REPORT OF PROFESSOR RICHARD STRINER

INTRODUCTION

My name is Richard Striner. I have been requested by the Dupont East Civic Action Association (hereafter "DECAA"), Nick DelleDonne, and Rachel Dubin to provide expert witness testimony relating to certain issues with respect to the proposed project ("Proposed Project") on Lot I 08 Square 192 upon which sits the Scottish Rite Masonic Temple ("Temple"). The Temple, whose address is 1733 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., is a historic building that is a designated District of Columbia Landmark and a contributing building within the Sixteenth Street Historic District.

I am not receiving a fee for this service.

My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1 hereto. A brief summary of my credentials are as follows. I am an academic historian with have a Ph.D. in history, and I have expertise in, among other things, historic preservation. I served as a professor of history at Washington College in Chestertown, MD, from 1988 to 2019. I have co-authored two books on architectural history, the most recent (co-authored with Melissa F. Blair) being Washington and Baltimore Art Deco: A Design History of Neighboring Cities, published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2014. I am also the author of over a dozen other books and scores of scholarly articles.

I was awarded the Renchard Prize for Historic Preservation by the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. in 1993. I founded the non-profit Art Deco Society of Washington and served as its president from 1982 to I 992. In the course of this service, I led successful campaigns to preserve a number of historic buildings. I was also the Letitia Brown Woods Lecturer, keynote address for the 41'1 Annual Conference on D.C. Historical Studies, sponsored by the Historical Society of Washington, D.C., November 20, 2014.

I have written and lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to historic preservation and the architectural history of Washington, D.C., as more fully set forth in my CV appended to this report.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

DECAA has asked me to consider several issues relating to the Proposed Project. A summary of my conclusions with respect to these issues is set forth below. The pertinent evidence which I have reviewed in reaching these conclusions is set forth in Exhibit 2.

1. The Boundary of the Temple Landmark Site Is Lot 820. After reviewing the materials identified in Exhibit 2 and the requisite standards, I have concluded that the boundary of the Temple Landmark Site is Assessment & Taxation ("A&T") Lot 820, the lot upon which the Temple sat at the time of its entry into the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites ("DC Inventory"). The Historic Preservation Office ("HPO") reached this same conclusion its report issued on or about April 30, 2019 ("April 30 HPO Report"). It is likewise the same conclusion that, as the HPO has admitted, that the Joint Committee on

2

Landmarks (the predecessor to the HPRB) found. See Additional Jriformation on Historic Property Boundaries," at 5 (Exhibit 3). Substantial irregularities marred the conclusion that the HPO subsequently reached in its May 10 report ("May IO HPO Report"), later adopted by the Historic Preservation Review Board ("HPRB"), that A&T Lot 800, the lot upon which the Temple sat in 1915, delineated the boundary of the Temple Landmark Site.

2. DC Preservation Act Standards Re Subdivision of an Historic Landmark Site. Under the Lot 820 boundary of the Temple Landmark Site, the subdivision of Lot 108 (the current legal lot of the Temple) is completely inconsistent with the requisite standards. As set forth more fully below, under the requisite standards for subdividing property within the site of an historic landmark, the applicant has the burden to show that the subdivision is "necessary in the public interest." Under that standard, with respect to such property, the District of Columbia Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 (hereafter 'D.C. Preservation Act") requires that the subdivision "retain and enhance" the historic landmark. The subdivision of Lot 108, which will result in the construction of a five story structure that the HPO has admitted will block the view of Temple from most public vantage points, will not retain and enhance the Temple historic landmark. To the contrary, it will degrade the landmark.

3. DC Preservation Act "Retain and Enhance" Standard Re Subdivision of Property Within an Historic District. Assuming that boundaries of the Temple Landmark Site are former A&T Lot 800, which as noted above is incorrect, the subdivision of Lot I 08 still does not satisfy the requisite standards. The Temple Landmark and Lot 108 both sit within the Sixteenth Street Historic District. As set forth more fully below, under the requisite standards for subdividing property within an historic district, the applicant has the burden to show that the subdivision is "necessary in the public interest," which requires that the subdivision "retain and enhance those properties which contribute to the character of the historic district." The subdivision of Lot I 08, which will result in the construction of a five story structure that the HPO has admitted will block the view of Temple (a contributing building) from most public vantage points, will not retain and enhance the Temple historic landmark, which contributes in very significant ways to the character of the historic district. To the contrary, as noted above, it will degrade the landmark.

4. DC Preservation Act Compatibility Standard Re Subdivision of Property Within an Historic District. In addition to the applicant demonstrating the subdivision of property will retain and enhance a contributing property, the applicant also has the burden to show that "new construction and subdivision of lots in an historic district are compatible with the character of the historic district." For the reasons more fully set forth below, I have concluded that the proposed new construction and subdivision are incompatible with the character of the historic district. Among other things, the massive size and design features, including a 15 foot ditch surrounding the proposed Project to permit the

3

construction of subbasement living quarters, are totally incompatible with the surrounding historic district.

5. The HPO and the HPRB Failed To Evaluate the Proposed Subdivision Under the Correct Standards and Failed To Apply the Preservation Law Consistently. The HPO and the HPRB failed to apply the requisite "retain and enhance" standards in approving the subdivision, failed to apply the requisite standards under the National Register Bulletin, - standards to be explained in detail below - and applied the Preservation Act to the instant case in a manner inconsistent with which it has applied the Act in other circumstances.

DESCRIPTION OF HPRB AND HPO

The D.C. Preservation Act, which created the HPRB, granted the HPRB powers to designate for protection and to oversee and regulate the condition of individual historic Landmarks and Historic Districts. The HPO serves as administrative support to the HPRB and is tasked with the responsibility of maldng advisory recommendations for the HPRB' s consideration.

The HPRB is also the entry-level point for the consideration of nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, created by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The National Register program exists as a partnership between the federal, state, and local governments, and local governments that receive preservation funding from the federal government must participate in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program, through which advisory commissions at the local level must consider National Register nominations and then forward their reconm1endations to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which is required to maintain its own advisory board for National Register nominations.

The National Register program does not confer direct protection upon historic resources. That can only be accomplished per the terms of a local police-power ordinance. Because the HPRB has decision-maldng and oversight responsibilities pursuant to a local police-power ordinance while at the same time serving as a CLG board for purposes of the National Register program, the procedures of the HPO are determined both pursuant to the D.C. Preservation Law and the National Register program.

Before the passage of the D.C. Preservation Act in 1978, a federal entity called the "Joint Committee on Landmarks" - an entity created jointly by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, both of which were regulatory commissions established by Congress for the District of Columbia before "home rule" was granted to the city - published Landmarks of the National Capital: A Preliminary List in 1964. This List was the precursor to the later and legally more definitive D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites that was created pursuant to the 1978 D.C. Preservation Law. The DC Inventory serves as the definitive compilation of historic resources in the District of Columbia that are designated for protection. The Joint Committee's List conferred no protection since no local police-power ordinance

4

backed it up. The later D. C. Inventory gave protection pursuant to the provisions of the Preservation Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

A. Congressional Restrictions on the Masons' Use of Property.

In March, 1896, Congress passed legislation to incorporate "The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspector General Knights Commanders of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-Third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Free Masonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America" (hereafter "the Masons"). Congress limited the real estate holdings of the Masons to property deemed "necessary and proper" for the organization's "fraternal and benevolent purposes."

In 1971, Congress further provided that real estate owned by the Masons would be exempt from District of Columbia property taxes so long as the property "is used in carrying on its purposes and activities and not used for any commercial purposes."

B. Construction of the Temple and Architectural Significance.

In 1910, the Masons purchased lots on the southeast corner of 16th and S Streets, N.W., as the site for a massive headquarters building designed by the architect John Russell Pope. Already a celebrated architect in 1910, Pope would go on to design such iconic buildings as the Jefferson Memorial, the National Archives building in the Federal Triangle, and the National Gallery of Art.

Pope's design for the Scottish Rite Temple was inspired by the tomb of Mausolus at Halicarnassus (circa 350, B.C.), one of the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World." The building was dedicated four years later on October 18, 1915. The Scottish Rite Temple may be justly regarded as a major monument, and it has been widely praised by architects, architectural historians, critics, and lay people down the years. For example:

• It won Pope the Gold Medal of the Architectural League of New York in 1917.

• In his 1920 book L 'Architecture aux Etats-Unis, French architect Jacques Greber described it as "a momunent of remarkable sumptuousness ... the ensemble is an admirable study of antique architecture stamped with a powerful dignity."

• Fiske Kimball's 1928 book American Architecture describes it as "an example of the triumph of classical form in America."

• In the 1920s, a panel of architects named it "one of the three best public buildings" in the United States.

• In 1932, it was ranked as one of the ten top buildings in the country in a poll of government architects.

5

The rear apse of the Temple , pictur ed below, is an important architectural feature of the Temple in its own right and is an obvious contributing element to the Temple 's beauty.

DC_DupontEast00000255

Two and three story row houses occupied the area behind the Temp le in 1915 when construction of the Temple was comp leted. However, those houses did not obstruct the view of the apse . Indeed, the view of the apse of the Temple has remained unobstructed for almost a hundred years.

C. History of the Property Post-Construction.

After the completion of the Temple in 19 15, as soon as World War I ended, the Masons began to expand their real estate holdings behind the building (i.e., to the east of the Temple) tlu·ough a proce ss of land acquisition that would continue for decades . In the course of this expansion of rea l estate holdings, the Masons began to demolish a number of smaller buildings that were occupying the land they acquir ed. This proce ss of land acqu isition, demolition , and site clearance began in 1920 and it continued after the creation of the 16th Street Historic District and after the designation of the Scottish Rite Temple as a District of Columbia Historic

6

Landmark. The Scottish Rite Temple Property Study (DupEast 0001) (submitted herewith as Exhibit 4) provides a reasonably complete history of the land acquisition.

Throughout this process, a succession of Assessment and Taxation (A&T) lots were created for the purpose of delineating the ever-expanding real estate holding s of the Masons. In 1915, when the Temple was completed , it stood upon Lot 800. In 1976, the expanded and consolidated real estate that was owned by the Masons from l6 1h Street, N .W. eastward to 15th

Street, N. W. was designated Lot 820. As a matter of historical record, it is interesting to note that as early as 1932 - according to Baist 's Real Estate Atlas of Surveys of Washington, District of Columbia, Vol. 1, Plan 19 - the Masons had already acquired and cleared all the land that would later comprise Lot 820.

Demolition by 1932

Map 4: Baist's Real Estate Atlas of Surveys of Washington, District of Columbia, Vol. 1, Plan 19 (1932)

7

For over 20 years, from 1990 to 2011, the Temple Garden area was a community garden under an agreement between the Masons and the District of Columbia Government. April 30 HPO

Report at 3; May 10 HPO Report at 4.

Almost 50 years ago, in 1971, presumably at the request of the Masons, Congress passed Private Act 92-23. This Private Act provided that the area within Lot 820:

shall be exempt from taxation by the District of Columbia so long as that property is owned by the Supreme Council and is used m carrying on its purposes and activities and is not used for any commercial pw::poses.

Private Act 92-23 ( emphasis added). Thus, this Private Act, which has been in place for almost 50 years, exempted the Masons from taxation based on the predicate that that property was "used in carrying on" the purposes and activities" of the Masons.

From 1990 to 2011, the Masons preserved the open-space vista to the east of the Temple as the "Temple Gardens" under the terms of an agreement with the District of Columbia

government. The Temple Gardens still exist.

D. The Joint Committee Recognizes Lot 820 as the Temple Landmark Site.

The Joint Committee on Landmarks, the predecessor to the HPRB, included the Scottish Rite Temple in its 1964 Preliminary List. Thereafter, in 1977, the Joint Committee evaluated what should be the boundaries of the Sixteenth Street Historic District. The application for the Sixteenth Street Historic District stated that only properties fronting on 16th Street were to be included. The Joint Committee ultimately concluded that the portion of the Sixteenth Street Historic District relating to the Temple should include the entirety of Lot 820, which was created in 1976, shortly before the Joint Committee's designation. That conclusion is consistent with the normal historic preservation practice of designating the site of a landmark as the lot upon which it sits at the time of its designation. As the HPO has admitted, the Joint Committee's designation of that Historic District boundary to include Lot 820 "acknowledged by implication that Lot 820 was also the site of the historic landmark designation for the temple." "Additional lriformation on Historic Property Boundaries," at 5 (Exhibit 3).

The below maps excerpted from the property study reflect the Joint Committee's conclusion. As the two maps suggest, the Joint Committee initially considered a smaller site for the Temple Landmark, roughly corresponding to Lot 800, but rejected that in favor of a designation that included the entirety of Lot 820.

Sixteenth Street Historic District: 1977

IL

l~ 1·~-----~

0 D

C

7 C ,,_

1

Map 8: Jt. Comm. Draft Map (1977) Map 9: Jt. Comm. Final Map (6-17-77)

8

In 1996, to reflect further land acquisitions , the Masons ' holdings were designated Lot 834, and the Lot that comprises their current holding s extending to 15th Street was given the designation Lot 108 in 2013.

E. The Mason's Application and the Subsequent HPO Reports .

In order to consununate their venture with their developer , Perseus, the Masons sought a subdivision of Lot 108 to separate the site of the commercial development from the site of Temple. This action was necessary for the purpo se of preserving the tax-exempt status of the Temple real estate, which cannot , per the terms of legislation, be used for commerc ial purposes. The subdivision that the Masons sought would establish the eastern boundary of the Temple Lot at the rear wa ll of the Temple. By contrast , DECAA filed an application with the HPO and HPRB to extend the eastern boundary of the Temple Landmark Site all the way to 15th Street, N.W., encompassing all of Lot 108.

9

The HPO addressed DECAA's application in a report on or about April 30 2019. The HPO recommended that the HPRB reject that petition, but in the process it nonetheless expressly

identified the specific boundaries of the current Historic Landmark Designation of the Temple

area as follows:

Under the D.C. Preservation Law adopted in 1978, the new legal

protections for a historic landmark extend to the building and its site, commonly

interpreted as the lot where the building is situated. At the time of its designation,

the temple sat on the lot shown in red outline below. The landmark boundaries of

the Scottish Rite Temple include approximately 2/3 of present-day Lot 108 in

Square 192. Lot 108, which extends from 16th Street east to 15th Street on the

northern half of the square, is the result of a 2013 subdivision by the Supreme

Council combining a series of old lots in Square 192 into a single lot. Extending

from 16th Street easterly to a point that is in line with an alleyway that ran north­

south through paii of the northern half of the square, the landmark boundai·ies

comprised the Scottish Rite Temple building itself; a carriage house/garage

complex located at the southeast (rear) of the property (Old Lot 808); and open

space to the east (in part historically occupied by rowhouses).

1959 Sanborn Nlap showing landmark boundary overlay

These boundaries included the original lots which the Scottish Rite

purchased in 1910 to build its temple as well as additional adjacent lots it

purchased in the decades after completion of the temple (1915) until the time that

boundaries were established for the 16th Street Historic District (1977).

The landmark boundaty follows the eastern edge of the 16th Street Histo1ic

District.

April 30 HPO Report at 1-2 (emphasis added) (Exhibit 5).

10

As discovery in the pending Lawsuit has established, on May 1 an email chain among

the opponents to the Luxury Project concluded that the Project could not proceed with the April

30 HPO Report's boundary determination because it would entail subdivision of an historic

landmark site and frn1her would further require a public hearing before the Mayor's Agent.

That email was forwarded to Andrew Trueblood on May 1, and subsequently distributed to the

RPO staff.

Then on May 6, a more formal submission was made to the HPRB in c01mection with the

upcoming May 23 hearing ("May 6 Submission') (Exhibit 6). In arguing that the HPRB could

not approve the Project in light of the HPO's April 30 boundary determination, the May 6

Submission (at 4) stated:

Set forth below in yellow cross markings is a superposition of the p011ion

of the proposed Luxury Project that is intended to be built inside the boundaries of

the present landmarked site:

U (IXIHINOI

211.95'

IXISTN> llsu:irHIW LOY.

FAR AIIOWAIUI '6,o,9MI' IOT:

,. ..

- G

Rl!II0/1 l IUIU)Nl

RUIDINTW. IUlDIN() {PltOPOS(l)J FAI: • 2.16 (2.16 rAUIIOWAIU WITH I

Perseus proposes to subdivide the existing Landmark, removing the area

in yellow from the Landmark designation so that its project can proceed. The

Masons must subdivide because the Act of Congress (Private Law 92-23) that

gave the Masons tax exempt status for the site extends only as long as the

propertv is used for non-profit purposes. Hence, the necessity of subdividing the

lot into non-profit uses and profit making uses.

As set fo11h below Perseus has not even attempted to meet the requisite

statutory requirements for subdividing, including notice to the public and a public

hearing. Thus, the HPRB hearing cannot proceed on May 23. Moreover, as

further set forth below, Perseus cannot satisfy the pettinent legal requirements. In

any event, should Perseus elect to make any such contention that subdivision of the lot is permitted, it cannot be heard at the May 23 hearing.

11

Discovery in this case also has established that on or about May 6, an HPO Staff meeting was held which included, among others, David Maloney. At that meeting, an HPO participant raised the issue that the April 3 0 HPO Report boundary determination would subject the subdivision to a public hearing. Thereafter, HPO management removed the well-qualified HPO official who had written the April 30 HPO Report from any further involvement, commissioned a new report, and proceeded to assign it to another individual.

Four days later, the HPO issued the May 10 HPO Report. Without referencing the April 30 HPO Report in any way, the HPO proposed a completely different eastern boundary for the Temple Landmark Site than the HPO had expressly confirmed only 10 days earlier. In that May 10 HPO Report, the HPO found that the eastern boundary of the Temple Landmark Site was Lot 800, whose eastern boundary was only a few feet from the back of the Temple, which would permit Perseus to develop the Luxury Project without having to meet the landmark subdivision requirements or have a public hearing before the Mayor's Agent. The sole basis of the May 10 HPO Report's conclusion that the Temple Landmark boundary should be drawn a few feet from the back of the Temple was its contention, unsupported by the requisite standards, that: "Logically, boundaries should reflect the extent of the property at the time of the Temple's completion in 1915[.]" For this purpose, the May 10 HPO Report adopted the boundaries of old Lot 800, which no longer existed when the Preservation Act was passed in 1978, an action that was totally at odds with standard HPO and National Register procedure:

Logically, boundaries should reflect the extent of the property at the time of the Temple's completion in 1915, which was Assessment and Taxation Lot 800. Lots 40-42 (purchased 1920), 105 (1921), 106 (1952), 28 (1954) and 29 (1963) were acquired by the Scottish Rite in later years, as noted. As the 1965 Baist real estate atlas indicates, these eastern lots had not been formally consolidated with the temple by subdivision, or even informally, by the creation of an A&T lot.

Sixteenth Street was designated in 1977 as a Category II historic district. The district was listed in the National Register in 1978, with clearly delineated boundaries for what had previously been a sketchily defined area. The Sixteenth Street boundary behind the temple was established along the line of an Assessment and Taxation /A&TI Lot 820 which, in 1976, was newly superimposed on the several lots the Masons had acquired by then, including the alley/stable garage complex on Lot 808, purchased in 1969.

May 10 HPO Report at 5.

The HPRB followed this recommendation and denied DECAA's application. On May 23, 2019, the HPRB fixed the eastern boundary of the Landmark in alignment with the old Lot 800. The HPRB also approved both the concept for the new construction that was proposed by

12

the Masons and Perseus and the subdivision of the property that the Masons were seeking. Consequently, DECAA, DelleDonne, and Dubin filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

In its Complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that at the time the Temple Landmark was designated on the D. C. Inventory, its site comprised what was then Lot 820. Indeed, the final map produced by the Joint Committee on Landmarks and issued June 17, 1977 encompasses the dimensions of Lot 820. The Plaintiffs contend that the HPRB's attempt to reduce the Landmark Site to the old Lot 800 is arbitrary and capricious, detrimental to the Landmark, and at odds with the requirements of the D.C. Preservation Law.

The proposed development of the five-story apartment building by the Masons and Perseus is controversial for several reasons, including: (1) it would completely block the view of the Temple's rear apse from most angles of vision - i.e., it would destroy the clear view of the apse that currently exists - which of course would have a major negative impact on the Landmark, and (2) it would destroy the open space that currently constitutes the Temple Gardens, which for several reasons would have a negative impact upon the Sixteenth Street Historic District.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SCOTTISH RITE TEMPLE LANDMARK

A. The Boundary of The Temple Landmark Site Is Lot 820.

As noted above, after reviewing the materials and the requisite standards, I have concluded that the boundary of the Temple Landmark Site is A&T Lot 820, the lot upon which the landmark sat at the time of its entry into the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites. This conclusion is supported by extensive evidence.

First, the HPO reached this same conclusion its April 3 0 HPO Report. As the April 3 0 I-IPO Report noted, the boundaries of an historic landmark are "commonly interpreted" to be the lot upon which the landmark sits at the time of its designation. The Joint Committee, the HPRB's predecessor reached the same conclusion, as the HPO has admitted. See Additional Iriformalion on Historic Property Boundaries," at 5 (Exhibit 3). Lot 820 was the lot upon which the Temple sat at the time of its designation into the DC Inventory.

Second, the HPO acknowledged repeatedly that the National Register Bulletin: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties provides the relevant guidance in selecting boundaries. However, it failed to apply, or even address, the standards set forth therein. On page 3 of the document is a section entitled "Selecting Boundaries." Of particular relevance here, unaddressed by the HPO in the May 10 HPO Report, and indeed directly contrary to the conclusion in that Report, is the section with the bolded title "Current Legal Boundaries," which states as follows:

Current Legal Boundaries. Use the legal boundaries of a property as recorded in the current tax map or plat accompanying the deed when these boundaries

encompass the eligible resource and are consistent with its historical significance and remaining integrity.

National Register Bulletin at 3 (italics added) (Exhibit 7).

13

Under this standard, the site of the Scottish Rite Temple at the time that it entered the D. C. Inventory is Lot 820, unless - for some reason - the dimensions of the lot could be deemed "inconsistent" with its "historical significance and remaining integrity." (Lot 820 clearly encompasses the eligible resource.) Clearly, the dimensions of Lot 820 are consistent with both the significance and remaining integrity of the Scottish Rite Temple, since the dimensions of the lot afforded a full and unhampered view of the entire building. Further, the converse is also clearly true: Lot 820 is not inconsistent with the building's historical significance and "remaining integrity" for the same reasons.

This conclusion is bolstered by the HPO's and the Joint Committee's previous consideration of this issue. The HPO acknowledged that "at the time of its designation, the temple sat on the lot shown in red outline," and the "red outline" to which the statements refers included "approximately 2/3 of present-day Lot I 08 in Square 192," i.e., as specified in the diagram in the April 30 HPO Report, Lot 820 as it existed in 1979. Further, the Joint Commission's final map of the Sixteenth Street Historic District in 1977 fixed the boundaries of the Scottish Rite Temple Site as Lot 820. The HPO acknowledged this fact in a number of draft staff reports that were not released to the public - staff reports that were obtained by DECAA through the process of discovery in the course of litigation.

The conclusion that the HPO subsequently reached in its May IO report ("May 10 HPO Report"), later adopted by the HPRB that Lot 800 was the Temple Landmark Site was marred by the absence of cogent consideration of the relevant factors as well as procedural irregularities. Among other things, the May 10 HPO Report's conclusion that, "[l]ogically, boundaries should reflect the extent of the property at the time of the Temple's completion in 1915, which was Assessment and Taxation Lot 800," is bereft of any reference to the applicable standards and is contrary to the principles enunciated in the National Bulletin, which specifies that a the designating party should use the boundaries in the "current tax map" (i.e., at the time of designation). Indeed, the May 10 HPO Report provides no analysis of the standards set forth therein.

Further, the about-face of the HPO, reversing its conclusion in the April 30 Report, without any analysis of why the conclusion that the botmdary was Lot 820 was incorrect, is highly suspect. The HPO reversed its determination only after communications to the HPO revealed that the April 20 HPO Report's conclusion that the boundary was Lot 820 would require that Perseus, a well-healed developer, would need to meet the standards relating to the subdivision of an historic landmark and that subdivision under such boundary determination would require a public hearing before the Mayor's Agent.

B. The Proposed Subdivision Violates the Standards Relating to the Subdivision of An Historic Landmark Site.

14

The subdivision of Lot 108 is completely inconsistent with the requisite standard relating to the subdivision of property within an historic landmark. As noted above, this standard is applicable because the boundary of the Temple Landmark Site is Lot 820.

1. Applicable Standard.

The standards for subdividing properties within an historic district are well-established. As the Mayor's Agent has explained:

D. C. Code § 6-1106( e) states that no subdivision subject to the Act may be admitted to record unless the Mayor finds that the admission to record is "necessary in the public interest" or that a failure to do so will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner.

The term "necessary in the public interest'' is defined in D. C. Code § 6-1102(10) as "consistent with the purposes of this subchapter, as set forth in D. C. Code § 6-1106(b ), or necessary to allow for the construction of a project of special merit." The Applicant has not asserted that the subdivision is either necessary to construct a project of special merit or that the denial will result in unreasonable economic hardship. Rather, the Applicant only claims that the subdivision is consistent with the purposes of the Act.

The Applicant bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed subdivision of the landmark is necessary in the public interest.

Appropriately, the Act sets forth various purposes with respect to landmarks and historic districts. As the Mayor's Agent has previously held:

With respect to historic landmarks, pursuant to D. C. Code § 6-1106(b )(2), the relevant purpose of the Act is:

• To retain and enhance historic landmarks in the District of Columbia and to encourage their adaptation for current use ....

In Re: Williams-Addison House, HPA Case 07-267, at 4 quoting In the Matter of Bowie-Sevier House, 1521 32nd Street, NW, HPA Case 06-007 (emphasis added).

2. Application of Statutory Requirements Standards to Instant Case

The HPRB and the HPO failed utterly to apply this standard. Indeed, both the HPRB and the HPO fail even to mention the statutorily mandated standard. In any event, it is readily apparent that the proposed subdivision will neither "retain" nor "enhance" the Temple, nor will it meet any of the other requisite requirements.

15

(a) "Retain" Standard.

Under the above authority, "in order for the Mayor's Agent to make a finding that the subdivision is 'necessary in the public interest,' the Applicant must sufficiently demonstrate that the subdivision will actually 'retain and enhance' the landmark[.] D. C. Code § 6-l l 06(b)(2)." In Re: Williams-Addison House, at 11. The proposed subdivision will violate the "retain" statutory requirement because it will subdivide property that is part of the Temple Landmark. This fact is established by overwhelming evidence, including the following:

► As established by the above analysis, the Temple Landmark Site is lot 820, not Lot 800. The HPO acknowledged this fact in the April 30 HPO Report.

► In 1971, almost 50 years ago, Congress passed Private Act 92-23, which provides that the area described therein:

shall be exempt from taxation by the District of Columbia so long as that property is owned by the Supreme Council and is used in carrying on its pm:poses and activities and is not used for any commercial purposes.

Private Act 92-23 (emphasis added). The area so described in this 1971 Congressional Act is the same area denoted in the April 30 HPO Report as the boundaries of the Temple Landmark Site, which extends the site subject to the tax exemption approximately I 00 feet behind the Temple. Congress' provision of such tax exemption to the Temple Landmark Site establishes that Congress itself likewise viewed that area showu within the red boundary lines of the April 30 HPO Report to be associated with the Temple. In my view, this Congressional determination preempts any contrary determination. The Temple has had the benefit of the tax exemption since at least 1971 (a period of almost 50 years), including for the area extending 100 feet eastwards towards 15th Street from the rear of the Temple building itself, thereby establishing that the Temple Landmark Site (as determined by the April 30 HPO Report) was "used in carrying on its purposes and activities."

► The District itself subsequently recognized the area consisting of Lot 820 as associated with the Temple by passing legislation also exempting that area.

► The Joint Committee, the HPRB's predecessor, designated the eastern boundary for the Sixteenth Street Historic District as Lot 820, further evidencing that the subdivision of Lot 108 will not satisfy the ·"retain" test. In 1977, roughly concurrent with the passage of the Act in 1978, a number of historic districts were created, one of which was the Sixteenth Street Historic District. As the HPO has admitted, the Joint Committee's designation of that Historic District boundary to include Lot 820 "acknowledged by implication

16

that Lot 820 was also the site of the historic landmark designation for the temple." "Additional lriformation on Historic Property Boundaries," at 5 (Exhibit 3).

► The Masons themselves denoted the area including Lot 820 as the "Main Temple Site" in a land records filing with the DC Government. Declaration of Covenants, Exhibit A (submitted herewith as Exhibit 8).

(b) "Enhance" Standard

It is also abundantly clear that the Masons cannot meet the "enhance" standard. The HPO has admitted that if the Luxury Project is constructed, "the back of the temple will no longer be visible from most public vantage points[.]" HPO Report dated November 29, 2018 ("November 29 HPO Report") at 3. Blocking the view of the Temple apse cannot possibly "enhance" this magnificent historic landmark. Further, the HPO has admitted that the Luxury Project was expressly designed not to enhance the Temple:

As well, the symmetry, materiality, classical styling, monumental scale and civic-institutional characteristics of the temple are so completely different from the asymmetrical, small-scale, organic development pattern of the neighborhood that attempts to apply the temple's characteristics to a mid-rise apartment building felt contrived and out of place with the surrounding context. Instead, the new building has been designed to relate to the residential context of the historic districts which will surround it on its three primary sides.

"Design Concept," November 29 HPO Report at 4.

C. DC Preservation Act "Retain and Enhance" Standard Re Subdivision of Property Within an Historic District.

Assuming that the boundary of the Temple Landmark Site is former A&T Lot 800, which as noted above is incorrect, the subdivision of Lot 108 still does not satisfy the requisite standards. The Temple Landmark and former A&T Lot 800 sit within the Sixteenth Street Historic District. The Masons do not satisfy the requirements for subdividing property within the site of an historic landmark. Those standards require that tl1e Masons show that the subdivision is "necessary in the public interest." As set forth more fully described below, under that standard, with respect to property within an historic district, the Preservation Act requires, in part, that the subdivision "retain and enhance those properties which contribute to the character of the historic district." The subdivision with of Lot 108, which will result in the construction of a five story structure that the HPO has admitted will block the view of Temple from most public vantage points, will not retain and enhance the Temple historic landmark. To the contrary, it will degrade the landmark.

17

1. Statutory Standards for Approval of Subdivision.

The standards for subdividing properties within an historic district are likewise well­established. As noted above, and as the Mayor's Agent has explained, D.C. Code § 6-1106(e) requires that any such subdivision be "necessary in the public interest" or that a failure to do so will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. "[N]ecessary in the public interest" is defined in D.C. Code§ 6-1102(10) as "consistent with the purposes of this subchapter, as set forth in D. C. Code § 6- 1106(b ), or necessary to allow for the construction of a project of special merit." Here, the Masons have not asserted that the subdivision is either necessary to construct a project of special merit or that the denial will result in unreasonable economic hardship. Rather, the Masons only claim that the subdivision is consistent with the purposes of the Act.

With respect to buildings in historic districts, and pursuant to D.C. Code§ 6-1106(b)(l), the relevant purposes of the Act are:

• To retain and enhance those properties which contribute to the character of the historic district and encourage their adaptation for current use; and

• To assure that new construction and subdivision of lots in an historic district are compatible with the character of the historic district.

In Re: Williams-Addison House, HPA Case 07-267, at 4 quoting In the Matter of Bowie-Sevier House, 1521 32nd Street, NW, HPA Case 06-007 (emphasis added).

2. Application of Statutory Requirements Standards to Instant Case

The HPO determined that the instant subdivision is governed by DC Code § 6-1106(b )(2) because the Temple, which sits on Lot I 08, is a "contributing building in the 16th

Street district." HPO Report (I-IPA Case No. 18-668 for the May 23, 2019 Hearing). Thus, under this standard, as noted above, "the Applicant must sufficiently demonstrate that the subdivision will actually 'retain and enhance"' the contributing structure, i.e., the Temple. See D.C. Code § 6-1106(b )(2); In Re: Williams-Addison House, at 11.

The HPRB and the HPO both completely failed to apply this standard. Indeed, both the HPRB and the HPO fail even to mention the statutorily mandated "retain and enhance" standard. In any event, it is readily apparent that the proposed subdivision will neither "retain" nor "enhance" the Temple, nor will it meet any of the other requisite requirements.

(a) "Retain" Standard.

The proposed subdivision will violate the "retain" statutory requirement because it will subdivide property historically closely associated with the Temple for almost I 00 years. This fact is established by overwhelming evidence set forth above in Section B.2.a.

18

(b) "Enhance" Standard

It is also abundantly clear that the Masons and Perseus cannot meet the "enhance" standard. As noted above, the HPO has admitted that if the Luxury Project is constructed, "the back of the temple will no longer be visible from most public vantage points[.]" November 29 HPO Report at 3. Blocking the view of the Temple apse cannot possibly "enhance" this magnificent historic landmark. Further, the HPO has admitted that the Luxury Project was expressly designed not to enhance the Temple. See supra Section B.2.b; "Design Concept," November 29 HPO Report at 4.

(c) Compatibility Standard

The purposes of the Preservation Act also include assurance "that new construction and subdivision of lots in an historic district are compatible with the character of the historic district." In Re: Williams-Addison House, HPA Case 07-267, at 4. The construction of a massive, five story building with sub-basement units is completely incompatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons, among others:

► Destruction of the Character of the Neighborhood. As one can easilydetermine by driving around the 15th and S Street neighborhood, the letteredcross streets are predominately two to three story row houses, most of whichwere constructed in the late 1800s ( similar to the ones the Masonsdemolished). Constructing a new, large, glass and brick five story luxuryapartment building along S Street will destroy the historic nature of theneighborhood. It is apparent from the developer's renderings of the projectthat it is totally inconsistent both in scale and design from the other buildingin the neighborhood, most of which date from the late 1880's, 1890's, andearly 1900's. The November 29 HPO Report's conclusion that four and fivestory apartment buildings are not ''incompatible" (which of course is not thecorrect standard) cites addresses "within sight of the subject property," butare actually remote from project site, including the 1400 Block of R Street,visible only because those buildings significantly exceed in height the rowhouses in the area.

► Degradation of the Quality of Life. The addition of 150 apartment units,with the concomitant 300 plus tenants and cars, will create additionalcongestion in an area that was not designed to handle that volume of trafficand congestion. It will turn a relaxed, pleasant neighborhood into anextension of downtown DC. Moreover, as established below, the constructionof this large, five story apartment building will substantially degrade the lightand the view of those located on the north side of S Street.

► Blockage of Light. A sixty-five foot (including penthouse) looming structureimmediately across S Street would block the view and light of those houses.A solar/shadow study (submitted with Exhibit 6) of the effect that the Luxury

19

Project would have on S Street was commissioned and presented as evidence in a submission before the HPRB. The submission recites that the study was done using the software provided by the HPO on its website. It examined the effect of the Luxury Project for the period November through February, at different times of the day, and provides an illustration of the shadowing of the houses along the north side of S St. before and after the construction of the Luxury Project. As those studies demonstrate, the Luxury Project would block the light to houses ( varying from the basement units and proceeding to entire houses as the day progressed), depending on the month and time of day) along S Street for most of this three month period. The existing row houses in the neighborhood do not come close to imposing this burden on their neighbors. This blockage alone is grounds for denying the construction as not compatible with the neighborhood. As this light study demonstrates, this project because of its height and its resulting blocking of sunlight to the fronts of the historic row houses on S Street is going to seriously degrade the historic streetscape of the 1500 block ofS Street.

► Incompatible Design. The proposed Luxury Project has a fifteen foot deep five foot wide trench to provide an areaway for the two stories of below ground apartments, which is totally inconsistent with any residential buildings in the neighborhood. Unlike any other residential building in the entire Dupont Circle area, if not the entire city, this fifteen foot deep five foot wide trench runs along the front of the building along both 15th Street and S Street sides. This is a design feature that is particularly inappropriate for a building one mile from the front door of the White House.

(d) Noncompliance with Other Regulatory Standards.

Approval of the subdivision of Lot 108 would likewise in my view violate various other regulations. For example, DCMR 10-A §1012.1 provides:

More than almost any other feature, the exceptional width and openness of Washington's parks and streets define the basic character of the city. These spaces include the major monumental greenswards of the Mall, riverfront and stream valley parks, and the green space of estates, cemeteries, and campuses. Tree-lined streets and landscaped front yards unite many historic neighborhoods, and there are small green oases scattered throughout the city. Some are publicly owned, and others are private. Many provide the setting for historic buildings, creating a balance between the natural and built environment that is a unifying feature of the city. Such settings should be protected and maintained as significant landscapes in their own right or as contributing features of historic landmarks and districts. I 012.1

[Emphasis added.] Similarly, DCMR 10-A §1012.3 provides:

Preserve the distinguishing qualities of the District's historic landscapes, both natural and designed. Protect public building and monument grounds, parks and parkway systems, government and institutional campuses, gardens, cemeteries, and other historic landscapes from deterioration and incompatible development. 1012.3

DCMR 10-A §1012.7 states:

Retain landscaped yards, gardens, estate grounds, and other significant areas of green space associated with historic landmarks whenever possible. If development is permitted, retain sufficient open space to protect the setting of the historic landmark and the integrity of the historic property. In historic districts, strive to maintain shared open space in the interior of blocks while balancing the need to accommodate reasonable expansion of residential buildings.

D. The HPO's and HPRB's Decisions Violate Preservation Norms and the Preservation Act.

20

As described above, in its recommendation to the HPRB, the HPO initially acknowledged that "under the D.C. Preservation Law adopted in 1978, the new legal protections for a historic landmark extend to the building and its site [ emphasis added], commonly interpreted as the lot where the building is situated." April 30 HPO Report at 1. Moreover, the HPO acknowledged, "at the time of its designation, the temple sat on the lot shown in red outline below." Id at 2. The "red outline below" - an outline that was traced upon a map within the staff report -encompasses a lot that corresponds to Lot 820. And the HPO report went on to acknowledge that "the landmark boundaries of the Scottish Rite Temple include approximately 2/3 ofpresent­day Lot 108 in Square 192." Thus, the HPO staff acknowledged by these statements the fact that at the time the Landmark was designated for protection, its eastern Site boundary extended approximately 100 feet east of the Temple's rear wall.

Notwithstanding these acknowledgements, under suspicious circumstances set forth above, in its May 10 HPO Report the HPO called the controversy surrounding the Site of the Temple Landmark an "opportunity" for the HPRB to "clarify and confirm" the boundary of the Site by "considering the extent of the temple property at the time of its construction in 1915 and the time of its identification as a historic landmark in 1964." This latter provision of the recommendation alluded to Joint Committee's Preliminary List, which, when promulgated in 1964, "did not," according to the staff report, "designate properties as we do now" but "merely put them on a list by name and address."

Importantly, however, the May 10 HPO Report did not take cognizance of the fact that the Joint Committee's.final map, as published in 1977, established a boundary for the Sixteenth Street Historic District that encompassed the land within Lot 820 at the site of the Scottish Rite Temple Landmark. A draft HPO Report obtained by DECAA through the process of discovery (but not released to the public) establishes that the HPO itself recognized that the Joint Committee had already selected Lot 820 as the appropriate site of the Temple Landmark. But

21

through a process to which the public did not have access, the decision was made in a closed­door process to abandon Lot 820 as the Site of the Landmark and instead recommend an action that would "clarify" the Site as corresponding to the old Lot 800, thus terminating the Site of the Landmark at the Temple's rear wall. This would effectively shrink the amount of protection that the D.C. Preservation Law would provide to the building, thus facilitating the development project of the Masons and Perseus.

It is clear that when the Landmark was first designated for protection per the D.C. Preservation Law, its Landmark Site was Lot 820 - rather than Lot 800. HPO staff acknowledged this in the previously-quoted statements, to wit: "At the time of its designation, the temple sat on the lot shown in red outline," followed by the statement that "the landmark boundaries of the Scottish Rite Temple include approximately 2/3 of present-day Lot 108 in Square 192."

HPO staff attempted to rationalize this reduction in the size of the Landmark Site by contending that the site that was occupied by the Temple upon its completion in 1915 should be the boundaries of the Temple Landmark Site for protection. That contention is flagrantly at odds with the Preservation Act and best practices in the field of historic preservation for multiple reasons. These actions on the part of the HPO and the HPRB were in fact derelictions of duty that must have been prompted - for lack of any other good reason - by a felt imperative of facilitating and approving a development project.

1. The HPO and the HPRB Did Not Apply the Appropriate Statutory "Retain and Enhance" Standard.

As fully described above, to meet the standards for subdivision, either for the site of an historic landmark or for property within an historic district, the Masons had to demonstrate that the subdivision would "retain and enhance' the Temple, which as the HPO has admitted is both an Historic Landmark in its own right as well as a building contributing to the historic character of the Sixteenth Street Historic District. Yet, both the HPO reports and the HPRB' s analysis of the boundary issue is wholly bereft of any discussion, let alone application, of the necessary standard. Instead, the HPO report merely concluded that:

Logically, boundaries should reflect the extent of the property at the time of the Temple's completion in 1915, which was Assessment and Taxation Lot 800. Lots 40-42 (purchased 1920), 105 (1921), 106 (1952), 28 (1954) and 29 (1963) were acquired by the Scottish Rite in later years, as noted.

May 10 HPO Report at 5. The HPRB, in a complete rubber stamp of that decision, quoted the HPO Report verbatim as follows:

Logically, boundaries should reflect the extent of the property at the time of the Temple's completion in 1915, which was Assessment and Taxation Lot 800. Lots 40-42 (purchased 1920), 105 (1921), 106 (1952), 28 (1954) and 29 (1963) were acquired by the Scottish Rite in later years, as noted.

HPRB Decision (DupEast p00564) (submitted herewith as Exhibit 9.)

2. The HPO and the HPRB Did Not Apply the Appropriate National Bulletin and Related Historical Preservation Standards.

22

The HPO and HPRB' s above methodology violates the standard they profess to follow, that of the National Register Bulletin. The section of that Bulletin with the bolded title "Current Legal Boundaries" states as follows:

Current Legal Boundaries. Use the legal boundaries of a property as recorded in the current tax map or plat accompanying the deed when these boundaries encompass the eligible resource and are consistent with its historical significance and remaining integrity.

National Register Bulletin at 3 (italics added). The HPO and the HPRB totally failed to address this standard. Even more significant, the Bulletin's standard is diametrically opposed to the HPO and the HPRB's contention that: "Logically, boundaries should reflect the extent of the property at the time of the Temple's completion in 1915."

The rationale for using the current boundaries is apparent. The procedures set forth in the National Register Bulletin are grounded in principles that go far beyond what is customary in the field of historic preservation, for the Bulletin principles also derive from the long-term perspectives that historians generally - historians in general and not just historians working in the sub-field of architectural history - have used from time immemorial. The breadth and the scope of historical inquiry proceed from the realization that the process of history is ongoing and the factors that shape the historical process are comprehensive in their sweep.

Many types of historic resources will have changed over time from the date ( or dates) when they were created to the time when protection began. The philosophic cogency of preservation mnst acknowledge the fact that accumulated changes to historic buildings ( and their sites) must be taken into consideration as bearing upon the identity of those resources when the designation for protection is granted. History never stops, and a cogent appraisal of historic significance must consider all the attributes of a building and site that have developed within the continuum that extends from their creation to the time when evaluation in historical terms must occur.

The time for making the decisive determinations in regard to the boundaries of an historic resource - the determinations that will establish the conceptual and practical baseline for future regulation - is the time when the resource is first designated for protection. Until that time, the historic resource has been subject to all sorts of changes - changes of many different kinds. Historians know that all the changes in the resource and its surroundings are a part of its history, and they all deserve to be assessed at the time of its designation under law.

Best practices in the field of preservation dictate that all of this accumnlated history -the history of change - must be analyzed when the resource is given protection. Analysis may reveal that a number of physical changes that have tal<en place in the resource - and also in its

23

site - may possess a significance of their own that should be taken into acconnt when the resource is assessed for purposes of protection.

For example, a mid-nineteenth century porch that was added to an eighteenth-century house may be deemed to possess a sufficient amount of significance to justify its retention and protection nnder law. Many other illustrative examples of this well-established principle could be provided.

In the case of the Scottish Rite Temple, the accumulated changes to the site by the time of its designation conferred an additional degree of significance to the entire resource that is obvious: the expansion of the site since the time of the building's construction enhanced the building by permitting an optimal opportunity for its qualities in three dimensional space to be seen and appreciated.

The Scottish Rite Temple is a major monument, and since the time of its creation an expansion of its site - to the east and to the rear of the building - created an open-space vista that facilitates an appreciation by the public of the building's design that did not exist in 1915. But this open-space vista has existed through most of the years that comprise the history of the building. The HPO staff illogically contends that protection should be limited to the site as it existed in 1915. Under the circumstances, that contention is nonsensical.

3. The HPO and the HPRB's Conclusion Regarding Pope's Intent Is Not Credible.

In its April 30 HPO Report, the HPO staff ventured to contend that "it is not possible to conjecture about what Pope wanted for the Scottish Rite site." Notwithstanding the supposed impossibility of making such conjectures, the HPO staff went on to observe that since "Pope designed the building on its site hemmed in by both the street rowhouses on lots at the rear of the temple," he "presumably [ emphasis added] designed the building within those constraints and not [ emphasis added] with the expectation that those buildings would be removed in the future to enhance views of the temple building." This set of observations is contrary to a substantial circumstantial evidence. It is also based upon a static and artificial view of the historical process.

First, it is uniformly recognized that Pope based the Temple's design on the tomb of Mausolus at Halicamassus (circa 350, B.C.), one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Apparently the HPO did not review any of the historical renderings of this edifice, all of which that I have accessed reflect an open and nnobstructed view of the monument from all angles.

Second, in the case of the Scottish Rite Temple, Pope and his firm designed the building as a three-dimensional creation with a program of elaborately articulated massing and ornamentation. This applied as much to the rear of the building as to any other part of the building. He and the members of his firm went to very great lengths to give their clients (the Masons) and the general public results of which all would be proud. They surely hoped that if the building should survive, it would please a great many people in the future, people who had not yet even been born when the building was designed. It is simply not credible that Pope ( and

24

the Masons) would have expended considerable time, energy, and expense to construct the apse of the Temple if Pope did not hope and want the rear of the Temple to remain visible.

Third, the actual experience of life and common sense should be brought to bear upon this question - the experience that all of us share. We think about the possible results of the work that we are doing as we contemplate the future. And we do this in light of the fact that the future is to a great extent unpredictable. The things we create will be absorbed in a much greater chain of events that may generate the kinds of results that will please us - or not. We do our very best, but the future is often beyond our power to control.

Common sense teaches that any serious architect ( and his colleagues) would desire a future scenario in which the fruits of their labor would be apparent to a maximum extent and to an audience of maximum size and that their building would never be demolished. Thus, it is highly probable that Pope wanted this scenario to occur in a manner that most of us can validate as normal on the basis of our own experience.

John Russell Pope (1874-1937) lived long enough to see this hoped-for scenario unfold if he happened to visit ( or to drive past) the Scottish Rite Temple in the years before his death. It is quite possible that he did so, in light of the major commissions in Washington, D.C. - the commissions to design the Jefferson Memorial, the National Archives, and the National Gallery of Art - that he received in the 1930s.

In any case, it is obvious -self-evident - that any new construction that reduces rather than preserves the existing opporttmity for people to behold an elaborate and intricate piece of monumental architecture degrades the status of such a piece of architecture. Both the recommendation of the HPO and the action of the HPRB would not "enhance" the condition of the Landmark, per the requirements of the D.C. Preservation Law.

They would degrade it.

They are therefore at odds with the requirement of the law.

4. The HPO and the HPRB's Lot 800 Boundary Determination Violated Their Own Standard Practice.

The selection of Lot 800, the lot upon which the Temple sat at the time of its construction, is at odds with the previous practices of the HPO, and thus - unless it can be somehow justified - highly irregular. This revealing situation was elicited in an Interrogatory by counsel for DECAA to the District. Interrogatory No. 18 requested the District of Columbia government to:

Identify each historic landmark within the District of Columbia where the site of the landmark as designated in the D.C. Inventory (i) consisted of the lot upon which the historic landmark sat at the time of its construction but (ii) was different from the lot upon which it rested at the time of its designation in the D.C. Inventory, by providing the name and address of the landmark, the lot upon which

it sat when constructed, and the lot upon which it sat when entered into the D.C. Inventory.

The response of the District of Columbia government was as follows:

This Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks to have the District conduct research. Subject to the General Objections and the foregoing objection, the District responds: HPO staff do not recall any instances of such cases. [Emphasis added.}

25

Thus, it appears that the HPO staff have never before treated the boundaries of any Historic Landmark - any historic resource that in the course of their work they are supposed to protect - in the way that they treated the Site boundaries of the Scottish Rite Temple after the Masons and Perseus proposed their development project. In my view, that is a very bad reflection upon the integrity of the procedures that the HPO were used in this case, which were .flagrantly irregular.

The history of the way.this case was handled by the HPO is suggested by the staff reports that were suppressed until the process of discovery brought them to light. One of the most revealing of these undated and unreleased staff reports is Exhibit 3, "Additional Information on Historic Property Boundaries," in which the HPO admitted as follows:

In 1977, the Joint Committee on Landmarks designated the Sixteenth Street Historic District, drawing its boundaries along the rear lot line of each property fronting on Sixteenth Street. Consequently, the historic district boundary at the temple site follows the rear line of Lot 820. This is consistent with the guidance for delineating historic district boundaries issued by the National Register of Historic Places. Though not explicit. the Joint Committee's action acknowledged by implication that Lot 820 was also the site of the historic landmark designation for the temple.

Exhibit 3 at 5 (DupEast 0060) ( emphasis added).

The question should be asked why did the HPO in the May 10 HPO Report attempt to overturn the determination of the Joint Committee (the predecessor to the HPRB). The information provided by the deposition of HPO staff member Kim Williams on December 18, 2019 suggests an answer: the process that determined the contents of the May 10 HPO Report resulted at least in part from an irregular intervention between May 1 and May 6, 2019.

The possibility that the procedures in this case were tainted in a manner that raises a question regarding legality - the applicable law being the D.C. Preservation Act - should be considered in light of the manner in which the HPO must behave in order to measure up to the requirements of law. The D.C. Government admitted in Interrogatory No. 18 that no one recalls any other occasion when a property designated in the D.C. Inventory has had its site defined (or redefined) as the lot upon which the landmark sat at the time of its construction as opposed to

26

the lot where it was located at the time of designation (which is what National Register policy stipulates).

The denial of equal protection is obvious, but the flagrant nature of that constitutional breach is merely the beginning of the dire implications that are raised by this case, not the least of them being the violation of National Register policy, which, if not corrected, could jeopardize the legitimacy of the D.C. Govermnent's preservation program in more ways than one.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the D. C. Preservation Law is "to retain and enhance historic landmarks in the District of Columbia and to encourage their adaption to current use." Only the most twisted reasoning would have us believe that the reduction of the Temple Landmark's Site in order to facilitate a development project whose construction would shrink the visibility of the building is an action that "enhances" the Historic Landmark or somehow "encourages" its adaptation to its current use. The decision of the HPRB in this case should be overturned because it is at odds with the provisions of the law.

* * * * * I hereby certify that this report is a complete and accurate statement of all of my

opinions, and the basis and reasons for them, to which I will testify under oath.

~ ~ ~-----Richard Striner