[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUILDING HEIGHTS ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 23, 1994

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, among the most attractive features of our 
Nation's Capital is its skyline. Unlike most other major cities of the 
world, the scenic vistas of Washington, DC, are not interrupted by 
high-rise commercial buildings and residential complexes. That unique 
aesthetic is no accident, but the consequence of centuries of conscious 
public policy. President George Washington promulgated the first 
building regulations on this subject in 1791.
  Congress enacted building height limit legislation in 1899. In 1910, 
the limits were refined and enforcement features added to the Height 
Limits Act.
  The 1910 act ties the height of buildings to the streets on which 
they front. The District of Columbia is also authorized to approved 
``spires, towers, domes, minarets, pinnacles, penthouses over elevator 
shafts,'' and similar structures, provided that such ``penthouses * * * 
shall be set back from the exterior walls distances equal to their 
respective heights above the adjacent roof.''
  Since its enactment in 1910, the Height Limits Act has been assaulted 
frequently. A proposed George Washington University-WETA 
telecommunications facility at 21st and H Streets NW., is the most 
recent assault. The proposed building would be topped by a penthouse 
that, contrary to the clear wording of the Height Limits Act, would not 
be set back from two of the building's exterior walls.
  Congress has often acted to protect the historical integrity of the 
National Capital. For example, when Washington, DC, was granted home 
rule in 1973, Congress expressly prohibited the city from raising the 
height limit. In 1991, Congress acted to prevent a waiver of the height 
limit for a proposed Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation 
building.
  Creeping administrative actions--whether in the form of zoning 
decisions, regulatory interpretations, or minor violations ignored by 
enforcing authorities--threaten to chip away, inch by inch, at the 
height restrictions. Accordingly, I am today introducing the District 
of Columbia Building Heights Act of 1994.
  My bill would confirm the clear meaning of the 1910 act and the 
intent of Congress that it be strictly construed. The bill would do the 
following:
  Clarify that an exterior wall is any outside wall of a building.
  Significantly increase the penalty for violating the Height Limits 
Act to $10,000 per day--up from $100 per day. In the case of violation 
of a court injunction, the penalty could be $100,000--up from $500.
  Give the National Capital Planning Commission and its Commissioners a 
more authoritative role in applying and enforcing the Height Limits 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not regard lightly Federal intervention in local 
matters. Such action should only occur when local action violates the 
U.S. Constitution, violates the Home Rule Act, or violates the Federal 
interest. Clearly it is in the Federal interest to defend the height 
limits and preserve the character of our Capital City.

                          ____________________