[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 42 (Monday, April 18, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 18, 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

                         Monday, April 18, 1994

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am today reintroducing the District of 
Columbia Building Heights Act of 1994. This legislation was originally 
introduced on March 23, 1994.
  While certain provisions have been modified, its purpose and 
essential elements remain unchanged. It confirms the limitations 
Congress enacted in the 1910 Height of Buildings Act and the intent 
that it be strictly construed.
  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. Unfortunately, 
there are numerous examples of successful efforts to avoid the Height 
Act which were not brought to the attention of Congress. This bill is 
intended to prevent vitiation of the 1910 statute by administrative 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, I did receive a number of useful suggestions regarding 
the original version of the District of Columbia Building Heights Act 
of 1994, and have incorporated many of them into the bill introduced 
today.
  I have deleted from my original bill several provisions better left 
to the local process, particularly since the National Capital Planning 
Commission will be more closely involved in that process in the future. 
Unlike the original bill, the version introduced today would not 
require all towers, minarets, spires, and similar structures to be set 
back from exterior walls.
  The bill will also allow a penthouse to be built out to an outside 
wall that directly abuts another building whose roof is as high or 
higher, and grants some administrative discretion in truly unusual 
circumstances. I have also expanded the buildings to which the 
modifications would apply and clarified the authority of National 
Capital Planning Commission members to enforce the height limits.
  Because it is clearly a matter of Federal interest to defend the 
height limits and preserve the character of our Capital City, Mr. 
Speaker, I plan to move quickly on this legislation. I will press for 
swift committee and floor consideration of the measure.

                          ____________________