storage areas is in poor condition.
Ceiling system at back offices and

storage areas is in poor condition.
Page 32
Original plaster ceiling finish is
damaged due to water leakage.
Original plaster finish bulkhead in the

Basement Meeting Room is in poor
condition.
Page 33
Outdated metal cabinets in staff
lounge.
Original non-insulated single-pane

aluminum awning windows do not
meet current energy code
requirements.
Page 34
Original non-insulated aluminum
storefront entrance system does not
meet current energy code
requirements.
9
Existing fire-rated door is not self-

latching.
10
Page 35
Existing stair exit door with
chain and lock provide added
security during off hours.
11
Existing wall-hung sink in rest room

does not meet ADA access
requirements.
12
Page 36
Existing restroom does not meet
ADA access clearance requirements.
13
Existing signage does not meet ADA

requirements.
14
Page 37
4. SERVICE SYSTEMS
Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning System (HVAC)
The existing HVAC system design and configuration is not capable of providing sustainable comfortable environment control
(temperature and humidity) in the building, which is evidenced by a 10 to 15 degree Fahrenheit difference between the two floors.
Repairs and in-kind replacement will not provide satisfactory environment control; therefore, complete demolition of the existing
system is recommended. New energy efficient and properly designed and zoned environmental control systems are required to
comply with current standards and applicable codes. The new system will require installation of new ceilings and lights. New
energy-efficient systems will save up to 30% in energy and operating costs.
Plumbing Systems
Existing plumbing fixtures and restrooms do not comply with ADA requirements. The existing plumbing systems with the exception
of new domestic water heaters and sewage ejector pumps have outlived their useful life and require replacement.
Electrical Systems
Existing electrical systems have also outlived their useful life. Incoming electrical service equipment does not have adequate
clearances for service in accordance with current code. Circuit breakers in existing electrical panels are tripping, which indicates that
the existing wiring system is failing. Existing devices, receptacles, and switches do not comply with ADA requirements. The
building does not have an emergency power system to provide minimum functions during power outages due to weather or utility
company maintenance.
Interior Lighting
Lighting in the public areas is in generally good condition. However, lighting in the back offices and support areas is old, inefficient,
and in poor condition. The lighting level in the stairwells is inadequate and needs to be replaced. All existing lighting and ceiling
systems should be replaced when the HVAC system is replaced. A new energy efficient lighting system will reduce HVAC
equipment size and will have a payback period of less than five years. New lighting will provide a comfortable, elegant lighting
environment in the building.
Page 38
Site Lighting
Current site lighting includes minimal wall-mounted HID and quartz floodlights. New site lighting is required for proper illumination
of the entire parking lot during dusk hours.
Security Systems
The existing security system is minimal. An integrated security system is essential for security of Library contents and artifacts.
Data/Communication System
The data system was recently upgraded for internet service, a new integrated data/communication system is recommended to take
advantage of current and future technology.
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
4. SERVICE SYSTEMS
Existing elevator upgraded one year
ago. Cab size does not meet ADA
requirement for a side entry elevator.
New updated elevator equipment.
Page 43
Roof mounted chiller was replaced
seven-years ago.
Existing heating /cooling distribution

piping is in poor condition with
possible asbestos mastic around pipe
insulation.
Page 44
Existing distribution piping and
valves in Boiler Room.
Original air handler has exceeded its

life expectancy. Existing distribution
piping and valves are in poor
condition.
Page 45
Original thermostat has exceeded its
life expectancy.
Recently replaced hot water heater in

good condition.
Page 46
Original above grade waste piping
has exceeded its anticipated life
expectancy and needs to be replaced.
Sewage ejector pump was replaced

two-years ago and is in excellent
condition.
10
Page 47
Original plumbing fixture needs to
be replaced with ADA accessible,
water saving fixtures.
11
Original electrical distribution system

has exceed its anticipated life
expectancy and cannot meet today’s
energy demand
12
Page 48
Original electrical distribution system
has exceed its anticipated life
expectancy and cannot meet today’s
energy demand
13
Existing wiring, receptacles and outlets

have exceeded their anticipated life
expectancy. Exterior receptacles are
not GFI protected.
14
Page 49
Original receptacles and switches do
not comply with ADA height
requirements.
15
Existing incandescent light

fixtures need to be replaced
with new energy efficient
fixtures.
16
Page 50
Existing surfaced mounted flood light
fixtures with surfaced mounted
conduits are shown. New fixture shall
be considered for better efficiency and
less light spread to adjacent properties.
17
Lack of adequate security system

requires additional chain and bolts to
secure exit doors during off hours.
18
Page 51
Poor installation of the new data
system.
19
Poor installation of the new data

system.
20
Page 52
5. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS
The existing fire alarm system is partial and does not satisfy life safety requirements as mandated by the DC Fire Marshal's office. A new,
integrated, addressable, voice-activated fire alarm system is required for the safety of Library patrons and staff. The existing building
does not have a fire suppression system; therefore, a new fire suppression system should be considered to bring the building to current
standard.
The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 0 out of a possible 5 and a Repair/Replacement cost of $96,050.
Refer below for the detailed Repair/Replacement Evaluation and existing condition photos.
Page 53
5. FIRE AND EMERGENCY
Original fire alarm system needs to be

replaced with new, updated,
addressable system.
Page 54
6. ENVIRONMENTAL
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed in conformance with the scope and limitation of the ASTM practice E-1527-
05. The assessment identified Hazardous Materials such as general-purpose house cleaning products, and 55-gallon drums containing
cleaners and antifreeze.
There is no evidence of underground or aboveground storage tanks, however the property is listed on the DC Department of the
Environment¹s (DDOE) UST and Leaking UST (LUST) databases. Fluorescent light fixtures are located throughout the general public
areas in the building. Based on the construction date of the building (circa 1961), it is likely that light ballasts contain PCBs. The light
fixtures appear to be in good condition (no staining or leaking) and functioning properly. The assessment also identified several painted
surfaces suspected of containing lead, and several surfaces suspected of containing asbestos. (Please refer to Exhibit A for further details).
It is recommended that the District of Columbia Public Library complete a Hazardous Materials Survey for the presence of asbestos-
containing materials, lead paint, and mercury-containing thermostats prior to the commencement of renovation or demolition activities.
We also recommend the proper disposal of chemical storage containers no longer in use at the site.
The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 0 out of a possible 5 and a Repair/Replacement cost of $221,600.
Page 55
Page 56
6. ENVIRONMENTAL
Existing floor tile with possible

asbestos mastic.
Existing plaster wall and ceiling with

possible asbestos mastic.
Page 57
Existing possible asbestos mastic
covered pipe insulation.
Existing possible asbestos mastic

covered pipe insulation.
Page 58
SUMMARY
As indicated in the Summary of Facility Assessment Categories chart below, the existing facility scored 27.86 out of a possible 100. Based on
the methodology described in Section II, if the property scores less than 35 points, it is in POOR to FAIL condition and requires extensive
renovation or complete demolition and reconstruction.
Summary of Facility Assessment Categories
Repair or Replacement Repair and Replacement

Costs Score
1 - Site Improvement $86,700 1.93

2 - Facility Structure $211,400 19.09
3 - Non Structural Components $227,839 3.15

4 - Service Systems $905,400 3.70
5 - Fire and Emergency Systems $96,050 0.00
6 – Environmental $221,600 0.00
Total $ 1,748,989 27.86
Page 59
SECTION IV
MAJOR SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE COST EVALUATION

MAINTENANCE COST EVALUATION
The Maintenance Cost Analysis for the Major System assesses the different major components of the building based on the ratio between
maintenance cost and initial cost. This assessment will identify excessive maintenance costs and compare it to component replacement. It will
also compare multiple component replacement to system replacement. This will allow the assessment team to make a decision on whether major
systems in the building need to undergo renovation or instead be demolished and replaced.
For example, a boiler assessed at 55% would place it in “Fair” condition according to the Maintenance Cost Analysis Table category and is
estimated as follows:
Boiler = 55 % = FAIR
Maintenance Cost Analysis Table

Excellent-Satisfactory - Suitable for continued normal use for the next 5 years with
95-100 %
annual maintenance cost is less than 2% of the cost.
Good-Adequate - In good condition for continued use for the next 4 years with an
annual maintenance cost less than 5% of the replacement. 75-94 %
Fair - Not adequate for continued use for the next 3 years with annual maintenance
55-74 %
cost less than 7% of the replacement cost.
Poor - Deficient for continued use in the next 2 years with annual maintenance cost in
excess of 7% of the replacement cost. 35-54 %
Failing – Unsatisfactory and in need of complete replacement.

0-34 %
Page 60
The major systems for maintenance cost evaluation were divided into the previously established six categories: Site Improvement,
Structural Systems, Non-Structural System, Service Systems, Fire Detection and Emergency Systems, and Environmental. Due to existing
building conditions, most of the major systems that typically would be included in the evaluation have exceed their life expectancy and are
in need of complete replacement; therefore, these systems were not included in the evaluation.
Major Systems evaluated in the Maintenance Cost Evaluation include:
1. Site Improvement:
• Parking Lot: Existing parking lot was recently resealed. Continued maintenance and upkeep is anticipated. The
parking lot conditions scored at 94% out of 100%, which places it in “Good” condition.
2. Structural System:
• Roof System: The roof system was replaced within the last 5 years. Continued maintenance and upkeep is
anticipated. The roof system scored 98% out of 100%, which places it in “Excellent” condition.
3. Non-Structural Systems:
• Evaluation was not performed in this category - either the components are not considered to be a major system or
the systems are in need of complete renovation and continued upkeep is not anticipated.
4. Service Systems:
• Elevator: Elevator was upgraded one year ago. Continued maintenance and upkeep is anticipated. The elevator
scored 97% out of 100%, which places it in “Excellent” condition.
• Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Systems: various components within the systems have been replaced
recently or, in the case of the electrical system, are nearing the end of life expectancy. Therefore, maintenance
cost evaluation for these system is necessary to identify the need for replacement.
• The overall score for Service Systems is 64% out of 100%, which places it in “Fair” condition.
5. Fire Detection and Emergency Systems:

• Fire Alarm System: Existing fire alarm system is nearing the end of life expectancy; therefore, maintenance cost
evaluation for the system is necessary to identify the need for replacement. The fire alarm system scored 59% out
of 100%, which places it in “Fair” condition.
6. Environmental:
• Evaluation was not performed in this category as all hazardous material is to be removed. Continued upkeep is
not anticipated.
Page 61
Page 62
SECTION V
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST EVALUATION
ESTIMATED VALUE
The facility construction cost evaluation is based on the cost comparison between the assumed new, 22,500 SF facility and the existing facility
with a 3,500 SF addition.
1. NEW FACILITY
The existing site is identified on the DC Zoning Map as “GOV” but retains its prior zoning of R1B. Prior to proceeding with any designs
for a new facility, the zoning should be confirmed by obtaining a zoning certification.
R1B districts are designed to protect quiet residential areas. A community center is permitted as a special exception. The zone is geared
towards matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses for detached dwellings with a minimum lot width of 50 feet and a
minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. It permits maximum lot occupancy of 40% for all permitted non-residential uses and a maximum
height of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
The site area is approximately 15,214 square feet. Maximizing the lot occupancy yields a building footprint of 6,086 GSF. At the
maximum height of three stories, this would yield a hypothetical building area of 18,257 GSF.
In considering the potential for a new facility, the desired square footage is 23,586 GSF, similar to the DCPL’s program for the Watha T.
Daniel/Shaw library. This requires 5,329 GSF to be located on a lower level; due to the steeply sloping site, this is feasible, and those
lower level spaces would have access to daylight on the rear side of the building.
The new three-story plus basement structure on this site would occupy 40% of the site and due to the 8’ side yard and 25’ rear yard
setbacks, 60% of the 10,050 SF buildable area. This does not leave sufficient space for the required 22 parking spaces (1 space per 1,000
GSF except first 2,000 GSF require no spaces). A steeply sloped driveway will lead to lower level parking partially tucked beneath the
building, reducing the basement size and restricting the overall building to a maximum of approximately 22,500 GSF.
The new facility construction cost in the Estimated Cost Comparison chart represents the rough square foot cost for a new 22,500 square
foot facility based on the value derived from 2008 RS MEANS Square Foot Costs Book 29th Annual Edition. The estimate is the raw
building cost and does not include contingencies, furnishings, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), and development “soft costs” other than
the architecture and engineering fee.
Page 63
2. EXISTING FACILITY
The total building value for the existing facility included in the Estimated Cost Comparison Chart was derived from several factors,
including:
• The total estimated cost is the repair or replacement cost from the Summary of Facility Assessment categories in Section III of this
report.
• For comparison purposes, a 3,500 SF addition to the existing facility will bring the existing facility size in line with a new facility
(the existing facility is approximately 19,000 SF). The estimated cost was generated from the data in the RS MEANS Square Foot
Costs Book.
In finalizing the construction cost the estimated contractor’s general conditions, profit and overhead, along with the architect/engineer’s
fee, was included the Building Total to provide better comparison value.
Page 64
As the comparison chart above indicates, the Building Total cost for the repair/replacement of the existing facility is almost 50%
of the raw building cost for a new facility. This suggests that it is more cost effective to construct a new updated facility meeting
the needs of today’s library patrons rather than extensively renovating an outdated existing facility .
DISCLAIMER: The cost estimates provided in this report are conceptual only. The Argos Group makes no implications or expresses any warranty
or guarantee with the estimates provided in this report.
Page 65
EXHIBIT A
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Advantage Environmental
Consultants, LLC
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Francis A. Gregory Library

3660 Alabama Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
AEC Project No. 08-054

April 29, 2008
Prepared for:
Mr. Gilberto Cardenas

Argos Group
631 D Street, NW, #638
Prepared by:
Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC

8610 Washington Boulevard, Suite 217
Jessup, Maryland 20794
Phone (301) 776-0500 • FAX (301) 776-1123
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment AEC Project No. 08-054
Francis A. Gregory Library April 29, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................1

1.1 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................1
1.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................5
2.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................6
2.1 PURPOSE .........................................................................................................................................................6
2.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................6
2.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS .......................................................................................................................7
2.4 USER RELIANCE ..............................................................................................................................................8
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................................9
3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................9
3.2 ZONING INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................................9
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ..............................................................9
3.4 CURRENT USE OF THE SITE............................................................................................................................9
3.5 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................................................9
3.6 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES...............................................................................................10
4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION.........................................................................................................11
4.1 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE I ESA ...................................................................................................11
4.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION, AND
OBVIOUS INDICATORS OF CONTAMINATION ...........................................................................................................11
4.3 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...............................................................................11
4.4 TITLE RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................11
4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS ......................................................................11
4.6 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER, AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION .................................................................11
4.7 OTHER ...........................................................................................................................................................12
5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................13
5.1 FEDERAL DATABASE REVIEWS .....................................................................................................................13
5.2 STATE DATABASE REVIEWS .........................................................................................................................13
5.3 Local and Supplemental Federal Regulatory Agency Research ................................................... 15
5.3.1 County/Local Environmental Department ............................................................................ 15
5.3.2 County/Local Fire Department ............................................................................................. 15
5.4 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES ......................................................................................................................15
5.4.1 Topography and Hydrology .................................................................................................. 15
5.4.2 Soils...................................................................................................................................... 16
5.4.3 Geology ................................................................................................................................ 16
5.4.4 Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................................... 16
5.5 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................17
5.5.1 FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ......................................................................................................................17
5.5.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................................................17
5.5.3 City Directories and Telephone Directories.......................................................................... 17
5.5.4 Interview Information ............................................................................................................ 18
5.5.5 Prior Environmental Reports ................................................................................................ 18
5.5.6 Historical Use Summary....................................................................................................... 18
5.5.7 Historical Data Failures ........................................................................................................ 18
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................................................19

6.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................19
6.2 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................................................19
6.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ...........................................................................19
6.4 WASTE GENERATION, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL .........................................................................................19
6.5 STORAGE TANKS ...........................................................................................................................................20
6.6 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)......................................................................................................20
6.7 OTHER CONDITIONS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN ............................................................................................21
7.0 DATA GAPS ...............................................................................................................................................22
8.0 FINDINGS, OPINION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................23
9.0 DEVIATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................24
10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .........................................................................................................................25
11.0 DECLARATIONS .......................................................................................................................................26
12.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................27
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site Vicinity Map
Appendix B – Site Plan
Appendix C – Site Photographs
Appendix D – Records of Communication
Appendix E – Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F – Historical Maps and Data
Appendix G – Qualifications of Environmental Professionals
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Summary and Findings

At the request of the Argos Group, Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC (AEC)
conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), in conformance with the
scope and limitations of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice
E 1527-05, of the Francis A. Gregory Library building located at 3660 Alabama Avenue,
SE in Washington, DC, (hereinafter referred to as the “Site”). Any exceptions to, or
deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report.
The Site, used as a public library, consists of a 15,477 square-foot parcel of land that is
developed with a two-story building with a basement level. The building totals 18,944
square feet of enclosed space. The Client retained AEC to conduct this Phase I ESA in
connection with the renovation of the building.
The following summarizes the independent conclusions representing AEC’s best

professional judgment based on available information.
Historical Use Information
The review of available historical information (fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial
photographs, and interviews) indicated that the Site’s first developed use was for a
library, which was constructed in 1961. No changes of use for the Site building have
occurred from 1961 to the present. No concerns related to the historical use of the Site
were identified.
Adjoining Properties
The Site is situated in a densely developed residential area. Adjoining properties consist
of wooded land associated with Stanton Park to the north; grass-covered and wooded
land associated with Stanton Park to the east; Alabama Avenue followed by apartment
buildings to the south; and wooded land followed by the Anne Beers Elementary School
to the west.
None of the adjoining properties were identified as environmental concerns to the Site.
Hazardous Substances
Chemicals used at the Site generally consist of general-purpose housekeeping products

(glass cleaner, floor wax, light cleaning solvents, etc), as well as
construction/maintenance type products (paints, primers, etc). AEC also noted three,
55-gallon metal drums containing floor cleaner and one, 55-gallon drum containing
antifreeze in the basement. Mr. Darrell Gray, Maintenance Engineer for the DC Office of
Facility Management, indicated that the antifreeze was used for the building’s cooling
1
system and stated that he was unaware of any significant spills or releases occurring on
the Site. All observed chemical containers were noted in the basement level and
appeared to be in good condition, with no evidence of significant staining or releases.
AEC did not identify any concerns related to the chemical storage at the Site.
Waste Generation, Storage, and Disposal
The Site was not listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) Generators database.
Municipal trash at the Site is stored in dumpsters located at the rear (northwestern)
portion of the Site parcel. The dumpsters are emptied by TAC Waste Services and no
evidence of significant staining or release was observed in the immediate vicinity of the
containers. No concerns related to the municipal trash generated at the Site were
identified.
Storage Tanks
No evidence (i.e., fill ports, vent pipes) of on-site underground storage tanks (USTs)
and/or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) was noted during this assessment. However,
the Site was listed on the DC Department of the Environment’s (DDOE) UST and Leaking
UST (LUST) databases. Mr. Gray indicated that a storage tank was formerly used at the
building. The boiler system at the Site currently uses natural gas.
AEC completed a file review at the DDOE office on March 25, 2008. AEC reviewed a tank
closure report prepared for the Site by Horne Engineering Services, Inc., dated
September 9, 2002. Based on information provided in the report, a 2,500-gallon heating
oil tank that was installed during the building’s construction in 1961 was removed from the
Site in May 2002. Reportedly, pinhole-sized penetrations were noted on the tank and
contamination was detected in the tank excavation pit. Approximately 38 tons of
petroleum-impacted soil was removed from the Site. Subsequent soil sampling from the
walls and floor of the excavation pit were analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TPH) – Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and were below detection limits of 10 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg).
According to Mr. Sylvester Mode with the DDOE, the LUST case (#2002051) was opened
for the Site during the tank removal and had not been formally closed. Subsequently,
AEC received a Letter of No Further Action (NFA) – Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008,
for the associated LUST case from Mr. Mode. Based on the fact that the UST has been
removed from the Site and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AEC considers
this UST a historical REC that warrants no further investigation.
Regulatory Review
The Site was listed on the UST and LUST databases and was discussed in the Storage
Tanks section of this Executive Summary. Several nearby properties were identified in
2
various regulatory databases within the applicable ASTM-defined search distances.

However, based on distance from the Site, topographic relation, and/or reported
regulatory information, none of the listed properties were considered to represent an
environmental concern to the Site.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
AEC investigated the Site for the presence of PCBs. PCBs are toxic coolants or
lubricating oils that can be found in oil-filled electrical equipment such as electrical
transformers, capacitors, hydraulic elevators, hydraulic service bay lifts, and fluorescent
light ballasts.
AEC observed three pole-mounted transformers (pole #812375-9553) on the Site parcel
adjacent to Alabama Avenue. The transformers are the property and responsibility of
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). No evidence of staining or release was
noted in the vicinity of the transformers as observed from curbside. Based on utility
ownership and observed conditions, AEC does not consider the transformers a concern
to the Site.
Fluorescent light fixtures were observed throughout the Site building. Based on the
construction date of the building (i.e., 1961), it is possible that on-site light ballasts contain
PCBs. The light fixtures were observed to be in good condition (no staining or leaking)
and functioning properly.
AEC noted one hydraulic elevator that had been recently installed in the Site building.
Mr. Gray was unaware of any concerns with the elevator system. AEC did not observe
any evidence of significant staining or release in the elevator room and does not consider
the elevator an environmental concern to the Site.
AEC did not identify any additional equipment containing fluids potentially contaminated
with PCBs such as capacitors, trash compactors, box balers, or levelers.
Lead-Based Paint
AEC identified the following painted surfaces suspected of containing lead within the Site
building including:
• Plaster Walls and Ceilings

• Interior Concrete Columns
• Concrete and Masonry Unit Walls
• Metal Pipes
• Metal and Wood Doors
• Window Sills
3
Painted surfaces were observed to be in relatively good condition with the exception of
interior walls in the basement boiler room and within a water-damaged area on the
second floor.
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)
AEC completed a visual inspection for suspect ACMs within the Site building. The
following is a list of suspect ACM identified:
• Various Floor Tiles and Associated Mastics

• Plaster (two-coat)
• Pipe Fitting Insulation
• Pipe End Cap Mastic
• Paper and Canvas Wrap over Fiberglass Insulation
• Silver Paint on Pipe Insulation Wrap
• Black Mastic on Pipe Insulation Wrap
• Dropped Ceiling Tiles
• Black Mastic on HVAC ducts
• Vinyl Covebase and Associated Mastic
• Fire Doors
• Boiler Insulation
• Roofing Materials
Suspect ACMs were observed to be in good condition except for pipe insulation wrap,
end cap mastics, and pipe fittings in the basement-level boiler room and storage room,
and plaster walls in the basement and common areas of the Site.
4
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

This assessment has not revealed any recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the Site. However, evidence of an historical recognized environmental
condition was noted:
• A 2,500-gallon heating oil tank used in conjunction with the Site’s boiler system
was formerly located on the Site from 1961 to 2002. AEC received a Letter of No
Further Action – Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008, for the associated LUST
case from the DDOE. Based on the fact that the UST has been removed from the
Site and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AEC considers this UST a
historical REC that warrants no further investigation.
AEC also provides the following recommendations due to the proposed renovations:
• AEC recommends a Hazardous Materials Survey for the presence of asbestos-

containing materials, lead paint, and mercury-containing thermostats prior to the
commencement of renovation activities.
• AEC recommends the proper disposal of chemical storage containers no longer in

use at the Site.
5
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to provide a professional opinion on the presence of
recognized environmental conditions and other potential environmental conditions in
connection with the Site, as they existed on the date of the site inspection, and to
recommend whether further investigation is required. ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-
05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process, defines good commercial and customary practice for conducting an
environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the
range of contaminants pertinent to the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as petroleum products. As
such, this ESA is intended to satisfy one of the requirements that permit the user to
qualify for the bona fide prospective purchaser, innocent landowner or contiguous
property owner liability protections under the Brownfields Revitalization Act (also known
as the 2002 Brownfields Amendments) of CERCLA. In other words, this ESA represents
one of the practices that constitute “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership
and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as
defined in 42 USC Section 9601(35)(B) and 40 CFR Part 312.
The goal of the process is to identify recognized environmental conditions, which are
defined by the Practice as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances
or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleum
products into the structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater or surface
water of the property”. The term recognized environmental condition includes hazardous
substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The
term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a
material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be
the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies.
2.2 Scope of Services

This assessment was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of an
Environmental Professional, as defined in 40 CFR 312.10, in accordance with generally
accepted Phase I industry standards using 40 CFR Part 312, ASTM Standard Practice E
1527-05. The following services were provided for this assessment:
• An evaluation of information contained within Federal and State environmental

databases, and other local environmental records, within specific search distances.
6
• An evaluation of past Site uses through a review of reasonably obtainable

standard historical sources such as historical maps, aerial photographs, prior
environmental reports and interviews with knowledgeable persons.
• A qualitative evaluation of the physical characteristics of the Site through a review

of published topographic, geologic, and hydrogeologic maps; published
groundwater data; and area observations to characterize surface water flow in the
Site area.
• An evaluation of current Site conditions including, but not limited to, a search for
the following items including: above or below ground storage tanks; potential PCB-
containing electrical equipment; hazardous materials and petroleum products
generation; treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous, regulated, or medical
wastes.
• The identification and discussion of any data gaps encountered during the
performance of the ESA, including a discussion of all good faith efforts undertaken
to obtain the information required by the standards and practices identified above
and an evaluation of the impact of the data gaps on the ability to identify RECs.
• The preparation of a Phase I ESA report, which represents the findings from the
studies of the items described above and provides conclusions and
recommendations based on the information gathered above and provided by the
Client.
• A limited screening survey for asbestos containing materials (ACMs). The survey
was not intended to be comprehensive in nature and focused on friable and
damaged non-friable materials, as well as suspect materials in large quantities that
would provide a business environmental risk as defined by ASTM.
2.3 Limitations and Exceptions

This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with ASTM guidelines for the
performance of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. No other warranties either
express or implied, are made by AEC. AEC’s evaluations, analyses, and opinions should
not be taken as representations regarding subsurface conditions or the actual value of the
Site. Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surficial
observations, and can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques.
Documentation and data provided by Argos Group, designated representatives of Argos

Group, or other interested third parties, or from the public domain, and referred to in the
preparation of this assessment, are assumed to be complete and correct and have been
used and referenced with the understanding that AEC assumes no responsibility or
liability for their accuracy. AEC’s conclusions are based upon such information and
documentation and on our observations of Site conditions, as they existed on the date of
the site inspection. Because Site conditions may change significantly over a short period
7
of time and additional data may become available, data reported and conclusions drawn
in this report are limited to current conditions and may not be relied upon on a
significantly later date.
Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to uncover evidence of
USTs, ASTs and ancillary equipment associated with these tanks. “Reasonable efforts”
are limited to information gained from visual observation of unobstructed areas, recorded
database information held in public record, and available information gathered from
interviews. Such methods may not identify subsurface equipment that may have been
hidden from view due to paving, construction or debris pile storage, or incorrect
information from sources.
This investigation was not an environmental compliance audit. While some observations
and discussion in this report may address conditions and/or operations that may be
regulated, the regulatory compliance of those conditions and/or operations is outside the
scope of this investigation.
Nothing in this report constitutes a legal opinion or legal advice. For information regarding
specific individual or organizational liability, AEC recommends consultation with
independent legal counsel.
2.4 User Reliance

This report was prepared for use solely and exclusively by Argos Group, and other parties
(as identified by Argos Group). This Phase I ESA may be provided by Argos Group, in its
sole discretion, to third parties in connection with the sale of the land or portions thereof
by Argos Group to said third parties or acquisition of the land by Argos Group from said
third party, and may be relied upon by such third party to the same extent that this report
may be relied upon by Argos Group. No other use or disclosure is intended or authorized
by AEC. In the preparation of this ESA, AEC has used the degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by a reasonably prudent environmental professional in the same
community and in the same time frame given the same or similar facts and
circumstances. No other warranties are made to any third party, either express or
implied.
8
3.0 Site Description
3.1 Location and Legal Description

The Site is located directly north of the intersection of 37th Street and Alabama Avenue in
Washington, DC. The legal description of the Site parcel, as obtained from the
Washington, DC Property Sales database (https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com) was
listed as Block 0207, Parcel 0064. A Site Vicinity Map is included as Appendix A, and a
Site Plan is included as Appendix B.
3.2 Zoning Information

According to the zoning map available online (http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/map), the Site is
zoned “Gov”.
3.3 Characteristics of the Site and Surrounding Properties

The Site is used as a public library and consists of a 15,477 square-foot parcel of land
that is developed with a two-story building and a basement level. The building totals
18,944 square feet of enclosed space. A parking lot is located adjacent to the western
side of the building. The areas surrounding the Site primarily consist of residential
townhouses and apartment buildings. Detail regarding the immediately surrounding
properties is provided in Section 3.6. Site Photographs are included as Appendix C.
3.4 Current Use of the Site

The Site is currently utilized as a public library.
3.5 Description of Improvements

The Site is developed with an 18,944-square-foot, rectangular-shaped building that is two
stories tall, with a basement level. The building was built in 1961, and is constructed of
masonry block with a brick veneer, with dropped ceiling tiles, tiled floors, and painted
plaster and wallboard. The majority of the first and second floors of the Site are used for
the library with offices in the rear. The basement levels of the building consist of
mechanical rooms, bathrooms, storage rooms, and a boiler room.
The Site building is equipped with a water-cooled chiller and natural gas-fired water
heater. Potable water and sewer service are provided to the Site by the DC Water and
Sewer Authority (WASA). Natural gas is provided by Washington Gas, and electricity is
provided by PEPCO.
9
3.6 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties

The Site is situated in a densely developed residential area. Adjoining properties consist
of wooded land associated with Stanton Park to the north; grass-covered and wooded
land associated with Stanton Park to the east; Alabama Avenue followed by apartment
buildings to the south; and wooded land followed by the Anne Beers Elementary School
to the west.
None of the adjoining properties were identified as environmental concerns to the Site.
10
4.0 User Provided Information
4.1 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA

Argos Group (user of this report) retained AEC to conduct this Phase I ESA in connection
with renovations planned for the Site building.
4.2 Specialized Knowledge, Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable

Information, and Obvious Indicators of Contamination
AEC was not informed by the client of specialized knowledge, commonly
known/reasonably obtainable information, or obvious indicators of contamination pertinent
to potential recognized environmental conditions at the Site.
4.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues

As the Site is not expected to be acquired by the Client, no information regarding the
relationship of purchase price to the estimated fair market value of the property was
available.
4.4 Title Records

AEC was not provided with any title information regarding the Site. The DC Chief
Financial Officer’s online database did not list a purchase date for the current owner,
United States of America.
4.5 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations

AEC was not provided with a title insurance policy or lien search information for the Site.
Neither the Client nor the current Site owner was aware of any environmentally related
liens or activity use limitations (i.e. engineering or institutional controls) that are related to
potential environmental issues at the Site. In addition, AEC’s review of the environmental
database report did not reveal any environmental liens or use limitations associated with
the Site.
4.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information

According to the DC CFO’s online database, the Site is owned by the United States of
America. The Site is currently managed and operated by the DC Government.
11
4.7 Other
AEC was not notified of any other environmental issues that may cause or have caused a
valuation reduction of the Site.
12
5.0 Records Review
AEC reviewed Federal and State environmental databases provided by Environmental

Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut, for information pertaining to
documented and/or suspected releases of regulated hazardous substances and/or
petroleum products within specified search distances. A copy of the EDR report is
included as Appendix E.
AEC also reviewed the unmappable sites listed in the environmental database report by
cross-referencing addresses and site names. Unmappable (“orphan”) sites are sites that
cannot be plotted with confidence, but can be located by zip code or city name. In
general, a site cannot be mapped because of inaccurate or missing location information
in the record provided by the regulatory agency. Any unmappable sites that AEC
identified within the specified search distances are included and discussed in the
corresponding database sections.
AEC notes that according to the environmental database report, there are no federally
recognized Indian tribes or tribal lands located within one mile of the Site.
5.1 Federal Database Reviews

AEC reviewed all ASTM-specified federal databases. No facilities identified within the
ASTM-specified search distances were encountered.
5.2 State Database Reviews

AEC reviewed all ASTM-specified databases maintained by the District of Columbia. Only
those databases with facilities identified within the ASTM-specified search distances are
discussed.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
This database lists registered USTs that are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the State
department responsible for administering the UST Program. This database was last
updated on January 31, 2008.
• The Site address was listed on the UST and Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) databases. AEC completed a file review at the District Department of the
Environment (DDOE) office on March 25, 2008. AEC reviewed a tank closure
report prepared for the Site by Horne Engineering Services, Inc., dated September
9, 2002. Based on information provided in the report, a 2,500-gallon heating oil
tank that was installed during the building’s construction in 1961 and was removed
from the Site in May, 2002. Reportedly, pinhole-sized penetrations were noted on
13
the tank and contamination was detected in the tank excavation pit. Approximately
38 tons of petroleum-impacted soil was removed from the Site. Subsequent soil
sampling from the walls and floor of the excavation pit were analyzed for Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) – Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and were below
detection limits of 10 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). According to Mr. Sylvester
Mode with the DDOE, the LUST case (#2002051) was opened for the Site during
the tank removal and had not been formally closed. Subsequently, AEC received
a Letter of No Further Action (NFA) – Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008, for the
associated LUST case from Mr. Mode. Based on the fact that the UST has been
removed from the Site and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AEC
considers this UST a historical REC that warrants no further investigation.
• One additional UST listing, Anne Beers Elementary School (3600 Alabama
Avenue, SE) was identified as an adjacent facility to the Site. The UST database
indicated that a 6,000-gallon heating oil tank is currently in use at this facility. This
property was not identified on the LUST database and is located topographically
crossgradient of the Site. Based on reported regulatory status, this UST facility is
not considered likely to have adversely impacted the Site.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)
The District of Columbia LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking

underground storage tank incidents. This database is maintained by the District of
Columbia Department of Health. The LUST database was last updated January 31, 2008.
• The Site was listed on the LUST database and was discussed in the UST
subsection.
• Seven LUST facilities were identified within one-half mile of the Site. There were
no LUST cases identified within 500 feet of the Site. Of the seven cases identified,
five have been closed by the DDOE. Based on distance, topographic conditions,
and/or reported regulatory status, the identified LUST facilities are not considered
likely to have adversely impacted the Site.
DC Brownfields
This is a list of potential brownfields site locations in the District of Columbia. This
database is maintained by the DDOE. This database was last updated January 28, 2008.
• The Site was not listed on the DC Brownfields database.
• One facility, 3504 Texas Avenue, SE, was identified within one-half mile of the
Site. This facility is located at least 1,000 feet north and topographically
downgradient of the Site. No additional information was provided on the database.
Based on distance and topographic conditions, this facility is not considered likely
to have adversely impacted the Site.
14
5.3 Local and Supplemental Federal Regulatory Agency Research

The following local regulatory agency review was conducted to obtain any
environmentally significant information concerning the Site that may be readily available.
5.3.1 County/Local Environmental Department

As required by the agency, AEC submitted a written request (dated March 17, 2008)
under the Freedom of Information Act to the DDOE, in order to obtain environmentally
significant information concerning the Site. AEC received a telephone response from the
DDOE and subsequently reviewed files at their office. Pertinent information from AEC’s
file review at the DDOE is provided throughout this report. AEC’s request letter is
presented in Appendix D.
5.3.2 County/Local Fire Department

As required by the agency, AEC has submitted a written request (March 17, 2008) under
the FOIA to the District of Columbia Fire & EMS Department in order to obtain
environmentally significant information concerning the Site. At the time of completion of
this report, a response from this agency remained outstanding. Upon receipt and review,
AEC will forward any pertinent information to the Client. AEC’s request letter is presented
in Appendix D.
5.4 Physical Setting Sources

The following physical setting sources were reviewed to provide information about the
topographic, hydrologic, geologic and/or hydrogeologic characteristics of the Site.
5.4.1 Topography and Hydrology
USGS Topographic Quadrangle
Based on a review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Series,
Anacostia, DC-MD-VA Topographic Quadrangle dated 1983, the elevation of the Site is
approximately 180 feet above mean sea level (msl). Slope and surface drainage patterns
in the direct vicinity of the Site are to the north towards an unnamed tributary, located
approximately one-half mile north of the Site. The Site and the surrounding areas to the
east, south, and west were shaded pink on the map, indicating dense urban
development. Areas to the north are shaded green, which are currently occupied by
forested land. A copy of a topographic map is included as Appendix A.
Hydrology/Storm Water Management
Surface drainage at the Site is facilitated by storm drains located at the rear of the
property. Stormwater also drains from western adjacent properties onto the Site. AEC
15
did not observe evidence of vegetative stress, or other evidence of environmental

impairment in the vicinity of the storm drains.
No additional evidence of surface impoundments, pits, ponds, lagoons, drywells, irrigation

wells, injection wells, or storm water management systems was observed on the Site on
the date of the site survey.
Wetlands
According to wetlands data from NWI maps presented in the regulatory database
reviewed for this assessment, no wetlands were illustrated on the Site or surrounding
properties. AEC observed no indications of wetlands on the Site.
Flood Zone
According to the EDR database report which contains Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Site (Community Panel
number 1100010030B), the Site is not located within the 100- and 500-year flood zones.
A copy of the database report is provided in Appendix E.
5.4.2 Soils
According to the EDR Soil Survey, soils at the Site are categorized as Beltsville silt loam.
These soils are moderately well drained and do not meet the characteristics for hydric
soils.
5.4.3 Geology
According to the Maryland Geologic Survey Geologic Map of Maryland dated 1968 (which
includes the District of Columbia), the Site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
physiographic province, which is situated east of the fall line that separates the
unconsolidated sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain province from the metamorphic
units of the Piedmont. Specifically, the Site is underlain by the Lowland Deposits
formation which consists of gravel, sand, silt and clay. Generally, the formation contains
medium- to coarse-grained sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders prevalent near the
base.
5.4.4 Hydrogeology
Shallow groundwater flow generally follows topography. Based on a review of the
topographic map, AEC estimates the depth to the shallow groundwater table at the Site to
be approximately 25 to 35 feet below ground surface (bgs) and flow in a direction similar
to surface drainage patterns (i.e., to the north). Precise groundwater depths and flow
directions can be determined through the installation and survey of groundwater
monitoring wells. Estimated groundwater levels and/or flow directions may vary based on
16
factors such as topography, underground structures, seasonal fluctuations, soil and

bedrock geology, production wells, and de-watering operations.
5.5 Historical Use Information

The following historical sources were reviewed to develop a history of the previous uses
of the Site and surrounding area, in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses
having led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site.
5.5.1 Fire Insurance Maps

AEC reviewed Sanborn fire insurance maps dated 1960, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1992,
and 1995; that were provided by EDR. The results of the fire insurance map review are
summarized as follows:
The review of Sanborn fire insurance maps revealed that the Site was undeveloped prior
to the construction of the Site building. The 1960 Sanborn Map did not depict the Site
building; however, the building was depicted on all subsequent maps. Surrounding areas
have consisted of primarily residences, schools, and churches. Areas to the east of the
Site were not included on the Sanborn Maps provided by EDR. The review of fire
insurance maps did not reveal any historical concerns at the Site or surrounding
properties. Copies of selected Sanborn Maps are included in Appendix F.
5.5.2 Aerial Photographs

AEC reviewed aerial photographs dated 1988, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2007 that were
provided by Globexplorer. The review of aerial photographs did not reveal any historical
concerns at the Site or surrounding properties. Generally, dense urban development and
wooded land was noted in all aerial photos with no significant changes to the Site or
immediate surrounding properties. Additional photographs were not obtained since other,
more definitive sources (Sanborns and City Directories) were obtained. Copies of the
aerial photographs reviewed are included in Appendix E.
5.5.3 City Directories and Telephone Directories

AEC reviewed historic Polk City Directories, C&P Telephone Directories, The
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia, and Haines & Company for
1922, 1926, 1931, 1936, 1940, 1943, 1948, 1954, 1960, 1964, 1969, 1973, 1978, 1983,
1993, and 2000. These directories were provided by EDR. The review of the historic city
directories did not identify the Site address. No off-site facilities of potential concern were
noted during the review of historical city directories. A copy of the EDR-City Directory
abstract is included in Appendix F.
17
5.5.4 Interview Information

According to Mr. Gilberto Cardenas of Argos Group, he has no knowledge of any
historical environmental concerns in connection with the Site. AEC also received a
completed questionnaire from Ms. Lisa Deanes, a representative of the DC Public Library
system. Ms. Deanes indicated the Site is owned by the US Federal Government;
however, she was unaware of any historical uses of the Site prior to the construction of
the library. Copies of the completed questionnaires are included in Appendix D.
5.5.5 Prior Environmental Reports

AEC reviewed a tank closure report prepared for the Site by Horne Engineering Services,
Inc., dated September 9, 2002. This report was summarized in Section 5.2.
5.5.6 Historical Use Summary

The review of available historical information (fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial
photographs, and interviews) indicated that the Site’s first developed use was for a
library, which was constructed in 1961. No changes of use for the Site building have
occurred from 1961 to the present. No concerns related to the historical use of the Site
were identified.
5.5.7 Historical Data Failures

AEC encountered the following historical data failure as defined by ASTM E1527-05 and
40 CFR Part 312:
• No data failures were encountered during the review of historic resources.
18
6.0 Site Reconnaissance
The objective of the Site reconnaissance was to obtain information indicating the
likelihood of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. The
reconnaissance was conducted on Friday, March 14, 2008 by Mr. David Svrjcek of AEC.
Ms. Svrjcek was escorted by Mr. Darrell Gray of the DC Office of Facilities Management
(OFM).
6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions

The Site reconnaissance consisted of inspecting the common areas, mechanical rooms,
offices, and library within the Site building. AEC also inspected the exterior portions of
the Site building, and the public access roads/alleyways surrounding the Site. Weather
conditions during the Site reconnaissance were cool, with no visibility issues.
Photographs of the Site were taken to document existing site conditions and are included
and described in Appendix C.
6.2 Interviews
Interview information was obtained from Mr. Darrell Gray of the DC OFM during the Site
reconnaissance. Environmental questionnaires were submitted to Argos Group and a
representative of the DC Public Library System. Interview information is provided in the
appropriate sections of this report.
6.3 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

Chemicals used at the Site generally consist of general-purpose housekeeping products
(glass cleaner, floor wax, light cleaning solvents, etc), as well as
construction/maintenance type products (paints, primers, etc). AEC also noted three,
55-gallon metal drums containing floor cleaner and one, 55-gallon drum containing
antifreeze in the basement. Mr. Darrell Gray, Maintenance Engineer for the DC Office of
Facility Management, indicated that the antifreeze was used for the building’s cooling
system and stated that he was unaware of any significant spills or releases occurring on
the property. All observed chemical containers were noted in the basement level and
appeared to be in good condition, with no evidence of significant staining or releases.
AEC did not identify any concerns related to the chemical storage at the Site.
6.4 Waste Generation, Storage and Disposal

The Site was not listed on the RCRIS Generators database.
Municipal trash at the Site is stored in dumpsters located at the rear (northwestern)
portion of the Site parcel. The dumpsters are emptied by TAC Waste Services and no
19
evidence of significant staining or release was observed in the immediate vicinity of the
containers. No concerns related to the municipal trash generated at the Site were
identified.
6.5 Storage Tanks

No evidence (i.e., fill ports, vent pipes) of on-site USTs and/or aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) was noted during this assessment. However, the Site was listed on the DDOE’s
UST and LUST database and was discussed in Section 5.2.
6.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

AEC investigated the Site for the presence of PCBs. PCBs are toxic coolants or
lubricating oils that can be found in oil-filled electrical equipment such as electrical
transformers, capacitors, hydraulic elevators, hydraulic service bay lifts, and fluorescent
light ballasts.
AEC observed three pole-mounted transformers (pole #812375-9553) on the Site parcel
adjacent to Alabama Avenue. The transformers are the property and responsibility of
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). No evidence of staining or release was
noted in the vicinity of the transformers as observed from curbside. Based on utility
ownership and observed conditions, AEC does not consider the transformers a concern
to the Site.
Fluorescent light fixtures were observed throughout the Site building. Based on the
construction date of the building (i.e., 1961), it is possible that on-site light ballasts contain
PCBs. The light fixtures were observed to be in good condition (no staining or leaking)
and functioning properly.
AEC noted one hydraulic elevator that had been recently installed on the property. Mr.
Gray was unaware of any concerns with the elevator system. AEC did not observe any
evidence of significant staining or release in the elevator room and does not consider the
elevator an environmental concern to the Site.
AEC did not identify any additional equipment containing fluids potentially contaminated
with PCBs such as capacitors, trash compactors, box balers, or levelers.
20
6.7 Other Conditions of Potential Concern

AEC also examined the Site for evidence of the following potential environmental
conditions:
Conditions Not Observed Observed Significant

or Noted or Noted Concern?
Chemical/Petroleum Odors X --
Pools of Liquid X No
Floor Drains/Sumps/Wells X --
Drums X No
Stains or Corrosion X --
Unidentified Substance Containers X --
Stained Soil or Pavement X --
Stressed Vegetation X --
Pits, Ponds or Lagoons X --
Wastewater Discharges X --
Septic Systems/Cesspools X --
AEC observed four, 55-gallon drums in the basement level of the building. These drums
were discussed in Section 6.3. No additional items of concern (as noted above) were
identified at the Site.
AEC observed a trash incinerator in the basement level boiler room that appeared to
have collected rainwater. No indication of chemical or petroleum odors was noted by
AEC. AEC does not consider the historic use of this incinerator likely to have adversely
impacted the Site.
21
7.0 Data Gaps
AEC encountered the following data gaps as defined by ASTM E1527-05 and 40 CFR
Part 312:
• Information regarding a search for historic deed information and for the presence
of environmental liens or activity and use limitations was not provided by the User
for review by the Environmental Professional.
Degree of Significance: This data gap is considered unlikely to significantly affect

the ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of
releases or threatened release of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the subject
property.
• Responses to AEC’s requests for information from the DC Fire and EMS
Department have not yet been received by the time of completion of this report.
Degree of Significance: This data gap is considered unlikely to significantly affect

the ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of
releases or threatened release of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the
subject property.
22
8.0 Findings, Opinion, Conclusions and Recommendations
AEC has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of
ASTM Practice E 1527-05 at the Francis A. Gregory Library building located at 3660
Alabama Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC. Qualifications for the environmental
professionals involved in the performance of the Phase I ESA are included in Appendix
G. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this
report.
This assessment has not revealed any recognized environmental conditions in

connection with the Site. However, evidence of an historical recognized environmental
condition was noted:
• A 2,500-gallon heating oil tank used in conjunction with the Site’s boiler system
was formerly located on the Site from 1961 to 2002. The tank was located
adjacent to the northwestern corner of the building. AEC received a Letter of No
Further Action – Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008, for the associated LUST
case from the DDOE. Based on the fact that the UST has been removed from the
Site and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AEC considers this UST a
historical REC that warrants no further investigation.
AEC also provides the following recommendations due to the proposed renovations:
• AEC recommends a Hazardous Materials Survey for the presence of asbestos-

containing materials, lead paint, and mercury-containing thermostats prior to the
commencement of renovation activities.
• AEC recommends the proper disposal of chemical storage containers no longer in

use at the Site.
23
9.0 Deviations
No deviations from the ASTM-2005 standard occurred during the performance of this
Phase I ESA.
24
10.0 Additional Services
AEC completed a visual screening of painted surfaces and suspect ACMs at the Site
during its inspection.
Lead-Based Paint
AEC identified the following painted surfaces suspected of containing lead within the Site
building including:
• Plaster Walls and Ceilings

• Interior Concrete Columns
• Concrete and Masonry Unit Walls
• Metal Pipes
• Metal and Wood Doors
• Window Sills
Painted surfaces were observed to be in relatively good condition with the exception of
interior walls in the basement boiler room and within a water-damaged area on the
second floor.
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)
AEC completed a visual inspection for suspect ACMs within the Site building. The
following is a list of suspect ACM identified:
• Various Floor Tiles and Associated Mastics

• Plaster (two-coat)
• Pipe Fitting Insulation
• Pipe End Cap Mastic
• Paper and Canvas Wrap over Fiberglass Insulation
• Silver Paint on Pipe Insulation Wrap
• Black Mastic on Pipe Insulation Wrap
• Dropped Ceiling Tiles
• Black Mastic on HVAC ducts
• Vinyl Covebase and Associated Mastic
• Fire Doors
• Boiler Insulation
• Roofing Materials
Suspect ACMs were observed to be in good condition except for pipe insulation wrap,
end cap mastics, and pipe fittings in the basement-level boiler room and storage room,
and plaster walls in the basement and common areas of the Site.
25
12.0 References
ASTM, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental

Site Assessment Process," ASTM Designation E 1527-05;
EDR, Inc., Radius Map with GeoCheck, Inquiry Number 2169761.2s, dated March 17,
2008;
EDR, Inc., Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, dated 1960, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1992, and
1995, Inquiry Number 2169761.3s;
EDR, Inc., City Directory Abstract, Inquiry Number 2169761.4;
Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel number 1100010030B;
Globexplorer website, 1988, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2007, Aerial Photographs,
http://www.globexplorer.com;
Maryland Geologic Survey Geologic Map of Maryland and the District of Columbia, dated
1968, obtained from the website http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/geo/;
USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Anacostia DC-MD Topographic Map, www.topozone.com;
United States Geological Survey, Ground Water Atlas of the United States, 1997; and
Washington DC Property Sales database (https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com).
27
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site Vicinity Map
Appendix B – Site Plan
Appendix C – Site Photographs
Appendix D – Records of Communication
Appendix E – Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix F – Historical Maps and Data
Appendix G – Qualifications of Environmental Professionals
28
APPENDIX A
SITE VICINITY MAP
Site
1:24,000 scale Anacostia, DC-MD Topographic Quadrangle, dated 1982
ADVANTAGE Topographic Map

ENVIRONMENTAL N Francis A. Gregory Library
CONSULTANTS, LLC. 3660 Alabama Ave, SE
8610 Baltimore Washington Boulevard, Suite 217
Jessup, MD 20794 Work Order No.: Report Date: Drawn By:
Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
APPENDIX B
SITE PLAN
Stanton Park
Pennsylvania Ave.
36
th
Anne Beers
Pl
Elementary
ac
School Residences
e
e.
a Av
m
ba
Ala
37th Street
Residences 36
th
Pl
ac
e
ADVANTAGE Legend Site Plan

CONSULTANTS, LLC. = Site Boundary
3660 Alabama Ave., SE
8610 Baltimore Washington Boulevard, Suite 217 Washington, DC 20020
Jessup, MD 20794
Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123 Work Order No.: Report Date: Drawn By:
08-054 4/2008 AMR
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo #1: View of the Site building facing northwest from 37th Street and Alabama Ave.
Photo #2: View of the former UST location, facing northwest.
Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC Project Number 08-054

Photo #3: View of the Site facing west from Alabama Ave.
Photo #4: View of the adjoining property, Anne Beers Elementary School, facing west.

Photo #5: View of the adjoining residential properties beyond Alabama Ave. facing south.
Photo #6: View of wooded land located north of the Site.

Photo #7: Typical view of the library.
Photo #8: View of the storm drain located on northwest corner of the Site, facing west.

Photo #9: View of chemical storage in basement level.
Photo #10: View of chemical storage.

Photo #11: View of on site boiler in basement level.

APPENDIX D
RECORDS OF COMMUNICATION
APPENDIX E
REGULATORY RECORDS DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX F
HISTORICAL MAPS AND DATA
Site
ADVANTAGE 1988 Aerial Photograph

CONSULTANTS, LLC. 3660 Alabama Ave., SE
Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site
Site
ADVANTAGE 1960 Sanborn Map

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
Site

Phone: 301-776-0500 Fax 301-776-1123
08-054 4/2008 AMR
The EDR-City Directory
Abstract
Francis Gregory Library

3660 Alabama Avenue, SE The Standard in
Washington, DC 20020 Environmental Risk
Inquiry Number: 2169761.4 Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road

Milford, Connecticut 06461
Monday, March 17, 2008
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: 1-800-352-0050
Fax: 1-800-231-6802
Internet: www.edrnet.com
EDR City Directory Abstract
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.’s (EDR) City Directory Abstract is a screening report designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s
City Directory Abstract includes a search and abstract of available city directory data. For each address, the
directory lists the name of the corresponding occupant at five year intervals.
Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice

This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental
Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties
does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR
PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE
LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER
CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses,
estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are
not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any
environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional
can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not
to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2008 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part,
of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All
other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
SUMMARY
. City Directories:
Business directories including city, cross reference and telephone directories were reviewed, if available, at
approximately five year intervals for the years spanning 1922 through 2000. (These years are not
necessarily inclusive.) A summary of the information obtained is provided in the text of this report.
This report compiles information by geocoding the subject properties (that is, plotting the latitude and
longitude for such subject properties and obtaining data concerning properties within 1/16th of a mile of the
subject properties). There is no warranty or guarantee that geocoding will report or list all properties within
the specified radius of the subject properties and any such warranty or guarantee is expressly disclaimed.
Accordingly, some properties within the aforementioned radius and the information concerning those
properties may not be referenced in this report.
Date EDR Searched Historical Sources: March 17, 2008
Target Property:
3660 Alabama Avenue, SE
Year Uses Source
1922 Address Not Listed in Research Source R. L. Polk & Co.
1969 Address Not Listed in Research Source C&P Telephone
1973 Address Not Listed in Research Source The Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co
1978 Address Not Listed in Research Source C&P Telephone
1983 Address Not Listed in Research Source The Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co
1993 Address Not Listed in Research Source The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
Virginia
2000 Address Not Listed in Research Source Haines & Company
2169761- 4
2
Adjoining Properties
SURROUNDING
Multiple Addresses
Year Uses Source

1931 **ALABAMA AVE SE** R. L. Polk & Co.
REYNOLDS JOS P (3618)

LAYTON VERDA A (3628)
BLANKENSHIP FRED (3612)

HAINES MAURICE S (3626)
SCHNOPP JOHN T (3631)
WOLFF JOHN J (3632)
MC QUAY WM E (3638)
MAYS CHAUNCEY G (3639)

SHERMAN ABR D (3622)
DENTON CECIL L (3626)
BRYANT FRANCES A (3631)
WOLFF JOHN J (3632)
MC QUAY WM E (3638)
MAYS CHAUNCEY G (3639)

WELSABRISLT ISRAEL S (3618)
SHERMAN ABR D (3622)
LAYTON VENLA A (3628)
NEAL LILLIAN V MRS (3628)
BRYANT FRANCIS A (3631)
CARLSON FRANK (3635)
2169761- 4
3
Year Uses Source
1943 (continued)
MAYS CHAUNEY C (3639)
B BRYAN JOHN I (3677)
A CONNIFF AUGUSLING P (3677)
B THOMPSON WM I JR (3679)
A HARRIS OREN (3679)
B CALDWELL ROBT C (3681)
A TRACY GEN B (3681)
A JAMES WM C (3683)
B HALSLERSON CHAS (3683)

WEISSBRODT ISRAEL S (3618)
BURKA HARRY L (3622)
BEERS PUBLIC SCH (3628)
HOLCOMB CHESTER A (3635)
MAYS CHAUNCY G (3639)
B BRYAN JOHN I (3677)
A VACANT (3677)
A CARPENTER ROSS (3679)
B THOMPSON WM I JR (3679)
A TRACY GEO B (3681)
B CALDWELL ROBT C (3681)
B PECK WM T (3683)
A JAMES WM G (3683)
1954 **ALABAMA AVE** R. L. Polk & Co.
BLANKENSHIP FRED GENL CONTR (3612)

SWINGLE WM E (3618)
BEERS ANNE PUB SCH (3628)
FINNISON MAXWELL F (3635)
B SULLIVAN EUG L (3677)
A STORCK HARRY (3677)
B PETERSON E KENNETH (3679)
A CARPENTER ROSS L (3679)
2169761- 4
4
Year Uses Source
1954 (continued)
A BASS OTIS (3681)
B REDDEN ROBT A (3681)
A MEAHAN MILTON W (3683)
B PERK WM T (3683)

MC LAUGHLIN EVAN (3618)
HERRIMAN ALBERT (3626)
LAYTON VERDS A (3628)
CIZEWSKI EDW J (3631)
ITALIANO JOS A JR (3631)
PECK WM T (3638)
DE WITT DAVID O (3677)
SULLIVAN EUG L (3677)
FORST JACK (3679)
RUTROUGH JOS C (3679)
KEROHER GRACE C MRS (3681)
MOOMAU FREDK (3681)
KETNER ALBERTA K MRS (3683)

DUHON WILFRED C (3618)
FRIOU CHAS D REV (3622)
HERRIMAN ALBERT (3626)
BEERS ANNE ELEM SCH (3628)
RUSSELL EULA L (3631)
SMALL WATIE H (3631)
NO RETURN (3639)
SANDERS JAMES F (3677)
SULLIVAN EUG L (3677)
FROST JACK (3679)
BOUNDS BOBBY L (3679)
TAYLOR FAITH (3681)
MASAR PHILLIP T (3681)
BELT WM W (3683)
1969 **ALABAMA AVE SE** C&P Telephone
FRIGIKING RES (3622)
2169761- 4
5
Year Uses Source
1969 (continued)
HERON HERRIMAN ALBERT (3626)
LAYTON LAYTON VERDA A (3628)
RUSSIAN RUSSUM EULA LEE MISS (3631)
STONE STONE JULIA B MRS (3631)
MAYNE MAYS C G (3639)
PINKETT PINKNEY WARREN R (3677)
FIELDS FIELDS JOS N (3677)
FROMMER FROST JACK (3679)
ROGERS ROGERS FLOYD LEE (3681)
REID REID INEZ (3681)
LEWIS LEWIS DORA JEAN MRS (3683)
GAGHAN GAINER JOS B (3683)
1973 **ALABAMA AVE SE** The Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co
PERRY PERSON ROBT J (3618)

HERON HERRIMAN ALBERT (3626)
MOUNT MOUNT ZION MEMORIAL ASSEMBLY (3628)
RUSSUM EULA LEE MISS (3631)
MAYNE MAYS C G (3639)
FIELDS FIELDS JOS N (3677)
KINNEY KINNEY OGILVA (3677)
FROOMKIN FROST JACK (3679)
RAND RANKIN SANDY C (3679)
ROGERS ROGERS FLOYD LEE (3681)
BOOZE JOANN (3681)
COE COFFEE ROSEBUD (3683)
1978 **ALABAMA AVE SE** C&P Telephone
PERRYGRAF PERSON ROBT J (3618)

MOUNT MOUNT ZION MEMORIAL ASSEMBLY (3628)
RUSSIAN RUSSUM EULA LEE MISS (3631)
BARA BARAKAT ADNAN (3639)
SMITH SMITH NORA PAULETTE MRS (3639)
TURNER TURNER N PAULETTE (3639)
RAVE RAWLS GENEVA J (3677)
1983 **ALABAMA AVE** The Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co
MOUNT ZION MEMORIAL ASSEMBLY (3628)

1993 **36TH PL** The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
Virginia
BUCKMON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (3619)
BEST EMMA (3602)
2169761- 4
6
Year Uses Source
1993 (continued)
ROBERTS T D (3603)
WHEELER ANITA D (3605)
STYLES R (3605)
STEVENS JONATHAN (3609)
STEVENS MARGARET G (3609)
HAIRSTON HAL RSTON CHAPPELLE D B (3611)
**ALABAMA AVE** The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
Virginia
TURNER ELLIS (3612)
PERSON ROBT J (3618)
BARNES ERNEST (3622)
LAGENDYKE JOHN (3622)
BROOKS CONRAD REV (3628)
KELLY JANSON L REV (3628)
GREGG J F (3657)
EZELL V (3663)
HARVEY SYLVESTER JR (3665)
2000 **36TH PL SE** Haines & Company
BAILEY JACQUELINE (3600)

PRINCEFLETC LEE (3601)
BEST EMMA (3602)
SHARP ALICIA (3603)
JONES L (3604)
COTTMAN W GUY JR (3605)
INGRAM CYNTHIA (3606)
JACKSON BARBARA (3607)
BOOKER TAWANDA (3608)
STEVENS MARGARET G (3609)
STEVENS JONATHAN (3609)
COPPELLE C (3611)
DOUGLAS RONALD (3613)
FRASER WALLACE (3615)
CHENAULT MARILYN (3617)
BUCKMON JOHNNIE (3619)
VANN RICHARD (3621)
**ALABAMA AVE SE** Haines & Company
TURNER ELLIS (3612)

PERSON ROBT J (3618)
BARNES BARBARA (3622)
CHRISTIAN PRAISE CHURCH (3626)
CHRISTIAN PRAISE CH (3628)
HATCHETT LEON REV (3628)
REDMOND LEONA (3631)
2169761- 4
7
Year Uses Source
2000 (continued)
MONTGOMERY HARRY (3631)
SCOTT ETHEL (3635)
LEATH BRENDA (3639)
NATL CONSORTM AFRCN AMER CHLD (3639)
XXXX (3645)
CARING HOURS THE (3650)
DC SC ELEM BEERS (3650)
BEST MICHAEL (3653)
MCNAB N (3655)
GREGG J F (3657)
NEWMAN RICO (3659)
WEBB SANDRA (3661)
EZELL V (3663)
HARVEY SYLVESTER JR (3665)
B MARTIN D (3677)
XXXX (3679)
B LEWIS IDA (3681)
XXXX (3684)
2169761- 4
8
APPENDIX G
QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE SPECIALISTS
David F. Svrjcek
Senior Project Manager
EDUCATION
B.S. Marketing, University of Maryland, College Park, 1992
PROFESSIONAL
REGISTRATIONS, LICENSES, AND CERTIFICATIONS
• Certified/Licensed AHERA Asbestos Inspector for the State of Maryland

• Lead in Drinking Water Certification for the State of Maryland
• Introduction to Section 106 Review, April 2000
PROFESSIONAL
SUMMARY
Mr. Svrjcek has been with Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC (AEC) since June
2002. Mr. Svrjcek has interacted with industry management, developers, general contractors,
legal counsel, and regulatory agencies on a diverse range of local, state, and federal
regulatory and environmental issues. His experience in environmental consulting ranges from
staff scientist to senior project manager and includes: environmental regulatory issues for
FCC Wireless Telecommunications Industry; Environmental Assessments for Housing and
Urban Development and District of Columbia Housing Authority; Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs); Phase II subsurface investigations; groundwater monitoring well
installations and sampling; and Industrial Hygiene services including asbestos surveys, lead
in drinking water sampling.
Regional Account Management
Experience includes account management, project coordination, technical review, and

management oversight of all environmental engineering services and federal compliance (i.e.,
FCC NEPA compliance, Phase I ESAs, Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint testing, subsurface
investigations, and geotechnical engineering) for two national wireless telecommunications
carriers in the Baltimore/Washington DC and Boston, MA markets. Maintained close client
contact to ensure program implementation and client satisfaction. Implemented various
internal programs to monitor quality and cost issues. Account management experience also
includes managing large projects involving building owners, regulatory officials,
subcontractors, and other professionals.
FCC NEPA Compliance
Seven years experience performing technical review of approximately 1,000 Federal

Communication Commission NEPA assessments and screenings for two major
telecommunications carriers, as well as several regional tower builders. Experience managing
multiple large portfolios of telecommunications sites simultaneously for both
telecommunications carriers.
David F. Svrjcek Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC.
Page 2 of 3
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)
Ten years experience conducting, preparing, and reviewing over 500 environmental site
inspections and technical reports of Phase I ESAs and Transaction Screens for state and
county governments, various commercial lending institutions, insurance companies, REITS,
property managers, telecommunication carriers, non-profit agencies, construction managers,
and real estate developers. Mr. Svrjcek has conducted Phase I ESA’s and related
environmental services in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, the District of Columbia,
Delaware, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.
Asbestos Building Surveys
Certified/Licensed AHERA Asbestos Inspector for the State of Maryland since 1998.
Experience conducting and preparing Asbestos Building Surveys and associated reports for
facilities located in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Experience managing large-scale
projects involving initial asbestos surveying, assistance with abatement specifications/bid
documents, and implementation of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Programs.
PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE
Currently managing numerous telecommunications sites for T-Mobile Northeast, LLC. (or
related turnkey consultants) for their expansion throughout DC, Maryland, and Virginia. The
scope of work for these sites included the following services: Phase I ESAs, FCC NEPA
Checklist reports, asbestos and lead-based paint testing (for building collocation sites),
photosimulations, and geotechnical analysis. Working with various district, state and federal
agencies including the State Historic Preservation Office, National Park Service, and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with all applicable federal requirements.
Mr. Svrjcek has managed approximately 750 sites for T-Mobile since 2000.
Managed the environmental review process for approximately 200 proposed

telecommunication installation sites for AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. through a contract
with Bechtel Telecommunications. The telecommunications expansion included the states of
Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The scope of
work for these sites typically included the following services: Phase I ESAs, FCC NEPA
Checklist reports, asbestos and lead-based paint testing (for building collocation sites),
photosimulations, and when necessary, Environmental Assessments. Worked with various
local, state, and federal agencies including the State Historic Preservation Office, National
Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and numerous county wildlife and
planning agencies to comply with all applicable federal NEPA requirements.
Client manager for a large-scale HOPE VI revitalization project located in Washington, DC

that includes the demolition of 1,107 existing public housing units and the construction of
555 residential units. This project involved coordination with numerous private and public
agencies including: the Housing and Urban Development, the District of Columbia Housing
and Community Development, the District of Columbia Housing Authority, the District of
Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Historic Preservation Division,
as well as various private contractors. The scope of work included the completion of
Environmental Assessments (as required by the National Environmental Protection Act),
Phase I ESAs, hazardous material surveys, underground storage tank removals, preparation of
David F. Svrjcek Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC.
Page 3 of 3
abatement specifications, and the completion of a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA)

and Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for a former gasoline filling station parcel.
Conducted due diligence and various environmental services for The Edison Project c/o The
Rise Group, a national charter school developer involved in the redevelopment of existing
publicly-owned schools located throughout the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan region.
Typical scope of work for these redevelopment projects included: Phase I ESAs, asbestos and
lead-based paint testing, lead in drinking water sampling, preparation of abatement
specifications, abatement project monitoring, underground storage tank closures, and
subsurface investigations.
Assisted a private investor with the acquisition of an abandoned 5.6-acre automobile
dealership property located in New Jersey. The assessment was used to assist the Client with
a purchase price for the property and to work out an indemnification agreement with the
current owner. Work included a Phase I ESA, subsurface soil and groundwater investigation,
magnetic remote sensing for USTs and groundwater monitoring well installations. The
preliminary field investigation discovered two suspected abandoned USTs on the Site which
were confirmed during the magnetic sensing activities. Environmental impact was determined
to exist on the property associated with the former USTs and the former operation of
hydraulic lifts. Additional activities included performance of a Comprehensive Site
Characterization using geoprobe soil and groundwater sampling coupled with the installation
of groundwater monitoring wells and the development of a Remedial Action Plan. Based on
the preliminary sampling results, the Client was able to establish a significantly reduced
purchase price.
Managed a combination Phase I and Phase II due diligence study and a hazardous materials
survey of two abandoned schools located in Washington, DC. The schools were being
assessed to evaluate feasibility for conversion into charter schools and to establish budgetary
abatement/remediation costs. Laboratory results from the hazardous materials surveys
verified that significant quantities of asbestos and lead-based paint were present in the
buildings. In addition, the Phase I ESA identified the presence of an underground storage
tanks on the property. Subsurface investigations using a geoprobe were performed at both
properties in the area adjacent to the suspected USTs.
Oversaw and managed all environmental services for a portfolio of seven District of
Columbia recreational center facilities that were proposed for complete redevelopment and/or
significant renovations. Scope of work performed typically included a Phase I ESA and a
Hazardous Materials Survey. Properties generally included approximate 6,000 square-foot
recreational centers, swimming pools, and adjacent playground areas. Most of the facilities
were constructed from approximately 1928 to 1950. Since AEC was working for the
construction management firm responsible for redevelopment, soil excavation, as well as
identifying any lead and asbestos issues were of primary concern to the Client. Based on
AEC’s historical review and site visit, AEC identified additional environmental concerns for
one of the facilities due to leaking underground storage tanks on adjacent parcels.

Francis Gregory Cost Benefit Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Francis Gregory Cost Benefit Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Francis Gregory Library

3660 Alabama Avenue. SE, Washington, DC

Facility Condition Assessment & Cost Benefit Analysis

The Argos Group Wiencek + Associates Architects + Planners DC, LLP

WIENCEK + ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS DC, LLP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 1

SECTION I – PROJECT SUMMARY

SECTION II – METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 9

SECTION III – REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT

SECTION IV – MAJOR SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE COST EVALUATION .......................................................................... 60

SECTION V – FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST EVALUATION ............................................................................... .63

EXHIBIT A: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 66

WIENCEK + ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS DC, LLP

Project Name: Francis Gregory Public Library

Location: 3660 Alabama Avenue. SE

Year Constructed: Circa 1961

Number of Stories: Two (2) stories and basement

Current Applicable Codes:

Building: IBC, 2003 Electrical: NFPA

Mechanical: IMC, 2003 Energy: IECC, 2000

Plumbing: IPC, 2003 Fire: IFC, 2000

Accessibility: ANSI A117, 1998

COMPONENT TYPE AGE

COMPONENT TYPE AGE

WIENCEK + ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS DC, LLP

COMPONENT TYPE AGE

COMPONENT TYPE AGE

5. Fire and Emergency Systems:

COMPONENT TYPE AGE

COMPONENT TYPE AGE

BUILDING ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES

CATEGORY COMPONENT EXAMPLE MAXIMUM POINTS

3. Non-Structural Components Windows, miscellaneous metals, floors, interior 10 Points

4. Service Systems HVAC, plumbing, electrical, vertical/horizontal 35 Points

REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COST ANALYSIS TABLE

Excellent-Satisfactory-Suitable Continued normal use - no repairs required. 95-100 %

Boiler = Good Adequate 75% X 35 Points = 26.25 points

Planting area stone border is

Broken concrete curb and

Existing asphalt parking lot is in fair

Existing designated handicap

Deteriorated retaining wall with

Loose and deteriorated parging at front

Missing wall rails are not code

Other areas of concern are as follows:

Movement cracks at building

Loose and broken mortar joints at window heads.

Guardrails at top landing are 34” (42” is required).

Existing roof ladder is in poor

Rusted and deteriorated metal cover

Other areas of concern are as follows:

VCT flooring at Reading and Book

Suspended ceiling system and light

Ceiling system at back offices and

Original plaster finish bulkhead in the

Original non-insulated single-pane

Existing fire-rated door is not self-

Existing wall-hung sink in rest room

Existing signage does not meet ADA

New updated elevator equipment.

Existing heating /cooling distribution

Original air handler has exceeded its

Recently replaced hot water heater in

Sewage ejector pump was replaced