[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 61 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3207-H3209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLYING TO HUMAN OCCUPANCY OF PENTHOUSES IN
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUILDINGS
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4192) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the
height of buildings in the District of Columbia'' to clarify the rules
of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses
above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed,
as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4192
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLYING TO HUMAN OCCUPANCY
OF PENTHOUSES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BUILDINGS.
(a) Permitting Human Occupancy of Penthouses Within Certain
Height Limit.--The eighth paragraph of section 5 of the Act
entitled ``An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the
District of Columbia'', approved June 1, 1910 (sec. 6-
601.05(h), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``penthouses over elevator shafts,'' and
inserting ``penthouses,''; and
(2) by striking ``and no floor or compartment thereof shall
be constructed or used for human occupancy above the top
story of the building upon which such structures are placed''
and inserting ``and, except in the case of a penthouse which
is erected to a height of one story of 20 feet or less above
the level of the roof, no floor or compartment thereof shall
be constructed or used for human occupancy above the top
story of the building upon which such structures are
placed''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on the bill hereto under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act was signed into
Federal law. That bill, in fact, envisioned a prevention of New York-
style skyscrapers from being erected here in the Nation's Capital. That
bill is every bit as important today as it was in 1910.
The District of Columbia has a unique visual requirement. We should
not, cannot, and will not obstruct the Mall and the major parts of this
historic city.
It is important that we maintain the skyline and the access, and we
do so in every single consideration in this city. The memorials and
monuments and public safety must be considered.
However, over the last two Congresses, the committee has been working
on several small modifications that, really, time has said its time has
come. After 100 years, the current legislation makes a small but
meaningful change. Let me put it in words the American people can
easily understand.
One hundred years ago, they put a limit on the height of these
buildings, and then they put 20 feet beyond that limit of occupancy for
water towers, coal stacks for the chimneys, and, of course, the tops of
elevators. Those water towers, elevator shafts, chimneys, they were
certainly pretty hideous, but they were necessary.
It is now 100 years later, and, in fact, the absence of other uses
for these buildings often means that these tops of these buildings are
not considered to be an aesthetically important part, and there is no
funding and no source of revenue to make them better.
Under this modification to the Height Act, we allow for what have
been called penthouses but, in fact, are simply industrial rooftop air
conditioners and the like to be covered, wrapped, if you will, by
architecturally pleasing structures.
These structures may be occupied. They may be offices, cafeterias,
or, in the case of a residential apartment complex, it could be a top
apartment.
Under the legislation, they have to have a setback. The setback is
roughly 1 foot per foot of height, or 20 feet of setback if they go to
the full 20 feet. So these are not a monolithic increase and, in fact,
a setback consistent with that 100-year-old law.
Last Congress, the committee held numerous hearings on the Height Act
and listened to countless witnesses. I subsequently wrote to the
National Capital Planning Commission, often called the NCPC, and the
mayor's office, asking them to jointly study modifications to the
Height Act and recommend any changes they saw appropriate. For those
who are unaware, NCPC is the regional planning commission that includes
representatives of both the Federal interests and local interests.
The Height Act study is impressive. Aside from the research work, a
series of meetings were held featuring considerable input from experts
and the general public alike. Afterward, the mayor's office and NCPC
provided separate recommendations.
The mayor's specific recommendation: increase the height limits in
downtown. The mayor also recommended that the city and NCPC work
together to be able to use the city comprehensive plan as a tool to
adjust height limits outside the L'Enfant city region.
This is not in today's proposal. Ultimately, only after considering
these broader changes, NCPC's only recommendation from the overall plan
submitted by the mayor is, in fact, the modest proposal before you
today.
Let's understand: the height of buildings in this city will not
change by 1 foot under this act, but the beauty of the tops of
buildings and the usability will.
The revenue to the city can increase because of the value of these
top floors, and, yet, we will cover up mechanical penthouses that,
today, are simply elevator shafts, rooftop air conditioners, water
towers and the like.
So long as that ratio of setback and the other provisions of the 100-
year-old act are maintained, the city will have the ability to approve
structures.
But let's understand: those structures will still go through a
rigorous program before they can be approved, and they will continue to
be consistent with the 1910 Height Act.
NCPC itself recommended that human occupancy be allowed in such
rooftop penthouses, so long as the setback ratio was maintained and
that the penthouse does not exceed one story and that no more than 20
feet of height be maintained.
Our bill does everything in the NCPC recommendation. So this bill
simply gives the city a little more latitude in
[[Page H3208]]
allowing human occupancy in penthouses where ugly mechanical penthouses
already exist and are allowed.
I would like to have gone a little further on this bill, and I am
very candid. There are areas well outside the city, as most people
interpret it, far up in Northeast, where there are railroad tracks and
industrial buildings, and down in Southeast, an area that Eleanor
Holmes Norton has worked tirelessly to improve, that could have been
given additional options for higher buildings because they are outside
of the area of concern for the Mall and monuments.
The city is not prepared to take that authority yet, and Congress is
not prepared to give authority that, in fact, its city council is not
prepared to handle. That is the consensus that came from the city
council in their own resolution, and we respect that if the city does
not want an authority, we are not going to thrust an authority on them.
So, with respect to the Height Act, let me close by saying there will
always be somebody who doesn't want a law changed, who, in fact, wants
the buildings shorter. There are people who want their private home to
be able to see all the way to the Mall. I would love to own one of
those homes, quite frankly.
A few feet away from here I would like to be able to walk out onto
the Speaker's deck, his balcony. I would like to be able to see the
White House, but I can't because the Treasury building was built in
front of it and others.
This legislation will not cause any of those shortcomings that have
occurred in the past; just the opposite. It will beautify the tops of
buildings if the city approves those specific projects, while
maintaining the absolute limit that has been on these buildings since
1910.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 4192, and I appreciate the initiative of
the chairman, Chairman Issa, who has just spoken, who has always
observed the self-government rights of the District of Columbia, and
puts forward this bill in the same spirit of home rule.
This legislation will amend the Height Act of 1910, which limits the
height of all building in the District of Columbia. The District is
prohibited, under the Home Rule Act, from permitting any structure
anywhere in the city in excess of the height limitations contained in
the Height Act.
The current law permits structures above the top story of buildings,
including so-called penthouses, to exceed the height limitations, but
no human occupancy is permitted in mechanical penthouses, and it gives
the District the authority to set the maximum height for such
structures.
Currently, the structures have a height limit of 18.6 feet. The
legislation will allow human occupancy of these penthouses. In
addition, the legislation will mandate a 20-foot maximum height, one
story, and a 1 to 1 setback for penthouses. The absolute height of any
penthouse used for human occupancy will be 20 feet.
I thank Chairman Issa for examining the Height Act when he saw that
it had received little congressional oversight in the century of its
existence.
I supported Chairman Issa's request that the District of Columbia and
the National Capital Planning Commission conduct a joint study of the
Height Act because more than 100 years had passed since the heights of
D.C. buildings were systematically discussed in the Halls of Congress.
The District and the NCPC came to different conclusions as to whether
or how the Height Act should be amended, but agreed with respect to
removing the prohibition on human occupancy of penthouses, and setting
a maximum height of 20 feet, or one story, for penthouses.
The mayor and D.C. Council expressed divergent views, but I
encouraged them to work together to find common ground. I am pleased
that the mayor and council chairman reached an agreement with regard to
penthouses, and that agreement, in essence, is before the Congress
today.
Under today's bill, the city, through its local zoning process, will
have the home rule ability to permit human occupancy of penthouses if
it would desire. However, this bill is not a mandate directing the city
to make any changes to penthouses or to its existing comprehensive
plan, or local zoning laws, more generally.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Issa for working to give the
District of Columbia more authority. I also deeply appreciate the
chairman's work in so many other ways, for budget autonomy, and his
strong support on many occasions for home rule, which he has raised as
a factor in connection with the Height Act as well.
I support the passage of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues. I am
extremely pleased with the sensitivity that is expressed for the people
of Washington, D.C., because that is what we should have here.
This is an amendment to the bill regarding the height of Washington,
D.C., buildings that passed in 1910, as changing the height
restrictions that were put in place in 1899; and as my colleague from
the District of Columbia had pointed out, this really hasn't been
discussed in detail in over 100 years.
I recently had someone here in Washington tell me that: Gee, as
property gets so valuable here in Washington, you are going to see, at
first, exceptions made to the height restrictions, then soon followed
by a lifting of those restrictions because the money will be just too
much for either party to turn down.
I am so grateful that the height is not being changed, as the
chairman said, by one inch; but I am very concerned about beginning to
make these exceptions for residence levels, even though ``residence''
is the change, basically, in essence, and I have looked at the change.
I have reviewed the prior law.
But, Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this is the camel's nose
going under the tent. You are beginning to put residences above the
height that was previously allowed. It may dress some up, it may change
some in ways that we are not crazy about, but I am just concerned about
changing the height restrictions, even with these exceptions, after 114
years of being in existence.
So as a result, I thank the chairman and my friend from the District
of Columbia, like I say, for their sensitivity, but I like the height
restriction because of the emphasis that continues to be pushed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from California.
Madam Speaker, I am concerned about beginning the exceptions that may
move in a direction that we don't wish to have. The chairman mentioned
that no one is granting that kind of authority, and nobody is seeking
it, yet; and I want us to stop it before we have to get to that
``yet.''
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for
speaking in favor of the bill.
I understand his concern. I do want to indicate that no exception is
really being made in this bill. The height can go no higher than it can
go right now, and somebody in the District of Columbia can't make an
exception because the Congress of the United States controls heights
still under this bill.
Of course, we have our local zoning laws in the District, so there
are many, many parts of the District where you can't begin to go as
high as the Height Act.
I am a third-generation Washingtonian, and I must say that I adore
the residential quality of this city, which is essentially built on the
notion of private homes and not large-scale apartments. The city really
did not want to dislodge that, and that has not occurred here.
There may still be some disagreement among residents, but I do know
that when the council, which expressed some real disquiet at any
change, has finally been able to come to an agreement, that there is
not enough of a change here to warrant dissent within
[[Page H3209]]
the city and had come to an agreement that--and when, in addition,
those who have been most adamant about maintaining the Height Act,
including the organization which has been the real guardian of the
Height Act, the Committee of 100, says it has no objection to this
compromise, I think we have finally reached a compromise of the kind
that we would like to see more often occur right here in the House of
Representatives.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I want to urge all Members to support the passage of H.R.
4192, and I want to close by reminding people that this is, in fact,
the best vetted piece of legislation for Congress to pass in
cooperation with the city in my tenure.
Thirteen D.C. city councilmen signed on to a sense of council-
introduced resolution in November that stated: The Height Act should
not be amended at this time.
All 13 now support this modest recommendation, and I understand the
additional member also would. I am glad that the city council is seeing
this modest reform as in their favor--their benefit to enhancing the
beauty of those buildings, those few buildings that reach the maximum
of the Height Act.
In closing, I think it is important that we echo what Delegate Norton
just said. The vast majority of homes and buildings in the District of
Columbia are far lower than the Height Act. In fact, it is a relatively
small part of what some people sometimes call K Street and some other
corridors, where the infrastructure of the city has pressed to occupy
more densely.
My hope is, by maintaining the height, the total occupancy, these
penthouses will enhance that property, in many cases, with cafeteria or
public access areas while still continuing to induce people to make
reasonable changes in outlying areas if, in fact, additional capacity
is needed either for residents of this city or, in fact, the thriving
businesses of this city.
Madam Speaker, we seldom come to you with a 100-year-old bill that
hasn't been dusted off. We come to you today with a 104-year-old bill,
which has not been dusted off and not for a lack of a reason.
The water towers of 1910 are gone. It is time for us to use this
space to maintain a view that is unmarred by highrises, but is, in
fact, enhanced by the architectural creation, invention, and ingenuity
of the architects who work and strive to make the buildings of
Washington, D.C., pleasant and functional.
With that, I urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4192, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________