## Facts

- A developer sought a permit to demolish the Woodward Building, a protected historic structure, and construct a new project including underground parking, residential units (some reserved for permanent District residents), and a day-care center.
- The governing historic-preservation statute allowed demolition only if “necessary in the public interest” or to avoid “unreasonable economic hardship,” and treated a “project of special merit” as potentially satisfying the public-interest standard.
- The Historic Preservation Review Board voted to deny the demolition request.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the Mayor’s Agent approved demolition, finding the proposed redevelopment was a “project of special merit” that produced significant social and land-planning benefits and that rehabilitation for comparable use was not economically feasible.
- The approval was conditioned on a recorded covenant requiring specified resident-restricted housing, a day-care center, and proof of financial feasibility and ability to complete the project.
- A preservation group sought judicial review, challenging whether the asserted amenities qualified as “special merit,” whether demolition (rather than rehabilitation) was necessary, and whether the required balancing of historic value against project benefits occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mayor’s Agent properly determined that the redevelopment was a “project of special merit” rendering demolition “necessary in the public interest” under the preservation statute.
2. Whether the Mayor’s Agent was required to expressly balance the historic value of the protected building against the claimed special-merit benefits, and whether the decision demonstrated that balancing.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported findings on (a) the significance and priority of the asserted public benefits, (b) the economic infeasibility of rehabilitation, and (c) the likelihood that promised benefits would be delivered through the covenant.

## Decision

- The court vacated the demolition-permit approval and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the Mayor’s Agent did not adequately explain why the asserted amenities met the statutory “special merit” threshold of significant, high-priority benefits.
- The court held that the decision failed to show an explicit, reasoned balancing of the building’s historic value against the project’s claimed special merits.
- The court held that the necessity finding was insufficiently supported because the record and reasoning did not adequately address preservation-oriented alternatives or whether comparable benefits could be achieved with less destruction.
- The court indicated that reliance on a covenant to justify demolition required closer examination of specificity, enforceability, and the developer’s demonstrated capacity to deliver the promised benefits.

## Legal Principles

- A “project of special merit” requires record-supported findings of “significant” benefits tied to exemplary architecture, specific land-planning features, or social/community-service benefits of high priority.
- Approval of demolition on special-merit/public-interest grounds requires an explicit, reasoned balancing of the historic resource’s community value against the project’s demonstrated special merits.
- Agency determinations under the preservation statute must reflect reasoned decision-making and be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
- Even when “economic hardship” is not the asserted basis, evidence regarding economic feasibility of rehabilitation is relevant to whether demolition is “necessary” to obtain the claimed public benefits and whether less destructive alternatives could provide comparable benefits.
- When public-benefit promises are central to a demolition justification, conditions such as covenants must be sufficiently definite and supported by evidence showing the benefits are likely to be realized.

## Conclusion

The court required a more disciplined application of the “project of special merit” standard and an express balancing of preservation value against proven, substantial public benefits, vacating the demolition approval because the Mayor’s Agent’s explanation and evidentiary support did not adequately justify demolition as necessary in the public interest.


Comm. of 100 on the Fed. City v. D.C. Dep’t of Consumer & Regul. Affs., 571 A.2d 195 (D.C. 1990)