DC Preservation League v. Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 19-AA-86
DC PRESERVATION LEAGUE, PETITIONER,
v.
MAYOR’S AGENT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, RESPONDENT,
and
GEORGETOWN 29K ACQUISITION, LLC, INTERVENOR.
On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Mayor’s Agent for
Historic Preservation, District of Columbia Office of Planning
(OG Nos. 17-317, 17-361; HPA Nos. 17-263, 17-545, 17-633)
(Submitted March 31, 2020 Decided August 27, 2020)
Nicholas H. Jackson for petitioner.
Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren L.
AliKhan, Solicitor General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General, and
Graham E. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
R. Stanton Jones, William C. Perdue, and Samuel F. Callahan for intervenor.
James B. Wilcox, Jr. for amicus curiae Committee of 100 on the Federal City.
Richard Hinds and Stephen J. Crimmins for amici curiae Citizens Association
of Georgetown and Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park.
Before EASTERLY, MCLEESE, and DEAHL, Associate Judges.
2
MCLEESE, Associate Judge: Intervenor Georgetown 29K Acquisition, LLC
(G29K) applied for approval of a proposal to demolish most of the West Heating
Plant, a historic landmark that was no longer in use, in order to construct a residential
building and a public park. The Mayor’s Agent approved the proposed demolition
and found good cause to modify historic-preservation covenants in the deed that had
conveyed the property from the United States to G29K. Petitioner DC Preservation
League (DCPL) challenges those rulings. We affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The Plant is located on a two-acre property in the southeast part of
Georgetown, adjacent to the C&O Canal and Rock Creek. Originally purchased by
the National Park Service in 1938, the property later became the site of a coal-fired
heating plant for the federal government. The Plant eventually ceased functioning
and was decommissioned and closed to the public in 2000.
The General Services Administration (GSA) sold the Plant and the
surrounding property to G29K in 2013. The deed of sale included historic-
preservation covenants that (a) required that changes on the property be consistent
with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
3
with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, but (b) provided that although
the covenants were binding in perpetuity, the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) could, on a showing of good cause, modify or cancel some or all of the
covenants.
G29K purchased the property in 2013. Before doing so, G29K conducted an
environmental assessment and determined that, due to extensive water damage, any
adaptive reuse of the Plant would require “essentially full demolition and
reconstruction of the majority of the existing building structure.” A subsequent
environmental assessment revealed that the property contained numerous hazardous
materials, including asbestos, lead, and mercury, which would require extensive
removal of the exterior brick and interior walls.
G29K considered various uses for the structure, including a museum, artists’
lofts, and office space, but ultimately rejected them as economically infeasible.
After concluding that the project would be neither insurable nor economically viable
without substantial demolition, G29K developed a plan to convert the Plant into a
ten-story residential condominium building and the adjacent coal yard into a one-
acre public park.
4
In Georgetown, project proposals are reviewed by the U.S. Commission of
Fine Arts, which makes recommendations to the Mayor’s Agent. D.C. Code § 6-
1202 (2018 Repl.). The Commission reviewed and approved G29K’s plan. Because
the Plant is a historic landmark, G29K also submitted its plan to the Historic
Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for review. See D.C. Code § 6-1104 (2018
Repl.). The HPRB concluded that, due to the substantial demolition involved, the
proposal was inconsistent with the purposes of the Historic Landmark and Historic
District Protection Act, D.C. Code § 6-1101 et seq. (2018 Repl.) (“Preservation
Act”). The HPRB also found that the proposed design did not comply with the
historic-preservation standards incorporated in the deed’s historic-preservation
covenants.
G29K then applied to the Mayor’s Agent for approval of the proposed
demolition. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) also submitted a letter
asking the Mayor’s Agent to determine whether there was good cause to modify the
historic-preservation covenants in the deed. The SHPO agreed to implement the
Mayor’s Agent’s determination.
The Mayor’s Agent held two days of public hearings. Numerous witnesses
testified in support of G29K’s plan, including amici Citizen’s Association of
5
Georgetown and Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park. DCPL, the sole party in
opposition to the plan, presented a number of witnesses. Several District residents
also testified, some in favor of and some against the project. The Advisory
Neighborhood Commission supported the project. See generally 10-C DCMR
§ 3201.2 (requiring Mayor’s Agent to accord great weight to Advisory
Neighborhood Commission recommendations).
The Mayor’s Agent issued a decision and order approving the proposed
demolition and finding good cause to modify the historic-preservation covenants.
II. Analysis
Our review of a decision of the Mayor’s Agent is “limited and narrow.”
Embassy Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. District of Columbia Mayor’s Agent for
Historic Pres., 944 A.2d 1036, 1050 (D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“We must uphold the Mayor’s Agent’s decision if the findings of fact are supported
by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole and the conclusions of
law flow rationally from these findings.” Kalorama Heights Ltd. P’ship v. District
of Columbia Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 655 A.2d 865, 868 (D.C.
1995). When the Mayor’s Agent’s “decision is based on an interpretation of the
6
statute and regulations [the Mayor’s Agent] administers, that interpretation will be
sustained unless shown to be unreasonable or in contravention of the language or
legislative history of the statute.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
A. Demolition Permit
DCPL first challenges the Mayor’s Agent’s decision to issue a demolition
permit. We uphold that decision.
Under the Preservation Act, the Mayor’s Agent may approve the demolition
of a historic landmark if the demolition is “necessary in the public interest.” D.C.
Code § 6-1104 (a), (e). Demolition is “[n]ecessary in the public interest” if it is
“necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit.” D.C. Code § 6-
1102 (10). A project has special merit if it provides “significant benefits to the
District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture,
specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority
for community services.” D.C. Code § 6-1102 (11). To establish the necessity of
demolition, an applicant must show that “all reasonable alternatives were
considered.” Citizen’s Comm. to Save Historic Rhodes Tavern v. District of
Columbia Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 432 A.2d 710, 718 (D.C. 1981). If the
7
Mayor’s Agent finds that demolition is necessary to a project having special merit,
the Mayor’s Agent must then balance that special merit against the harm to historic-
preservation values that would result from the demolition. Rhodes Tavern, 432 A.2d
at 715-16.
1. Special Merit
DCPL challenges the Mayor’s Agent’s finding that the project had special
merit. “[A] proposed amenity [must] meet a high standard in order to qualify as a
‘special merit’ project, the construction of which would warrant demolition of a
building of historical significance.” Comm. of 100 on the Fed. City v. District of
Columbia Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 571 A.2d 195, 200 (D.C. 1990).
“[A] project’s special merit [can] rest in whole or in part on a combination of features
that in isolation would not necessarily rise to the level of special merit.” Friends of
McMillan Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 149 A.3d 1027, 1039 (D.C.
2016) (“FOMP I”).
The Mayor’s Agent found that the project provided the following special-
merit benefits: (1) “[t]he conversion of the polluted and inaccessible coal yard into
a well-designed public park, provided to and maintained for the residents of the
8
District at no cost,” and connecting Rock Creek Park, the C&O Towpath, and the
Georgetown Waterfront Park; (2) financial support for restoration of the C&O Canal
Trail; (3) financial and project-management support for restoration of the nearby Mt.
Zion Historic Cemetery; (4) monetary contributions of at least $2.8 million to
entities supporting affordable housing in the District, including primarily the D.C.
Housing Production Trust Fund; (5) an interpretive on-site exhibit concerning the
industrial history of Georgetown; and (6) documentation of the history of the Plant,
to be donated to the D.C. Public Library.
DCPL does not appear to dispute, and we therefore take as a given, that the
project has at least some special merit, due to the land-planning benefits associated
with the public park and the restoration of the C&O Canal trail. DCPL does,
however, challenge several other aspects of the Mayor’s Agent’s analysis.
i. Off-Site Benefits
DCPL argues that the proposed donations to support affordable housing and
the Mt. Zion Historic Cemetery are “off-site” benefits that cannot properly be
considered special-merit benefits. We disagree. As previously noted, to qualify as
necessary in the public interest, a project must be “of special merit.” D.C. Code § 6-
9
1102(10). The Preservation Act defines “special merit” to include “social or other
benefits having a high priority for community services.” D.C. Code § 6-1102(11).
Those provisions do not appear to require a physical nexus between the site of the
demolition and the “location” of all of a project’s special-merit benefits (even if we
were to assume that it would be generally feasible to determine the “location” of
special-merit benefits). Nor does our case law support such a requirement. To the
contrary, we have approved consideration of special-merit benefits that do not seem
to be tied tightly to the physical site of the demolition. See, e.g., Friends of McMillan
Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 207 A.3d 1155, 1173-74 (D.C. 2019)
(“FOMP II”) (exceptional economic benefits can contribute to project’s special
merit); Rhodes Tavern, 432 A.2d at 717 n.13 (same); compare Kalorama Heights,
655 A.2d at 874 (general economic benefits to District and specific benefits to
residents of project do not by themselves suffice to constitute special merit).
DCPL argues that two previous decisions of the Mayor’s Agent preclude
consideration of “off-site” benefits: Archdiocese of Washington, HPA Nos. 99-219,
etc. (Nov. 9, 1999), and King’s Palace, HPA Nos. 88-825 and 88-826 (Mar. 1, 1989).
DCPL apparently did not bring those decisions to the attention of the Mayor’s Agent
in this case, and the Mayor’s Agent’s decision does not address them. Under the
circumstances, we doubt that a claim of inconsistent agency decision-making is
10
properly before this court. See, e.g., Stackhouse v. District of Columbia Dep’t of
Emp’t Servs., 111 A.3d 636, 639 (D.C. 2015) (“[I]n the absence of exceptional
circumstances, we will not entertain a claim that was not raised before the agency.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted); LeMoyne-Owen Coll. v. NLRB, 357 F.3d 55, 61
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J.) (where party makes significant showing that analogous
cases have been decided differently, agency must address argument); Walker v. Gen.
Servs. Admin., Nos. 99-3310 etc., 2000 WL 991919, at *3 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2000)
(per curiam) (declining to consider claim of inconsistent agency decision-making
that was not raised before agency). In any event, neither decision supports reversal
of the Mayor’s Agent in this case.
In Archdiocese of Washington, one of the claimed special-merit benefits was
provision of relocation assistance to a tenant who would be displaced by the
proposed demolition. Archdiocese of Washington, HPA No. 99-219, at 10. Without
explanation, the Mayor’s Agent described that assistance as an “off-site amenity that
is irrelevant for purposes of establishing, under the [Preservation] Act, whether the
project’s on-site amenities qualify the project for special merit status.” Id. A second
claimed special-merit benefit was that the project would provide resources to assist
Catholic Charities in performing services to the community. Id. at 17. After pointing
out that many of those services would be performed at locations other than the
11
project site, the Mayor’s Agent said, again without explanation, that such an off-site
amenity was “not within the provisions or anticipations of the [Preservation] Act.”
Id. To the extent that Archdiocese of Washington might be read to reflect the
categorical view that only “on-site” benefits can contribute to a special-merit
finding, the basis for that view was not explained in Archdiocese of Washington.
Moreover, for the reasons we have already stated, such a categorical rule finds no
support in the pertinent statutory language and is contrary to prior decisions of this
court.
King’s Palace, HPA Nos. 88-825 and 88-826 (Mar. 1, 1989), provides even
less support to DCPL. In that case, the Mayor’s Agent commented that moving
certain amenities onto the project site enhanced the project’s land-planning features
(thereby reinforcing the project’s special merit), but the Mayor’s Agent did not state
that such a move would be required in order for the amenities to contribute to the
project’s special merit. King’s Palace, HPA Nos. 88-825 and 88-826, at 15.
To be clear, we hold only that the fact that a claimed benefit can be viewed as
in some sense being “located” somewhere other than the physical location of a
project does not preclude the claimed benefit from contributing to the project’s
special merit. Several of the most important claimed benefits in this case -- such as
12
the park that would connect the Georgetown Waterfront Park with the C&O Canal
and Rock Creek Park, and the restoration of nearby Mt. Zion Historic Cemetery --
are tied quite closely to the physical location of the project. We need not consider,
and therefore express no view about, cases in which most or all of the claimed
special-merit benefits have no significant physical connection to the location of the
project at issue.
ii. Generalized Benefits
DCPL argues that the proposed monetary donations to support affordable
housing and the restoration of the Mt. Zion Historic Cemetery are generalized
benefits that cannot be treated as contributing to the project’s special merit. We
conclude to the contrary. “The social benefits to be included in a special merit
project must have a high priority for community services. Thus, factors which are
common to all projects are not considered as special merits.” Comm. of 100, 571
A.2d at 200 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
DCPL relies upon our decision in Kalorama Heights, where we affirmed a
decision by the Mayor’s Agent concluding that the benefits in a proposal were “not
special enough” to qualify as “social or other benefits having a high priority for
13
community services.” 655 A.2d at 874 (internal quotation marks omitted). We
explained that projects that predominantly benefit occupants of the proposed new
buildings, “coupled with general benefits to the District (such as increased tax
revenues or increased housing stock),” are insufficient to constitute special-merit
benefits. Id. In the present case, however, G29K’s proposal outlines specific
beneficiaries for targeted donations rather than providing only generalized benefits.
It was not unreasonable for the Mayor’s Agent to determine that the donations
addressed issues having a “high priority for community services.” Cf., e.g., FOMP
II, 207 A.3d at 1171-72 (affirming as reasonable Mayor’s Agent’s finding that,
where applicants were not required to include any affordable housing in their
proposal, “the inclusion of housing, twenty percent of which will go to low-income
residents” can contribute to proposal’s special merit); see generally Embassy Real
Estate Holdings, 944 A.2d at 1050 (court defers to Mayor’s Agent’s expertise on
question whether project has “special merit”).
In sum, we uphold the Mayor’s Agent’s determination that the project was
one of special merit.
14
2. Necessity
DCPL also challenges the Mayor’s Agent’s determination that demolition of
the Plant was necessary to achieve the claimed-special merit benefits. We affirm the
determination of the Mayor’s Agent.
An applicant seeking approval to demolish a historic landmark bears the
burden of showing that demolition is “necessary in the public interest.” D.C. Code
§§ 6-1102(10), -1104(e)-(f); see also, e.g., Kalorama Heights, 655 A.2d at 869(“The applicant has the burden of proving entitlement to a demolition permit. In
meeting this burden, the applicant must show that it considered alternatives to the
total demolition of the historic building and that these alternatives were not
reasonable.”) (citation omitted). “If a reasonable alternative would achieve the same
special-merit benefits . . . while avoiding or reducing the need for demolition . . . ,
thereby reducing the adverse impact on historic-preservation interests, then the
Mayor’s Agent cannot properly conclude that the proposed demolition . . . is
necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit.” FOMP I, 149 A.3d
at 1043 (internal quotation marks omitted).
15
i. Necessity and Demolition
DCPL raises two arguments that turn on the relationship of the terms
“necessary” and “demolition.” We are not persuaded by either argument.
First, DCPL argues that certain of the claimed special-merit benefits -- such
as the park and the interpretive exhibits -- could physically have been provided
without any demolition of the Plant. That is true. The inquiry into necessity,
however, is not limited to physical necessity, and includes considerations such as
financial feasibility. See, e.g., Don’t Tear It Down, Inc. v. District of Columbia
Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 428 A.2d 369, 380 (D.C. 1981) (“Reasonableness
must be imputed into the ‘necessary’ standard, and at hearing on each ‘special merit’
permit, factors including but not limited to cost, delay, and technical feasibility
become proper considerations for determining ‘necessary.’”).
Second, DCPL argues that “demolition” was not shown to be necessary,
because the structure could have been substantially restored, after initial demolition,
using “in-kind” materials. The Mayor’s Agent rejected this argument, reasoning that
although an applicant “could reduce the preservation losses by rebuilding in-kind
post-demolition,” the applicant is not required to do so under the Preservation Act,
16
provided that the balancing of net preservation loss and special merit favors the
applicant.
The Mayor’s Agent’s analysis on this point logically rests on the premise that
tearing a structure down constitutes demolition, even if the building is then
reconstructed using “in-kind” materials. In other words, the possibility of
reconstruction does not affect the question of whether demolition is necessary, but
instead is relevant only to the balancing of historic-preservation loss and special-
merit benefit. We conclude that the Mayor’s Agent’s decision reflects a reasonable
interpretation of the Preservation Act.
The Preservation Act defines “demolition” as “the razing or destruction,
entirely or in significant part, of a building or structure,” including “the removal or
destruction of any facade of a building or structure.” D.C. Code § 6-1102(3). In our
view, the Mayor’s Agent could reasonably treat the act of tearing a building down
and then rebuilding it, even with in-kind materials, as demolition within the meaning
of the Act. See generally, e.g., Gondelman v. District of Columbia Dep’t of
Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 789 A.2d 1238, 1244 (D.C. 2002) (“Although, as
an original matter, we might or might not agree with the Mayor’s Agent’s
17
interpretation of the Act, we cannot say that [the] interpretation is unreasonable [or]
inconsistent with the language of the Act.”).
ii. Reasonable Alternatives
Although DCPL acknowledges that some demolition of the existing structure
would be necessary for residential use, DCPL argues that G29K inadequately
considered alternatives involving less extensive demolition. To the contrary,
substantial evidence supports the conclusion that G29K adequately considered
reasonable alternatives. There was evidence that G29K considered multiple
alternative designs but determined that, without extensive demolition, it would not
be possible to repair the structural damage and remove the hazardous materials so as
to secure insurance for the project and make the project financially viable. Although
an analysis considering only public safety concluded that moderate demolition
would suffice, there was evidence that such a project would be unable to secure
insurance or financing and would therefore generate economic losses of up to $100
million. And although DCPL points to an earlier design proposed at one point by
G29K, DCPL’s witness at the hearing did not dispute that the earlier design would
have required a “virtually identical” degree of demolition.
18
DCPL contends that various pieces of evidence tend to show that there were
other reasonable alternatives that G29K did not adequately explore. The existence
of some evidence tending to support DCPL’s position, however, does not mean that
the Mayor’s Agent’s contrary conclusion was unsupported by substantial evidence.
See, e.g., Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs.,
77 A.3d 351, 354 (D.C. 2013) (“Where there is substantial evidence to support [an
agency’s] findings[,] . . . the mere existence of substantial evidence contrary to that
finding does not allow this court to substitute its judgment for that of [the agency].”)
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
Relatedly, DCPL challenges the adequacy of the Mayor’s Agent’s findings on
the issue of reasonable alternatives. We conclude that Mayor’s Agent adequately
explained his decision. The Mayor’s Agent expressly found that the proposed
demolition was necessary to construct the project of special merit, and the Mayor’s
Agent went on to explain the basis for that finding in some detail. Specifically, the
Mayor’s Agent noted that the current structure was unsafe and permeated with toxic
chemicals, that a new residential building was essential to the economic viability of
the project, and that changes would have to be made to the current structure to permit
the construction of a residential building.
19
In sum, the record supports the conclusion that G29K adequately considered
reasonable alternatives to demolition. See, e.g., FOMP II, 207 A.3d at 1177
(affirming Mayor’s Agent’s findings where “the applicants’ witnesses at the hearing
provided ample indication that they had considered numerous alternatives and that
no other design could provide the same level of benefits with less demolition”).
iii. Commission of Fine Arts Recommendation
Finally, DCPL argues that the Mayor’s Agent’s finding of necessity
erroneously relied on the recommendation of the Commission of Fine Arts, rather
than that of the HPRB. The Mayor’s Agent, however, did not rely on the
Commission’s recommendation in making the necessity finding, instead giving
weight to the Commission’s recommendation only when discussing the distinct
question whether there was good cause to modify the historic-preservation covenant
in the deed.
3. Balancing of Special-Merit Benefits and Historic-Preservation Loss
We further hold that the Mayor’s Agent reasonably concluded that the
project’s special-merit benefits outweighed the net loss to historic preservation
20
caused by the demolition. The Preservation Act “implicitly requires that, in the case
of demolition, the Mayor’s Agent balance the historical value of the particular
landmark against the special merit of the proposed project.” Rhodes Tavern, 432
A.2d at 716. The Act does not, however, require the Mayor’s Agent to find that
those benefits outweigh the net preservation loss to the greatest extent possible. As
the Mayor’s Agent noted, G29K presented largely uncontested evidence indicating
that the Plant is “dangerous, toxic, and inaccessible” and must be substantially
demolished for any adaptive reuse. The Mayor’s Agent explained that although the
Plant has some historic value as an architectural building, overwhelming evidence
supported the conclusion that the value of the project outweighed the loss of the
Plant’s historic elements. The Mayor’s Agent also credited testimony indicating that
the transformation of the site would be an important step toward revitalizing the
historic C&O Canal Park, thereby reducing the net historic-preservation loss. We
conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record to support these findings.
In sum, we see no reason to disturb the conclusions of the Mayor’s Agent
regarding the Preservation Act. The record reveals that the Mayor’s Agent made
reasonable findings of fact on each required issue, that substantial evidence in the
record supported those findings, and that the Mayor’s Agent’s conclusions flowed
rationally from those findings of fact.
21
B. Historic-Preservation Covenants
DCPL also challenges the Mayor’s Agent’s determination that there was good
cause to modify the historic-preservation covenants. We see no basis for reversal.
In analyzing whether to modify the covenants, the Mayor’s Agent examined
the text and purpose of both the covenants and the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. After explaining that there is no
binding precedent for what constitutes “good cause” to modify such covenants, the
Mayor’s Agent concluded that, given the District’s “sophisticated historic
preservation law, . . . committed preservation community, and fair public process for
addressing preservation disputes,” the finding that a project is one of special merit
within the meaning of the Preservation Act was a reasonable basis to modify the
covenants. In any event, the Mayor’s Agent explained, G29K had done “much more
than” simply establish that its project had special merit, because it offered a
“stunning design by a world acclaimed architect” that “may achieve aesthetic and
cultural significance exceeding that of the existing [Plant].” Accordingly, the
Mayor’s Agent found that there was good cause to modify the covenants “to the
extent necessary to allow the proposed demolition and construction.”
22
Although DCPL argues that the Mayor’s Agent’s analysis was too conclusory,
we conclude that the Mayor’s Agent’s analysis was amply explained. See generally,
e.g., Friends of McMillan Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 211 A.3d
139, 149 (D.C. 2019) (“FOMP III”) (“If a reviewing court is satisfied that the agency
has provided a reasoned analysis, so that the agency’s path may reasonably be
discerned, the court will affirm the agency’s decision.”) (ellipsis and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Nor are we persuaded, as DCPL argues, that the Mayor’s Agent acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in finding good cause to modify the covenants. As we
stated in Ammerman v. District of Columbia Rental Accommodations Comm’n, 375
A.2d 1060 (D.C. 1977):
“Good cause” depends upon the circumstances of the
individual case, and a finding of its existence (or
nonexistence) lies largely in the discretion of the officer or
court to which the decision is committed. By its very
nature, “good cause” requires the evaluation of a number
of subtle factors, a task properly given to the
administrative agency most experienced in dealing with
such factors in the first instance. In the absence of an
abuse of the agency’s discretion in that evaluation, we are
bound by that good cause or lack of good cause
determination.
23
Id. at 1063 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We view the Mayor’s
Agent’s good-cause determination to be entirely reasonable, and we are not
persuaded by DCPL’s arguments to the contrary.
First, DCPL appears to argue that a finding of good cause to modify the
covenants must be based on an interpretation of the standards of historical
preservation reflected in the covenants. That argument is somewhat difficult to
follow, but the Mayor’s Agent’s order did explain what the covenants would have
required, why the project could not reasonably meet those requirements, and why
there was good cause to modify the requirements. That explanation reflected
adequate consideration of what the covenants’ standards would have required in the
absence of modification.
Second, DCPL argues that permitting modification of the covenants would
“run contrary to the entire purpose of historic preservation law.” As the Mayor’s
Agent explained, however, approving the project at issue in this case was consistent
with the Preservation Act, which allows construction of projects of special merit
even if some historic-preservation loss occurs.
24
Finally, DCPL argues that the Mayor’s Agent gave undue weight to the
recommendation of the Commission of Fine Arts and to the aesthetic characteristics
of the project. We do not agree. Both considerations are indisputably relevant, and
we see no indication that the Mayor’s Agent gave either undue weight in finding
good cause.
C.
Amicus curiae Committee of 100 on the Federal City raises several issues that
DCPL did not raise in its opening brief, including most notably the argument that
the SHPO unlawfully delegated to the Mayor’s Agent the decision whether to
modify the covenants. This court does not ordinarily consider issues raised by an
amicus curiae but not properly raised by a party. See, e.g., Apartment & Office Bldg.
Ass’n of Metro. Wasington v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 203 A.3d 772, 784 (D.C. 2019)
(“An amicus curiae must take the case as he finds it, with the issues made by the
principal parties.”) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Nixon v. United
States, 736 A.2d 1031, 1032 (D.C. 1999) (per curiam order denying rehearing) (“[I]n
the absence of exceptional circumstances, we will not consider questions raised by
an amicus but not addressed by the parties.”). DCPL did attempt to adopt at least
some of those arguments in its reply brief, but we ordinarily do not consider
25
arguments that are first raised in a reply brief, e.g., Massey v. Massey, 210 A.3d 148,
154 n.12 (D.C. 2019). In the circumstances of this case, we decline to address these
issues. Specifically, the issues were raised at best in passing before the Mayor’s
Agent; the Mayor’s Agent’s decision and order did not address the issues; as noted,
DCPL did not raise the issues in its opening brief; G29K and the Mayor’s Agent
therefore did not fully brief the issues; and at least some of the issues appear to be
less than straightforward.
For the foregoing reasons, the Mayor’s Agent’s order and decision are
Affirmed.