[House Report 113-418]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-418
======================================================================
AMENDING 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
_______
April 28, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Issa, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4192]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred 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, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Committee Statement and Views.................................... 2
Section-by-Section............................................... 4
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 4
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 4
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 4
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 4
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 5
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 5
Unfunded Mandate Statement....................................... 5
Earmark Identification........................................... 5
Committee Estimate............................................... 5
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Committee Statement and Views
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
Current federal law sets building height limits for
buildings in the District of Columbia. It also allows for
certain rooftop structures to be erected to a greater height
than these limits, subject to approval by the Mayor of the
District. For instance, ``mechanical penthouses'' over elevator
shafts can rise above the height limit, so long as they are set
back from the roof edge by a distance equal to their height.
This legislation permits certain human occupancy penthouses to
be erected to a height that exceeds the statutory limits.
Specifically, it permits approval of the erection on rooftops
of human occupancy penthouses of a height of one story of 20
feet or less. These would also be subject to the one-to-one
setback requirement. Additional structures could not be erected
atop the human occupancy penthouse. The Committee anticipates
that the District of Columbia Zoning Commission would adapt its
regulations to accommodate the erection of those human
occupancy penthouses that are allowable under this bill.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
In 1910, the Heights of Buildings Act was signed into
federal law. That law has prohibited New York City-style
skyscrapers from being erected in the Nation's capital. In
limiting building heights in the District of Columbia, the
Heights Act protects sightlines to the city's monuments and
memorials, and helps to ensure public safety.
The Committee began in early 2012 to determine what, if
any, modifications should be made to this 100-year-old law--
changes that would empower the residents of the District to
determine the shape of their city's skyline without
compromising federal interests--such as maintenance of the
prominence of the city's great architectural symbols.
In the 112th Congress, the Committee held a hearing on the
Heights Act, and witnesses provided different perspectives on
whether and how to modify the existing law.
Chairman Issa and Delegate Norton subsequently wrote to the
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Mayor's
Office, asking them to jointly study the Heights Act and
recommend changes, if appropriate.
The comprehensive study included significant research as
well as a series of meetings held to consider input from
experts and the general public alike. Afterward, the Mayor's
Office and NCPC provided separate recommendations.
The Mayor recommended specific increases of the height
limits in the downtown area. The Mayor also recommended that
the city and NCPC, working together, be permitted to use the
City's comprehensive plan as a tool to adjust height limits
outside of the L'Enfant City, without having to go to Congress
for statutory approval.
Ultimately--and only after itself considering broader
changes--NCPC's lone recommendation for near-term change was a
modest proposal for a specific enhancement to the existing
Heights Act.
Under existing law, so-called ``mechanical penthouses''
that cover elevator shafts or mechanical equipment can be built
on rooftops--even if the penthouse exceeds Heights Act
limitations--so long as a one-to-one setback ratio is
maintained between the penthouse height and the distance from
the side of the penthouse to the edge of the roof, and so long
as the city approves the structure.
NCPC recommended that human occupancy be allowed in rooftop
penthouses, so long as the setback ratio is maintained, the
penthouse does not exceed one story that is no more than twenty
feet high--and, again, so long as the city approves the
structure.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Limitations on building heights date as far back as the
origins of the capital city. In 1791, President Washington
promulgated the first regulations on buildings in the city,
which included ``that the wall of no house [is] to be higher
than forty feet to the roof, in any part of the city; nor shall
any be lower than thirty-five feet on any of the avenues.''
These regulations were later suspended until December 1800 due
to cost restraints.
In 1894, following the construction of the 164-foot Cairo
Hotel in Northwest Washington, the DC Board of Commissioners
approved new regulations restricting building heights in the
city. These regulations generally prohibited buildings from
being erected whose height exceeded the width of the street in
front, and limited the height of residential buildings to fewer
than 90 feet and commercial buildings to fewer than 110 feet.
In 1899 and again in 1910, legislation was enacted
restricting building heights in the District of Columbia. The
1899 law slightly modified and codified the regulations the
Board of Commissioners set five years earlier. The law also
allowed for certain architectural elements to be built higher
than the limitations. Although the popular belief is that
Congress acted to preserve and protect views of the monuments,
memorials, and other significant national landmarks in the
city, it is more likely that the principal cause for
legislation was to address environmental and public safety
concerns, as the concept of ``skyscrapers'' was still new to
the country. In fact, the Committee report accompanying the
bill cited these concerns.
The 1910 law modified the maximum heights for buildings,
added enforcement measures, and for the first time highlighted
Congressional interest in maintaining certain characteristics
of federal architectural interests within the city. Under the
law, no building could be erected higher than the width of the
adjoining street plus 20 feet; in residential areas, no
building could be constructed higher than 85 feet; in
commercial areas, no building could be erected greater than 130
feet; and between First and Fifteenth streets, NW on the North
side of Pennsylvania Avenue, the height restriction was capped
at 160 feet.
These laws paralleled limitations in many U.S. cities
during that time. However, unlike other cities that began
modifying height restrictions in 1915, the District of
Columbia's law has been largely unchanged in over 100 years--
with the exception that residential buildings are currently
permitted to go up to 90 feet. In many instances, however,
specific construction projects have been granted exemptions
from the law.
On July 19, 2012, the DC Subcommittee held the first
hearing on the Height Act. Outside of one witness, the panel
generally agreed that some modifications to the law could be
beneficial to the city and its residents.
On October 3, 2012, Chairman Issa wrote to Mayor Gray and
NCPC Chairman Bryant requesting that they jointly examine the
law and offer recommendations on potential changes. On December
2, 2013, the full Committee held a second hearing on the report
and recommendations.
Although the city and NCPC came up with separate proposals,
an agreement was struck to make this modest change to the law.
Section-by-Section
Section 1. Clarification of the rules applying to human occupancy of
penthouses in District of Columbia buildings
This section strikes current law that prohibits human
occupancy in ``mechanical penthouses'' on DC buildings. It
allows for these penthouses to have human occupancy; and sets
the limit for such penthouses at 20 feet or one story.
Explanation of Amendments
No amendments were offered.
Committee Consideration
On March 12, 2014, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 4192, by voice vote,
a quorum being present.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill permits certain human occupancy penthouses to be
erected in the District of Columbia to a height that exceeds
the statutory limits. As such this bill does not relate to
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions
of this report.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 4192 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 4192 does not
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included
herein.
Earmark Identification
H.R. 4192 does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 4192. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for H.R. 4192 from the Director of
Congressional Budget Office:
March 21, 2014.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4192, a bill 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.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 4192--A bill 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
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4192 would have no effect
on the federal budget. The legislation would amend the Height
of Buildings Act of 1910, which limits the height of buildings
in Washington, D.C. The legislation would allow human occupancy
of certain building penthouses that are currently limited to
mechanical uses (such as climate control or elevators).
Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 4192 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 6-601.05, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
Sec. 6-601.05. Street width to control building height; business
streets; residence streets; specified properties;
structures above top story of building
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Spires, towers, domes, minarets, pinnacles, penthouses
over elevator shafts, ventilation shafts, chimneys,
smokestacks, and fire sprinkler tanks may be erected to a
greater height than any limit prescribed in this subchapter
when and as the same may be approved by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia; provided, however, that such structures
when above such limit of height shall be fireproof, [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, 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; and provided, that penthouses, ventilation shafts, and
tanks shall be set back from the exterior walls distances equal
to their respective heights above the adjacent roof; and
provided further, that a building be permitted to be erected to
a height not to exceed 130 feet on lots 15, 804, and 805,
square 322, located on the southeast corner of 12th and E
Streets Northwest, said building to conform in height and to be
used as an addition to the hotel building located to the east
thereof on lot 18, square 322; and further provided, that the
building to be erected on lots 813, 814, and 820, in square
254, located on the southeast corner of 14th and F Streets
Northwest, be permitted to be erected to a height not to exceed
140 feet above the F Street curb; and provided further, that
the building to be erected on property known as the Dean Tract,
comprising nine and one-fourth acres, bounded on the west by
Connecticut Avenue and Columbia Road, on the south by Florida
Avenue, and the east by 19th Street, and on the north by a
property line running east and west 564 feet in length, said
building to cover an area not exceeding 14,000 square feet and
to be located on said property not less than 40 feet distant
from the north property line, not less than 320 feet distant
from the Connecticut Avenue property line, not less than 160
feet distant from the 19th Street property line, and not less
than 360 feet distant from the Florida Avenue line, measured at
the point on the Florida Avenue boundary where the center line
of 20th Street meets said boundary, be permitted to be erected
to a height not to exceed 180 feet above the level of the
existing grade at the center of the location above described;
and provided further, that the design of said building and the
layout of said ground be subject to approval by the Fine Arts
Commission and the National Capital Planning Commission, both
of the District of Columbia; and further provided, that the
building to be erected by the Georgetown University for a
hospital as a part of the Georgetown University Medical School
on parcels 28/31, 28/36 and 28/37 located on the south side of
Reservoir Road Northwest in the District of Columbia,
approximately opposite 39th Street, plans for which building
are on file in the Office of the Inspector of Buildings of the
District of Columbia, be permitted to be erected to a height of
not to exceed 110 feet above the finished grade of the land, as
shown on said plans, at the middle of the front of the
building.
* * * * * * *