District Of Columbia 2023-2024 Regular Session

District Of Columbia Council Bill B25-0793 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	1
2	2
3	3
4	4
5	5
6	6
7	7
8	8
9	9
10	10
11	11	April 22, 2024
12	12
13	13	Nyasha Smith, Secretary
14	14	Council of the District of Columbia
15	15	1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
16	16	Washington, DC 20004
17	17
18	18	Dear Secretary Smith:
19	19
20	20	Today, along with Councilmembers Matthew Frumin, Zachary Parker, and Robert C. White, Jr., I
21	21	am introducing the “Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act of 2024.”
22	22	Please find enclosed a signed copy of the legislation.
23	23
24	24	Critical to all of our work to address the outsized role buildings play in the District’s greenhouse
25	25	gas emissions is reducing barriers or burdens that prevent homeowners, developers, and
26	26	business owners from including energy resiliency and energy- and water-efficiency upgrades at
27	27	their properties. One barrier that some homeowners face when seeking to implement these
28	28	upgrades, including to install solar, are restrictions stemming from their property’s location in a
29	29	historic district.
30	30
31	31	There are currently 70 historic districts in the District, the vast majority of which encompass large
32	32	swaths of residential property. Homeowners living in a historic district – rightfully – face a
33	33	number of limitations on how they may upgrade or otherwise change historic elements of their
34	34	property, including exterior elements that are visible from the roadway. Application of these
35	35	standards is at the discretion of the Historic Preservation Review Board (“HPRB”), which has a
36	36	legislative mandate focused on the preservation of the character of historic properties and
37	37	communities. But its mandate does not include consideration of other compelling factors, such
38	38	as how a proposal might promote a property’s resiliency or energy-efficiency.
39	39
40	40	Unfortunately, this means that the District’s historic preservation efforts may be placed at odds
41	41	with property owners’ efforts to make critical climate-focused upgrades to their property—or,
42	42	where upgrades have been permitted, those proposals have often been restricted in their scope
43	43	or siting, where those changes may result in a diminished benefit to the District in terms of
44	44	meeting our RPS and climate goals. It is also worth noting that it is unclear how many property
45	45	owners within historic districts decide to not even pursue these upgrades due to the impression 2
46	46	that their requests will be denied. Taken together, this approach to historic preservation results
47	47	in neighborhood aesthetics and historic character being given absolute precedence over
48	48	strategies to mitigate climate change - and the environmental and public health impacts that
49	49	come with it.
50	50
51	51	With this in mind, in December 2019, HPRB updated its sustainability guidelines. These new
52	52	guidelines were issued just two months after a widely reported HPRB hearing in which the HPRB
53	53	denied a resident’s application for a solar panel installation on their property, located in a historic
54	54	district with a front-facing sloped roof. HPRB’s determination was in line with its practice of
55	55	denying applications for visible solar installations in historic districts. While the 2019
56	56	sustainability guidelines were a step in the right direction, those standards still permit HPRB to
57	57	scale back upgrades based on the size, location, and visibility of the installation, and HPRB also
58	58	still retains authority to deny applications for critical sustainability upgrades based on these
59	59	considerations. The urgency of our work to address climate change demands that we take action
60	60	to ensure these upgrades can move forward—but, as much as possible, in a manner that
61	61	preserves the historic character of these properties.
62	62
63	63	This legislation would address this balance by making several small but meaningful changes to
64	64	how HPRB reviews applications for resiliency or efficiency upgrades at properties within historic
65	65	districts, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure, heat
66	66	pumps, and energy- and water-efficiency upgrades, such as appliances, fixtures, insulation,
67	67	ventilation systems, windows and door upgrades, and other similar design elements. Specifically,
68	68	the legislation clarifies that such upgrades are to be considered by HRPB as within the character
69	69	of a historic district; however, under the bill, HPRB would retain the authority to propose
70	70	alternatives to a proposed upgrade, where the alternative would provide the same energy
71	71	resiliency or energy- and water-efficiency benefits as the upgrade proposed in the property
72	72	owner’s application. Of note, this new policy would apply only to properties within historic
73	73	districts, not to those properties designated as historic landmarks. The changes in the bill will
74	74	help ensure that these critical investments in energy resiliency and energy- and water-efficiency
75	75	can move forward at these properties, while retaining the authority of HPRB to provide guidance
76	76	on how those upgrades can be implemented such that they do not alter the property’s historic
77	77	character.
78	78
79	79	Please feel free to reach out to me or my Legislative Director, Antonio Nunes, with any questions
80	80	or for additional information.
81	81
82	82	Sincerely,
83	83	Charles Allen, Ward 6 Councilmember
84	84	Chair, Committee on Transportation & the Environment
85	85	1
86	86	___________________________ ______________________________ 1
87	87	Councilmember Matthew Frumin Councilmember Charles Allen 2
88	88	3
89	89	4
90	90	___________________________ ______________________________ 5
91	91	Councilmember Zachary Parker Councilmember Robert C. White, Jr. 6
92	92	7
93	93	8
94	94	9
95	95	A BILL 10
96	96	11
97	97	______________ 12
98	98	13
99	99	14
100	100	IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 15
101	101	16
102	102	_____________________ 17
103	103	18
104	104	19
105	105	To amend the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 to require that the 20
106	106	Historic Preservation Review Board consider, for a building or structure in a historic 21
107	107	district, proposed alterations that include the installation or construction of design elements 22
108	108	promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency as within the character of the 23
109	109	historic district, provided that the Board may propose reasonable alternatives that produce 24
110	110	energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency benefits that are substantially similar to 25
111	111	the proposed design element. 26
112	112	27
113	113	BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this 28
114	114	act may be cited as the “Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act of 29
115	115	2024”. 30
116	116	Sec. 2. The Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, effective 31
117	117	March 3, 1979 (D.C. Law 2-144; D.C. Official Code § 6-1101 et seq.), is amended as follows: 32
118	118	(a) Section 2(b)(1) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1101(b)(1)) is amended as follows: 33
119	119	(1) Subparagraph (B) is amended by striking the phrase “district; and” and inserting 34
120	120	the phrase “district while promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency at these 35
121	121	properties; and” in its place. 36
122	122	2
123	123	(2) Subparagraph (C) is amended by striking the phrase “district;” and inserting the 37
124	124	phrase “district while promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency at these 38
125	125	properties;” in its place. 39
126	126	(b) Section 3 (D.C. Official Code § 6-1102) is amended as follows: 40
127	127	(1) New paragraphs (4B) and (4C) are amended to read as follows: 41
128	128	“(4B) “Electric vehicle charging infrastructure” means the equipment used to 42
129	129	charge the battery or other energy storage device of an electric vehicle. 43
130	130	“(4C) “Electric vehicle make-ready infrastructure” means the electrical 44
131	131	infrastructure, structural upgrades, and other equipment necessary for the installation and operation 45
132	132	of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.”. 46
133	133	(2) A new paragraph (10B) is added to read as follows: 47
134	134	“(10B) “Solar panels” shall include: 48
135	135	“(A) Solar panels mounted on the exterior of a building or structure; or 49
136	136	“(B) Ground-mount solar panels, where there is a building or structure 50
137	137	elsewhere on the property.”. 51
138	138	(c) Section 6(f) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1105(f)) is amended to read as follows: 52
139	139	“(f)(1) No permit shall be issued unless the Mayor finds that: 53
140	140	“(A) Such issuance is necessary in the public interest; 54
141	141	“(B) Failure to issue a permit will result in unreasonable economic hardship 55
142	142	to the owner; or 56
143	143	“(C) For a building or structure in a historic district, the alteration includes 57
144	144	the installation or construction of design elements promoting energy resiliency and water and 58
145	145	energy efficiency, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure, 59
146	146	3
147	147	heat pumps, or energy or water efficiency upgrades, or weatherization of the building or structure; 60
148	148	provided, that: 61
149	149	“(i) The Historic Preservation Review Board may propose 62
150	150	reasonable alternatives that produce energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency benefits 63
151	151	substantially similar to the proposed design element; and 64
152	152	“(ii) The Mayor may limit the scope of work allowed under the 65
153	153	permit to the design elements listed in this subparagraph where the Mayor determines that other 66
154	154	alterations included in the application are not necessary in the public interest. 67
155	155	“(2) For permits issued under paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the applicant 68
156	156	shall make best efforts to protect and preserve historic elements.”. 69
157	157	(d) Section 8(f) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1107(f)) is amended to read as follows: 70
158	158	“(f)(1) The permit shall be issued unless the Mayor, after due consideration of the zoning 71
159	159	laws and regulations of the District, finds that the design of the building and the character of the 72
160	160	historic district or historic landmark are incompatible; provided, that: 73
161	161	“(A) In any case in which an application is made for the construction of an 74
162	162	additional building or structure on a lot upon which there is presently a building or structure, the 75
163	163	Mayor may deny a construction permit entirely where the Mayor finds that any additional 76
164	164	construction will be incompatible with the character of the historic district or historic landmark; 77
165	165	and 78
166	166	“(B) The Mayor shall find the following design elements compatible with 79
167	167	the character of all historic districts; provided, the Historic Preservation Review Board may 80
168	168	propose reasonable alternatives that produce energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency 81
169	169	benefits that are substantially similar to the proposed design element: 82
170	170	4
171	171	“(i) Solar panels; 83
172	172	“(ii) Electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure; 84
173	173	“(iii) Heat pumps; 85
174	174	“(iv) Design elements designed to increase the energy or water 86
175	175	efficiency of the building or structure, including appliances, fixtures, insulation, ventilation 87
176	176	systems, windows and door upgrades, and other design elements. 88
177	177	“(2) Notwithstanding a finding of incompatibility, the Mayor may find that the 89
178	178	issuance of the permit is necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit.”. 90
179	179	(e) Section 9a(f) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1108.01(f)) is amended to read as follows: 91
180	180	“(f)(1) No permit shall be issued unless: 92
181	181	“(A) The Mayor finds that such issuance of a permit is necessary in the 93
182	182	public interest. Upon making such a finding, the Mayor shall issue an order defining the nature of 94
183	183	the approved conceptual design and specifying any further consultation the Mayor considers 95
184	184	appropriate prior to the submission of the application required in sections 5(b), 6(b), 7(b), or 8(b) 96
185	185	of this act, or; 97
186	186	“(B) For public safety facilities within a historic district, the renovation or 98
187	187	new construction would include the installation of design elements that produce energy resiliency 99
188	188	or water and energy efficiency benefits, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-100
189	189	ready infrastructure, heat pumps, energy or water efficiency upgrades, or weatherization of the 101
190	190	building or structure; provided, that: 102
191	191	“(i) The Historic Preservation Review Board may propose 103
192	192	reasonable alternatives that produce energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency benefits 104
193	193	substantially similar to the proposed design element; and 105
194	194	5
195	195	“(ii) The Mayor may limit the scope of work allowed under the 106
196	196	permit to the design elements listed in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection where the Mayor 107
197	197	determines that other alterations included in the application are not necessary in the public interest. 108
198	198	“(2) For permits issued under paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the applicant 109
199	199	shall make best efforts to protect and preserve historic elements.”. 110
200	200	Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 111
201	201	The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Budget Director as the fiscal impact 112
202	202	statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, approved 113
203	203	October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 114
204	204	Sec. 4. Effective date. 115
205	205	This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the 116
206	206	Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of congressional review as 117
207	207	provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 118
208	208	1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of 119
209	209	Columbia Register. 120