39–006 

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 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

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 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

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. 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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 DisVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:12 Apr 30, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR418.XXX HR418

dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

trict 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-yougo 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 

§ 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, øand 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 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

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 onefourth 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. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING