U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–796 PDF 2014

CHANGES TO THE HEIGHT ACT: SHAPING 

WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE FUTURE, PART II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Serial No. 113–80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 2, 2013 ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Harriet Tregoning, Director, D.C. Office of Planning 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Mr. Marcel C. Acosta, Executive Director, National Capital Planning Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

APPENDIX 

The Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Opening Statement ....................................... 56 

The Height Master Plan for Washington D.C., Executive Summary .................. 59 

The Height Master Plan for Washington D.C., Final Evaluation & Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 70 

Selected Visual Modeling Images ........................................................................... 124 

Letter to Mayor Gray and Mr. Preston Bryant Jr. from Chairman Issa ............ 143 

Letter to Harriet Tregoning from the Developer Roundtable .............................. 145 

ANC IC Opposition to Proposed Draft Recommendations on Changes to 

Height Act ............................................................................................................. 147 

Letter to Chairman Issa from Mayor Vincent C. Gray ........................................ 149 

Letter to Chairman Issa from Chairman of the D.C. Council, Phil Mendelson . 150 

Referral of Proposed Legislation ............................................................................ 151 

Letter to Eleanor Holmes Norton from Historic Districts Coalition ................... 157 

Letter from U.S. Commission of Fine Arts ............................................................ 159 

Letter from Capitol Hill Restoration Society ......................................................... 161 

Testimony of Commissioner Kathy Henderson, 5D05 and Chairman Advisory 

Neighborhood 5D .................................................................................................. 171 

Statement for the Record of William N. Brown, President, Association, Oldest 

Inhabitants of D.C. .............................................................................................. 174 

Testimony on Proposed Expansion of the DC Height Act by Loretta Neumann, 

VP, Alliance to Preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington .................... 176 

Letters from Kalorama Citizens Association ......................................................... 178 

Statement of James C. Dinegar, President & CEO, Greater Washington Board 

of Trade. ................................................................................................................ 180 

Statement from American Institute of Architects ................................................. 183 

Statement From Norman M. Glasgow, Jr., Holland & Knight ............................ 185 

Board of Zoning Adjustment ................................................................................... 188 

Statement from Coalition for Smarter Growth ..................................................... 205 

Comments of the District of Columbia Building Industry Association on the 

Reports filed by the District of Columbia & NCPC ........................................... 207 

Testimony of Christopher H. Collins, Counsel District of Columbia Bldg. 

Industry Assoc. ..................................................................................................... 211 

Premium Content from Washington Business Journal by Whayne S. Quin ...... 220 

(1) 

CHANGES TO THE HEIGHT ACT: SHAPING 

WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE FUTURE, 

PART II 

Monday, December 2, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Meadows, Norton and Connolly. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Senior Communications Advisor; Will 

L. Boyington, Press Assistant; Molly Boyl, Deputy General Counsel 

and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; Daniel 

Bucheli, Assistant Clerk; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; 

Howard A. Denis, Senior Counsel; Adam P. Fromm, Director of 

Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief 

Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; James 

Robertson, Senior Professional Staff Member; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Sarah Vance, Assistant Clerk; Rebecca Watkins, 

Communications Director; Jedd Bellman, Minority Counsel; Peter 

Kenny, Minority Counsel; Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant; Julia Krieger, Minority New Media Press Secretary; Elisa 

LaNier, Minority Director of Operations; Daniel Roberts, Minority 

Staff Assistant/Legislative Correspondent; and Juan McCullum, 

Minority Clerk. 

Chairman ISSA. Good morning, and welcome. The committee will 

come to order. 

The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right to know that the money 

Washington takes from them is well spent; and, second, Americans 

deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to secure these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government 

accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know 

what they get from their government. So our job is to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to 

the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

Today’s hearing is an oversight hearing, but it is not on waste, 

fraud or abuse. In this case today’s hearing is on neglect. Limitations on the building heights in the District of Columbia stretch 

back to 1791 when President George Washington issued regulations on buildings in the city, stating that the wall of no house is 

2 

to be higher than 40 feet to the roof in any part of the city, nor 

shall any be lower than 35 feet on any of the avenues. As we all 

know, George Washington cared a great deal about architecture 

and helped in the design of this city and, of course, the roads leading to it. 

In 1889 and again in 1910, Federal legislation was enacted to restrict building heights in the District of Columbia. The Heights of 

Building Act of 1910 was the last time that major legislation was 

considered before this body. At that time it modified the maximum 

heights for buildings and added enforcement measures for the first 

time, and it made clear that there were Federal interests in maintaining certain characteristics of the city, and that is true today. 

Under the law, no building could be erected higher than the 

width of the adjoining street plus 20 feet, in residential areas that 

is. No building could be constructed higher than 85 feet in commercial areas. No building could be erected greater than 130 feet between the streets of First Street and 15th Street, Northwest. And 

on the Pennsylvania side, on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, there was a height restriction capped at 160 feet. One hundred sixty feet. At that point it’s only a couple of inches higher 

than 60 feet to the top of the White House. So even then the 

heights above the most revered building in Washington were 100 

feet above the White House. 

The 1910 law very rightfully paralleled limitations in many U.S. 

cities during the time. However, unlike other cities who began 

modifying their height restrictions in 1915, the District of Columbia has maintained largely unchanged for 100 years. I might note 

all of these laws and the last attention to the Height Act came long 

before home rule, long before the city began organizing and running itself in a modern way. 

Last year, on July 19th, 2012, our D.C. Subcommittee held a 

hearing to explore whether or not this century-old law should be 

modified and, if so, how. After that subcommittee hearing, I wrote 

the National Capital Planning Commission and the District of Columbia to ask them to work jointly to answer these questions. Although the right and the obligation lies completely within Congress, under home rule there is no question that it should be done 

in concert with the desires of the people of the District of Columbia. 

Ultimately, the District of Columbia Office of Planning and the 

NCPC came to completely different conclusions about the need for 

change of the Height Act, and even further, there seems to be a 

growing dissension between city councilmen and the Mayor. Today 

we will hear from NCPC and the D.C. Office of Planning on their 

separate proposals. 

I am here today because we will not close the Height Act consideration without full consideration, without full recognition of the 

benefits and the challenges in any changes to the Height Act and 

let it go to sleep for another 100 years. 

Would you put the first picture up, please? Quickly. 

During the process of review—go to the next one—the next one. 

There we go. The next one. One more. Next one. There we go. 

During the process of review, we began to look at things that 

other cities have done and are great establishments. 

3 

Go one more picture. 

And we understand that this may not be exactly everyone’s look, 

but you will notice that they’re architecturally different than they 

are today. The recognition is that 100 years from now, we will not 

have all the early 1900 buildings. 

One more. 

It may look like this. 

One more. Back. Back one more. 

It may look like this, or it may look much like it does today. 

The question is will it be in keeping with the best interests of 

the Federal city as the seat of government for the American people 

and consistent with the best interests of the people of the District 

of Columbia? That’s a question we’re going to hear today. That’s 

the reason this committee is putting so much time into it. 

Chairman ISSA. To give another opening statement, I would recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you, Chairman Issa, for scheduling today’s hearing as a follow-up to your 

hearing last year, the first hearing in anyone’s memory on the 

Height Act. In more than 20 years of service, neither business interests nor D.C. residents have approached me regarding changing 

the Height Act, but I supported Chairman Issa’s call for a hearing 

on whether a 100-year-old law continues to serve the interests of 

both the Federal Government and the District of Columbia. 

The witnesses at that hearing, the National Planning Commission, the D.C. Office of Planning, the D.C. Chief Financial Officer, 

architect Roger Lewis, the D.C. Building Industry Association and 

the Committee of 100 on the Federal City opened the issue. But the 

chairman wisely called on D.C. and NCPC to conduct a joint study 

of the Height Act, which I supported, with results that bring us 

here today. 

May I add how much I appreciate that this hearing reflects the 

chairman’s pattern of unfailing support not only for the city’s ongoing needs, including most recently his strong assistance in keeping 

the D.C. government open throughout the entire fiscal year after 

the Federal Government shut down, and the chief financial officer 

vacancy and salary bill he quickly got through committee and to 

the floor. I also appreciate the chairman’s energetic and innovative 

work 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 the Height Act study unfolded in community meetings and 

hearings over the past year, it became clear that many D.C. residents fear the loss of the unique horizontal scale that is part of the 

city’s hometown identity, and that there are differing views on 

whether or how it should be changed. In fact, the D.C. government 

itself appears divided. Twelve of the thirteen members of the D.C. 

Council cosponsored a resolution calling for no changes to the 

Height Act, quote, ‘‘at this time,’’ while the Mayor has recommended several changes to the Height Act. 

It is not surprising that the Height Act stirs passions and divisions. The Height Act implicates many important issues: home 

rule, D.C. status as the Nation’s Capital, economic development, 

city planning, affordable housing, architecture, historic preservaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86796.TXT APRIL
4 

tion, among many others. The District Office of Planning argues 

that changes may be necessary to accommodate projected population and job growth and to reduce the cost of housing in the future, and that the historic character of the city can still be preserved. 

Opponents of changes argue just the opposite. They say that 

there is sufficient capacity in D.C. to accommodate projected population and job growth, that changes would increase the cost of 

housing, that changes would slow the spread of economic development across the city to areas that need development, and that 

changes would destroy the historic character of the city. 

At bottom, the issue raised by the study the chairman requested 

unavoidably is if changes ever prove necessary, who should make 

changes to the Height Act affecting hometown D.C., the D.C. government or the Federal Government, and under what circumstances? 

Every year the underlying development issues have been part of 

my own work here in the Congress. I spend considerable time both 

fending off attacks on home rule and proposing its expansion with 

local democracy, full congressional voting rights, budget autonomy 

and statehood, which have been and will continue to be overriding 

concerns. 

Yet like any Member of Congress, one of my principal jobs also 

has been to bring jobs and economic development to my district. In 

my role as the chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee, 

I took great interest in land development to bring affordable housing and jobs to the city. Much of the city’s development depends 

upon the Federal Government either because it owns a significant 

percentage of the land throughout the city, or because the location 

of Federal agencies in neighborhoods almost always stimulates the 

mixed-use development that residents desire. 

My bills and other committee work have created new neighborhoods all away from downtown. In NOMA, at the Capitol Riverfront, on the Southwest Waterfront, and in Ward 8 where the new 

Department of Homeland Security complex of buildings is rejuvenating Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue. Naturally I am interested 

in whether the spreading of development away from downtown 

would be helped or hampered if space for Federal and private offices were allowed in taller buildings. 

When it comes to the Height Act, I wear two hats. As a Federal 

official I have an obligation to protect monumental Washington as 

a national symbol, as well as the values residents have come to associate over time with the scale of city life imposed by the Height 

Act. At the same time, as the congressional representative for the 

District, I have spent my career fighting for the District to have the 

right to make its own decisions, as every other local government 

in our country does. I have not regarded the two obligations as irreconcilable. 

The differences between today’s two witnesses, one Federal and 

one local, should not be allowed to mask internal differences within 

the District that the city should confront. I have not had the opportunity to speak personally with Mayor Gray as yet to hear his 

views, but D.C. Council chair Phil Mendelson called me, and in 

5 

that conversation I learned more about his concerns and perhaps 

the concerns of some other members of the council. 

Unlike any other issue I have encountered while serving in the 

House, the concern seems not to be with what the Congress does, 

but with what the District itself will do. How ironic. There is fear 

that economic forces, perhaps pulled by business interests, would 

lead to undesirably tall buildings. The implicit argument is that 

Federal authority is necessary to protect the District from itself. 

Although in my own congressional work on development here, no 

developer has ever approached me about the Height Act, there is 

some evidence from a 1990 council bill of only three congressional 

disapproval resolutions overturning D.C. legislation since the 1973 

Home Rule Act. One involved the Height Act. In that case the 

council was convinced by a developer that buildings adjacent to 

public buildings could exceed the overall limits set forth in the 

Height Act because the Height Act permitted the District commissioners to select a schedule of heights for buildings next to public 

buildings. Congress, along with the Government Accounting Office 

and the Justice Department, disagreed, and the legislation became 

one of only three that have been disapproved through that process. 

If the city had authority on its own to change the Height Act in 

hometown D.C., such changes might come to Congress for a layover 

period, but there might be no violation of the Federal interest to 

justify congressional intervention. Surely there is a better solution 

than coming to Congress to request that Congress violate a home 

rule decision or having the D.C. Height Act with too little defense 

against local interpretations and exceptions with results opponents 

fear. 

Considering the strong views of District residents on home rule 

and, candidly, the risk to home rule posed by internal disagreement, I believe that elected officials have an obligation to avoid 

home rule division if at all possible. Are the differences between 

the NCPC and the D.C. Office of Planning so far apart that they 

cannot be reconciled? Even the D.C. Office of Planning position 

would not free the District from the existing multilayered Federal 

and District planning processes. 

Are there changes in the comprehensive plan process, zoning 

process or local legislation that would give residents a meaningful 

opportunity to deter or stop risky changes in the District by the 

District? If changes by Congress to the Height Act are contemplated, should they be contingent on changes in the comprehensive plan process, zoning processes, local legislation or other 

changes as well? Can discussions between the council and the 

Mayor reconcile their differences between the two positions we 

hear today? 

I hope the city confronts the issue before us consistent with its 

position on the scale of heights in our city and its position for two 

centuries that the District, not Congress, must make its own decisions. I appreciate very much the intensive work of today’s very 

knowledgeable witnesses and look forward to hearing from them 

and to learning more from them of their study about the Height 

Act, whether changes are necessary, and, if so, the best way to see 

that they occur responsibly. 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

6 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you, Eleanor. 

Chairman ISSA. Anyone else want to make any short comments? 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Very briefly. I just want to thank the witnesses 

for coming and really want to thank the chairman. This particular 

issue of D.C. autonomy has been one that the chairman has championed really in a bipartisan way, which is really refreshing and 

unique, and I just look forward to the testimony, specifically looking forward to the testimony from an economic standpoint on why 

we need to address this now. 

So as a developer and as someone who’s made a living for many, 

many years in the real estate business, I look forward to your expert testimony. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to applaud you and Ranking Member Norton for your leadership on this 

issue. This committee has a tradition of respecting and trying to 

move forward home rule for the District of Columbia, and I thank 

you for your leadership in this area. 

You know, it is important. You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in 

your opening remarks that this issue goes back to 1791 in the—— 

Chairman ISSA. But not I. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But not you nor I. But it is interesting to note 

that the correspondence governing this issue between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington actually expressed concern—the 

height issue was less an aesthetic issue and more of a very practical one. They were concerned about fire. In those days, in the 

18th century, fire was an ever-present hazard in all human habitation, in all cities, and not least of which the new Federal Capital 

City. So some of those concerns are long past us. 

I would like to make three points as somebody who comes from 

local government. One is that the Constitution and the founding of 

D.C. had within it a built-in tension between the needs of the Federal Capital and, therefore, the role of Congress and the President, 

and the fact that a burgeoning local government needed to be established to deal with the local issues governing any city like 

Washington, and that tension is built into the system. 

I come down in favor of moving home rule and full voting rights 

to full expansion. I think D.C. disenfranchisement in terms of the 

franchise and the fact that my dear friend and colleague Ms. Norton does not have a vote on the floor of the full House I think is 

really a national shame, and politics shouldn’t have anything to do 

with it. The citizens of D.C. are entitled to representation, full representation, voting representation in the United States Congress. 

Finally, I operate on the principle that, generally speaking, deference should be given to the local government. It is not the role 

of Congress to play mediator between the Mayor and D.C. City 

Council. Their form of government allows them to resolve those differences, as any other municipality in America does. So I think we 

should be loathe to involve ourselves unless clear and compelling 

Federal issues are involved, and that this issue, like many other 

7 

issues involving home rule, should largely be left to the discretion 

of the local government. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony this 

morning. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. All Members will have 7 days to submit additional opening statements and extraneous material for the record. 

Chairman ISSA. We now recognize our distinguished panel. Welcome. Ms. Harriet Tregoning is the Director of the D.C. Office of 

Planning. Mr. Marcel Acosta is the Executive Director of the National Capital Planning Commission, or NCPC. 

Pursuant to the rules, would you please rise to take the oath and 

raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect both witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

My script says you have limited time, 5 minutes and so on, but 

this hearing is all about what your two organizations have done, 

so if you need a little extra time, I’m not going to cut you off, and 

we’re going to do the same with questioning. 

So please, Ms. Tregoning. 

STATEMENT OF HARRIET TREGONING 

Ms. TREGONING. Thank you very much. 

Good morning Chairman Issa, Congresswoman Norton, members 

and staff of the committee. I am Harriet Tregoning, the Director 

of the District of Columbia Office of Planning. Thank you very 

much for this opportunity to appear before your committee today 

on behalf of Mayor Vincent C. Gray in support of the District of 

Columbia’s proposed changes to the 1910 Federal Heights of Buildings Act. We’ve made recommendations for very modest changes to 

the Height Act intended to give the District the opportunity to exercise local autonomy in determining the future heights of buildings in areas of the city where Federal interests are less significant, while at the same time maintaining existing protections for 

Federal interests over height. 

The District of Columbia is a growing city, now robustly adding 

population after more than five decades of steady population loss. 

Since the 2010 census we have grown to 632,323 District residents 

as of July of last year, and we continue to add more than 1,000 

residents a month. 

The District has begun to realize a long-held aspiration of retaining and attracting middle-class households and families back to the 

city. The population growth has boosted sales and income tax revenue even during the last recession. We are now seeing a pattern. 

Added residents are bringing increases in District tax revenues, 

which then fund greater investment in services, in infrastructure, 

in other amenities for residents, workers and visitors to the District. 

This turnaround has been the result of very hard work by successive mayoral administrations and councils addressing crime, city 

services, transportation and transit, neighborhood retail, public 

school performance, upgrades of public infrastructure, new or reviVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86796.TXT APRIL
8 

talized libraries, parks, rec centers and schools. This hard-won population growth and the accompanying boost in local tax base are 

critical to the District’s fiscal stability because this city has nearly 

50 percent of its land off the tax rolls. 

Our fiscal stability has to be sought and maintained on a much 

smaller, less diverse tax base than other cities. Dr. Gandhi, the 

District’s Chief Financial Officer, testified before this committee 

last year that allowing taller and denser buildings by relaxing 

height and density restrictions would generate more residential 

units and commercial space, thereby helping the District more easily accommodate future population and job growth, as well increasing the value of the District’s property base over time. These 

changes, he noted, would eventually slow the rising cost of housing 

and office spaces, already becoming too expensive for some residents and businesses. 

The concern that we bring before you today is that the current 

Height Act limits constrain the city’s ability to grow and accommodate future demand, which in turn threatens our ability to maintain our fiscal stability and continue to provide critical services to 

residents, workers and visitors of the city. The District proposes allowing the city to have more autonomy to work with its residents, 

the D.C. Council and the National Capital Planning Commission to 

determine building height maximums throughout a collaborative 

future comprehensive plan process. 

There’s one thing I want to emphasize about this proposal. The 

opposition we’ve heard, and we have heard opposition, to our recommendations, is primarily about opposition to actually and perhaps immediately raising building heights and doing so without the 

consultation with residents that they deserve. This is not what we 

are proposing. 

The District is asking Congress for the ability to determine with 

our residents, with our council, with the National Capital Planning 

Commission whether to increase any height, and, if so, when, 

where and how to do it. The current law makes any such conversation moot, which is why we’ve never had that conversation before. 

As more fully detailed in our report, we examined various reasonable future growth scenarios for D.C. The high-growth scenario 

that we examined using growth rates that are considerably lower 

than our current rate of growth indicated that the District will be 

experiencing capacity shortages well before 2040, even if we rezoned land throughout the entire city. Currently zoned land available for development would become increasingly scarce and see 

price pressure well before the next decade. 

The District of Columbia and the National Capital Planning 

Commission recently completed the Joint Height Master Plan requested by this committee to determine the extent to which the 

Height Act continues to serve both the Federal and local interests. 

The study was guided by three core principles which were designed 

to ensure protection of the Federal interests: Number one, ensuring 

the prominence of Federal landmarks and monuments by protecting their views and settings; number two, maintaining the 

horizontality of our monumental city skyline; and, three, minimizing the negative impacts to nationally significant historic resources. 

9 

We modeled different buildings heights in the city using over 200 

panoramic aerial and street-level views of the city in various locations inside and outside the District of Columbia. These modeling 

studies in particular indicated that there were options for making 

modest changes to the Height Act while fully addressing the core 

principles of the height master plan and protecting the Federal interests. 

We also conducted analysis of future population and employment 

growth, existing development capacity, and the potential new capacity under various approaches to manage height to determine 

how well the District could accommodate future demands. The 

analysis demonstrated that the current Height Act limits constrain 

existing capacity to accommodate our growth over the next three 

decades, and will increasingly do so in subsequent decades, and 

that the District requires additional capacity in the future to meet 

our demand. 

Our recommendations for Height Act modifications will enable 

the city to create a supply of developable space to accommodate future growth, maintain the character of the city’s many historic 

neighborhoods, and avoid extreme upward price pressures on housing supplies that could greatly and negatively affect the city. 

We believe that the Height Act can be reasonably modified to 

strike a balance between accommodating future growth and protecting significant national monuments and memorials. Our proposed approach shifts more decisionmaking indeed to local control, 

but maintains a very strong Federal consultation and approval role 

in order to accommodate future growth. Doing so will ensure a 

more prosperous, stable and vibrant District of Columbia, where 

residents enjoy a stronger and more resilient economy. The District’s social, cultural and economic diversity will also be protected. 

The alternative of retaining unchanged a century-old law that constrains the city’s ability to accommodate growth will place the District on the path to becoming a city comprised primarily of national 

monuments surrounded by exclusive neighborhoods affordable only 

to a very few. 

What we propose specifically are the following recommendations 

to modify the Height Act. Amend the Height Act to create new limits based on the relationship between the street width and the 

building height within the L’Enfant City. We recommend using a 

ratio of 1 to 1.25 for street width to building height, resulting in 

a new maximum building height of 200 feet for 160-foot-wide avenues in the L’Enfant City. This is an urban design-based standard 

that reflects the proportionality between individual streets and 

their buildings to give us what we currently love about the 

L’Enfant City, a pedestrian scale, light and air, and variation; not 

an unpleasing uniformity, but variation in building heights, maintaining horizontality, but having pleasing variation based on street 

width. 

To ensure that the tops of any future taller buildings contribute 

to the use of and views from rooftops, mechanical penthouses for 

any buildings that would gain more height we propose be required 

to be enclosed within the upper floors within the new height cap. 

The second part of our proposal is language that we developed 

with the Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission 

10 

and the staff to limit—to allow the limits currently established in 

the Federal Height Act to remain in place unless and until the District of Columbia completes an update to the District elements of 

the comprehensive plan where targeted areas that meet specific 

planning goals and don’t impact Federal interests are identified. 

Under this recommendation, building heights in targeted areas 

such as Friendship Heights at the edge of the District may be proposed to exceed the maximums under Federal law, and these may 

be authorized through the existing comprehensive plan process 

that also includes a congressional holdover period. Should targeted 

exceptions be authorized through the comp plan, the Height Act 

would remain in place for all other areas both inside and outside 

the L’Enfant City. 

The third thing that we propose is to amend the Height Act to 

remove any Federal restrictions on the human occupancy of penthouses, and to set the maximum height of 20 feet and 1 story. Mechanical equipment will be continue to be required to be housed 

within a single structure, and that penthouse would be subject to 

a setback. 

You might have more questions about the comprehensive plan, 

which I would be happy to answer, but in the meantime, what I 

would like to do is just conclude by saying that both the Federal 

and the local interests are served by having a vibrant, economically 

healthy and liveable Capital City. However, without changes to the 

Height Act to enable the District to expand its tax base, protect affordable housing and make further infrastructure investments, the 

vibrancy and fiscal stability as well as the character of the city’s 

many historic neighborhoods are threatened. We believe that allowing the District to exercise more local control over how building 

height will be managed in the city, while protecting existing Federal controls over height will prevent those threats from happening. 

On behalf of Mayor Gray, I respectfully ask for your support for 

these reasonable amendments to the Heights of Buildings Act. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Tregoning follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86796.001
12 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86796.002
13 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86796.003
14 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86796.004
15 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86796.005
16 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86796.006
17 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86796.007
18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86796.008
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86796.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86796.010
21 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Acosta. 

STATEMENT OF MARCEL C. ACOSTA 

Mr. ACOSTA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton and members of the committee. My name is Marcel Acosta. I 

am the Executive Director of the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member body that has Federal and District of Columbia representatives, reflecting its role as a forum to consider local 

and national planning issues. 

It’s been a privilege for NPCP to jointly lead the height master 

plan as requested by the committee. The plan explores potential 

changes to the Federal Height Act that both protects national interests and meets important long-term goals for the District. 

For more than a century, the Height Act has played a central 

role in shaping Washington’s unmistakable and symbolic skyline 

that protects the setting and views to and from the National Mall, 

the institutions of our democracy, and our national parks and memorials. 

Our written testimony and executive summary includes— and 

you have that before you—first a discussion of Federal operational 

and national interests related to heights; second, our approach to 

the study, including public outreach and visual modeling. Here it 

is of note that, as you mentioned before, that a majority of District 

residents who testified strongly support upholding the Height Act; 

third, the commission’s final recommendations. 

This morning I will speak to the Commission’s central recommendation that the Federal Height Act should remain in place 

citywide and no change be made to the formula or approach for calculating allowable building heights. 

The visual modeling work conducted for the height study shows 

the potential for significant adverse impacts to national resources, 

particularly within the L’Enfant City. 

If you would turn the slides back on, and if you would go back 

to the beginning, please. 

I’ll show you a few examples where increased building heights affect settings and views, and I will refer you to the screen. 

If you go to the next slide. 

You will recognize this view of the National Mall from the U.S. 

Capitol. This is one of the most important settings in our city and 

in our country. 

Next slide. 

Even at 130 feet the sense of openness around the Mall changes. 

The next slide. 

And at 200 feet these buildings compete with the higher monuments, and the Mall changes from an area framed by buildings, not 

trees and open skies. 

The next slide. 

This is a view from the Jefferson Memorial looking north towards the White House. 

Next slide. 

This is the current setting. These are long views of our national 

symbols, which are, again, some of the most significant in our 

country. 

Next slide. 

22 

Here again, even at 130 feet the White House is becoming overshadowed. 

And next slide. 

And at 200 feet the White House is overwhelmed, and our skyline shows none of the elegance that we see today. 

Next slide. 

More specifically, the District is recommending a ratio proposal 

to increase heights along the city’s widest streets. Many of these 

streets terminate on the White House and on the U.S. Capitol. 

Now, I also acknowledge that some of the streets are located in the 

Capitol Hill Historic Residential Community. This proposal adds 

heights to where they’re least appropriate. We do not have composite skyline views of what this would look like today, but let me 

share one street-level view with you. 

Next slide. 

This is the existing view from North Capitol Street looking south. 

Our forefathers who established this Capital planned a city that 

emphasizes views to and from important public places. Here you 

see an example of how this vision has been realized. The U.S. Capitol Dome is more than just an architectural feature, and it caps 

more than just a building. These are symbols of lasting meaning 

to Americans. And in Washington our symbols shine. This is a fundamental principle of our city and also a legacy tied to our Height 

Act. 

Next slide. 

A visual model of the District’s ratio proposal shows that even 

at 160 feet, the preeminence of the Capitol becomes diminished, 

and this fundamentally changes the way people will experience 

Washington, especially if applied throughout the L’Enfant City as 

proposed. 

So mindful of your guidance to proceed carefully in this area, we 

strongly recommend no changes to the Height Act within L’Enfant 

City. We do support amendments for human occupancy of penthouses and recommend further protections of critical view-sheds. 

We also share the District’s vision for a strong, vital Capital City 

that addresses long-term challenges in a very sophisticated, multidimensional way. We recognize there may be some opportunities 

for change outside of L’Enfant City where there is less concentration of Federal interests. However, we recommend completing an 

update to the comprehensive plan for the Nation’s Capital prior to 

proposing any changes to the law. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to conduct this important 

study. This reaffirmed the importance of the Height Act and the 

Federal Government’s enduring stewardship in the form and the 

character of the Nation’s Capital. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Acosta follows:] 

23 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86796.011
24 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86796.012
25 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86796.013
26 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86796.014
27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86796.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86796.016
29 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Acosta, I heard two things as we often hear 

in Washington, and examples that were the critical areas, I think 

the areas that Ms. Tregoning would also agree, the areas leading 

directly in the line of sight to the White House, to the Capitol, the 

Washington Monument, and, of course, the Tidal Pool area. I don’t 

think anyone is questioning, I think you two are probably very 

much in agreement, and if the D.C. plan doesn’t reflect that properly, then we should have a discussion here today. 

But I also heard you say what I think I have heard 100 times, 

if not more, during my tenure on this committee, which is there are 

areas. And I heard you also say that a comprehensive plan should 

be produced before we go to them. But when I drive up to Northeast, I’m perhaps by the XM facility there, I’m so far outside of 

what most people see as the District of Columbia except for Eleanor here. When I get past—and it is not a high-rise area, but when 

I get past, out to Cleveland Park, and I am past the cathedral, 

those views are no longer the case. And when I go to Georgetown 

and I look across the river at Virginia—and we have a distinguished Member from Virginia—what I see is an area much closer 

than the Northwest side of the cathedral, much closer than the XM 

building up by New York, up in the far reaches of Northeast, not 

to mention some of the areas that Eleanor has been working on developing. I see this area so close, it has no restriction that can, in 

fact, dwarf from there. And the question is not do we preserve 

Georgetown. I have no doubt that the city would choose to maintain that historic area even if the District was not prohibited in 

some way by the Federal Government. 

And those views you showed, I completely agree with them. But 

I would like you to go to the first or second one that you put up 

there, if you could, quickly. One more, one more, one more, one 

more. Pretty close. Next one. Next one. There we go. One more. 

You were there. Go one more. Go back. Right there is good. Stop. 

You see that ugly penthouse on the top right? I think the one 

area of agreement that I think I saw in both your findings was that 

big boxes with air conditioning towers or elevator shafts looking 

like that is an anomaly of the past of the Height Act, and that 

buildings—go to the next one where you do increase it. Here we go. 

Buildings of today and for a long time have a tendency not to have 

that on top of the roof, just as they no longer have water towers. 

Would you both agree with that? 

Ms. TREGONING. Certainly. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. So if we do nothing else, addressing the penthouse issue, is that an area in which you both reached, subject to 

further consultation, agreement that we can do something about 

that architecturally and to the benefit of the city’s potential income? Yes, Mr. Acosta. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, I do agree that that’s an area of consensus. As 

you may recall from the previous committee meeting, actually the 

Mayor had submitted some recommendations as to how to improve 

penthouse design. 

I think one of the restrictions, which is the ability to occupy a 

penthouse, is actually one of the things that kind of prohibits making improvements to those spaces, because as you have noted when 

30 

you came to our meeting in March, when you look at our skyline, 

you look at the penthouses, you notice some wonderful things that 

could happen on our rooftops, such as rooftop gardens, balconies, 

places for communal recreation, meeting rooms, party rooms, et 

cetera, which actually enliven these spaces, but right now because 

of their prohibition in the current law which doesn’t allow those 

spaces to be occupied, you don’t make those investments. And I 

think by actually eliminating kind of this barrier to allowing people—this regulation barrier to allow more investment on the roof, 

I think, would actually do a lot to beautify these spaces and make 

them better places for the public to enjoy. 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Tregoning, I know I’m going to go to you in 

a second, but I just want to comment that although we are dealing 

with the Height Act, and primarily we’re dealing with commercial 

buildings, that’s what we’re really looking at, as a Washingtonian 

part time, I must tell you that I am envious that my neighbors, 

many of them can go up on their roofs, 90 percent of them probably 

not with a valid permit, and sit on their wooden terraces and enjoy 

those special days and evenings here in Washington, where I have 

to go through a ladder and a skylight and sneak up there and 

stand with my air conditioners. 

So I think all of us in Washington know that view and how we 

achieve it and how the city plans for it will affect the value of properties, both commercial and residential. 

But, Ms. Tregoning, the penthouse issue particularly. 

Ms. TREGONING. I think we do have a considerable agreement on 

penthouses, although we may not agree exactly on the use. We 

would allow human occupancy and not restrict it in any way, and 

I don’t know that that’s the National Capital Planning Commission’s position. 

I would just comment that allowing human occupancy would 

mean that the materials that were used on the tops of those roofs 

would be very different. They would be much more architecturally 

significant. They would tend to look more like the building itself. 

Right now they use very inexpensive materials because it’s just designed to shield and hide the mechanical equipment, and it’s never 

architecture, and it does create that very unpleasing aspect that 

you pointed out in the last photograph. 

Chairman ISSA. It’s certainly hard to pay for beautiful glass fascias if it’s just for an air conditioner. 

Mr. Acosta, anything else? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I think Ms. Tregoning actually answered the question quite well. 

Chairman ISSA. Very good. I would now go to the gentlelady from 

the District of Columbia. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Tregoning, you noted the increases in residents, the District 

population boom, revenue boom. Have these residents had difficulty 

finding housing in the city? 

Ms. TREGONING. I would say that the difficulty finding housing 

in the city has mostly to do with price and the rapidly increasing 

price of housing. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, let’s go to what yields increasing prices in 

housing. Much of the building in housing, the housing has occurred 

31 

on land where either there was no housing or where housing was 

such that people wouldn’t want to live in the housing, and I indicated some of the areas that I’ve been interested in. So why has 

filling in those areas, or has filling in those areas had anything to 

do with what you indicated in your testimony was housing and office space—I’m looking at page 3—that is already becoming too expensive for some residents and businesses? 

Ms. TREGONING. Well, as you mentioned in your opening statement, Congresswoman Norton, the—it’s been a deliberate strategy 

because downtown has been largely built out for some time to try 

to move some of the demand for office and housing to adjacent 

areas, and it’s been wonderful for the city and wonderful for many 

neighborhoods to see places—— 

Ms. NORTON. And yet there’s a huge complaint in the city about 

affordable housing. I wonder if we’re promising too much about affordable housing; either if it stays the way it is, or if we had storage, or if we do what I’ve tried to do, I really wonder whether you 

are serious about adding a story here and there, making some 

buildings taller, not increasing the value of land, which has effects 

throughout the city. 

Ms. TREGONING. We have citywide inclusionary zoning that we 

passed in 2006. The council passed it in—— 

Ms. NORTON. That, of course, would mean that for some people— 

and I commend the city for this, if you’re referring to the facts that 

there must be a certain number of affordable units in housing in 

the city. 

Well, let me give you NOMA, which is an area that I worked on 

for 10 years. A resident told me recently that she moved into 

NOMA under the notion you spoke about. She’s a middle-class person who works every day. So your limits are fairly robust, and I 

understand those, but she said that now that rent increases have 

become possible, there’s a tremendous increase in rents in her area. 

Now, she moved in under this zoning, this special zoning of the 

District. 

Ms. TREGONING. I think your point is absolutely a good point in 

many parts of the city, although NOMA isn’t subject to IZ because 

it was already allowed to be developed at the maximum height because there was no height to give a density bonus for. NOMA—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are you saying this only occurs where you can 

give—— 

Ms. TREGONING. Give a density bonus. 

Ms. NORTON. Where you can give a density bonus. 

Ms. TREGONING. Most of downtown isn’t included, and NOMA 

isn’t included, and historic areas are not included. 

Ms. NORTON. So if you increase the height of buildings in 

L’Enfant City—and would you describe what L’Enfant City is? 

Ms. TREGONING. Well, it’s the area that is essentially south of 

the escarpment. Florida Avenue, as you know, used to be Boundary 

Street. So it’s basically that area of the city. We can show it on a 

map, I think. 

Chairman ISSA. If I could interrupt, one might call it historic 

Washington. You’re talking smaller than that, aren’t you? 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. I want to get to the actual streets where 

you’re talking about. If you’re saying up to Florida Avenue—— 

32 

Chairman ISSA. It is beyond what you call L’Enfant. 

Ms. NORTON. It is beyond what I think most people think of as 

L’Enfant City. I think most people think you are talking about an 

area—— 

Chairman ISSA. I am just past Boundary, so I am very aware 

that is a long way from L’Enfant. 

Ms. TREGONING. It is the area that’s shown there. It is Florida 

Avenue. It’s the Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers to the west and 

to the south, and to the north it’s primarily Florida Avenue. 

Ms. NORTON. It includes K Street? 

Ms. TREGONING. It does include K Street, which is the 100 percent street in the District of Columbia. It is the most heavily used 

transit corridor in the entire region, and it’s where most of our 

business activity is concentrated. 

Ms. NORTON. And you believe that if heights are raised in these 

most desirable parts of the city, places where people are swarming 

to now, that affordable housing and office space will become more 

likely than now. I would like to understand that, please. 

Ms. TREGONING. Well, in the L’Enfant City, if we go back to the 

map, through most of it we don’t have density bonuses to grant in 

the downtown for additional height because the—— 

Ms. NORTON. How would that work to—how would the density 

bonuses help to keep down the cost of office space and housing? 

Ms. TREGONING. Well, for housing it would require currently that 

at least 8 percent of all the housing that’s built be permanently affordable, as long as the building stands, for people making 50 percent and 80 percent of the area median income. 

Ms. NORTON. So it’s your view that if you were to add—if there 

were to be taller buildings in the most desirable parts of the city, 

there would be no effect on spreading development to other parts 

of the city? 

Ms. TREGONING. I think that you would want to allow any additional development capacity, wherever it is in the city, to be added 

gradually so as to not affect overly the market. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you want to add capacity along K Street? 

Ms. TREGONING. Potentially along K Street. But I would also just 

say—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why would you want to do that if you wanted 

to spread office space around the city? 

Ms. TREGONING. Because even adding the modest amount of capacity on K Street that we’re talking about doesn’t narrowly meet 

the demand that we project coming to the city. 

Ms. NORTON. Of course it doesn’t. Don’t you want—Ms. 

Tregoning, this is my point: We could not get the Federal Government to develop what is now Capitol Riverfront—this is this wonderful burgeoning area south of M Street which is a new community—because GSA said Federal agencies did not want to move so 

far from K Street. Now, that’s not in the far reaches of the city. 

It took a bill; I had to introduce a bill in order to develop that part 

of Washington. And the same way NOMA, which I would say is a 

stone’s throw from the Senate—— 

Ms. TREGONING. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. —stood there, a shambles, close to midtown with 

no development. What I had to do, frankly, was to get a Federal 

33 

agency to move there, and then another one, and then developers 

began to build there. Again, the Federal agencies were the stimulus, but the Federal Government—it was all I could do to pull 

teeth to make the Federal Government know, and there is an Executive Order that says they should build in outlying areas of the 

city, but the pull was so hard toward K Street that one would wonder why one would want to have any more development in that 

part of city, and whether it would not, in fact, slow development 

outside of L’Enfant City. 

Ms. TREGONING. If the question is whether that would slow development into places, you could decide when and how you developed in different parts of the city. And we still have a very keen 

interest in the Capitol Riverfront, in the Anacostia, in Poplar Point, 

in St. Elizabeth’s, so those would remain city priorities in terms of 

enticing development to those locations. 

But our projections show with all of those places and the places 

that we proposed very modest height increases for inside the 

L’Enfant City, that we would still be looking at significant potential capacity constraints. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Eleanor, we are going to do a second round, if that’s okay. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to pick up a little bit. You keep talking about the historic 

nature and about preserving the historic nature in your testimony. 

What historic nature are we talking about? Because this seems to 

be counterintuitive. If we are going to protect the historic nature, 

what are we talking about there? 

Ms. TREGONING. So as part of a study that we did with the National Capital Planning Commission, we jointly agreed on some 

principles that would govern the study and that would govern our 

conclusions and recommendations, including determining that the 

Federal landmarks and monuments would continue to be prominent and preserve their views and settings. 

Now, what’s so interesting about the design of our city is that 

most of our streets, especially our diagonal streets, are designed 

with the beautiful views that terminate at the end of street. So 

having a little height, additional height, on many of the streets 

doesn’t affect the views. In some cases it enhances the views that 

frame the building at the end of the street even better. 

We also talk about maintaining the horizontality of the skyline. 

That’s also something iconic—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You’re talking about primarily in those corridors 

as it looks to the Capitol. You are not talking about the historic nature of a neighborhood that is a mile out. 

Ms. TREGONING. I am talking about those historic neighborhoods 

in the following sense, that if—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Let me be specific. Like Henry’s Soul Food that’s 

right around the corner, is that historic, or is that not historic? 

That’s the Mount Vernon Triangle. And I live in the city, and 

there’s no one who wants cheaper rent than I do, I promise you 

that. But at the same time—— 

Chairman ISSA. You can live in your office. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m not living in my office. 

34 

Is Henry’s Soul Food, is that considered historic, or could that be 

torn down and developed? 

Ms. TREGONING. So the actual building, I couldn’t tell you off the 

top of my head, but that is a neighborhood that is designated a historic neighborhood. And so you raise a really critical point with 

your question, which is if we don’t have any increases in height, 

the city can accommodate its growth, but it would probably change 

the character of most of our neighborhoods, because we would have 

to change those buildings. So having a row house neighborhood 

that’s primarily two stories, if we made it four stories or eight stories, we could accommodate a lot of growth, but those neighborhoods be very, very different. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. TREGONING. Or we could accommodate the same amount of 

development in taller buildings in smaller—in fewer places and 

protect those neighborhoods. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But your point is exactly where I’m going, because we would not see what has happened over by the ball field 

or the Navy Yards or any of that urban renewal if we allow the 

concentration to be downtown. It does not sprawl out. Now, if that’s 

what we’re—if that’s what we’re wanting to see, but what it does 

is creates pockets of unsure and questionable—we walk all over the 

city, and so there are certain areas that we walk in and certain 

areas that we don’t, but that’s based on that urban renewals aspect. And I live I think what they call a transitional area. Based 

on price, it wouldn’t be transitional, but how does adding two stories to a building downtown actually make for more affordable 

housing, because I’m in this—I’ve been in this business for 28 

years, and I don’t see—because location is what you pay for, and 

if we add two stories to a building that’s closer to the Capitol, generally what that will do is translate into much higher dollars for 

that rent, not lower. And that’s following up on what Ms. Norton 

said. 

Ms. TREGONING. So high rise buildings definitely have higher 

construction costs, but we do have city-wide inclusionary zoning. 

And the only reason it does not apply in some parts of the city is 

because we didn’t have the height left—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. TREGONING. —to allow the density bonus that is the thing 

that enables it to happen. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. TREGONING. So that’s one way in which that happens, but 

it’s also true that we have tremendous demand for housing 

throughout the city. In the last year, our average housing price 

went up 22 percent. It’s now $800,000 for a home on average in the 

District of Columbia. So what’s happening is people who can afford 

$1 million house don’t have enough million dollar house supply, so 

they start looking for $800,000 houses. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. TREGONING. The people who were buying $800,000 houses are seeing those prices bid up. They start buying $600,000 houses. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. TREGONING. And it trickles down and the price at every level 

ends up rising. So part of it is increasing the supply, period, at 

35 

every level affects the housing and the price of housing that’s available throughout the entire market. The other thing is specifically 

in places where we haven’t been able to offer inclusionary zoning 

with density bonuses, now we could do that. 

I will finally say that we saw a lot of the modeling that showed 

city-wide increases. What we’ve actually proposed inside the 

L’Enfant City, it’s a very, very few streets that would be affected. 

The vast majority of streets would not be affected. So it’s not even 

like we’re adding an enormous amount of supply inside the 

L’Enfant City, but we’re adding it in places where it reinforces that 

urban design relationship that we really love about Washington, 

the height of buildings related to the width of streets that makes 

the city so walkable, so interesting and so pedestrian-friendly. 

So we’re saying the horizontality, the prominence of the monuments and memorials are unaffected by the proposal that we’re 

talking about inside the L’Enfant City, but it does give us some 

critical capacity that, along with development outside the L’Enfant 

City in other parts of the city would accommodate. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many square feet are we talking about in 

this critical area are you talking about adding? 

Ms. TREGONING. I think it’s about 109 million square feet total 

over time, which isn’t an enormous amount, inside the L’Enfant 

City. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how would that affect prices? If it’s not an 

enormous amount, how would it affect prices? 

Ms. TREGONING. Well, and it would be about 317 million outside 

the L’Enfant City. So together, it would add a lot of supply and at 

least moderate—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’ll wait for the second round. I see I’m out of 

time. That’s a hard sell for me. You know, as you start to look at 

the economics, that’s a real hard sell. So I will follow up, but I’ll 

yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Meadows, I’m surprised you didn’t ask what 

you thought the—ask what the average square foot per square foot 

costs of that development would be. I’ve noticed there’s a lot of 

$1000-a-square-foot development going on in D.C. sometimes. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Ms. 

Tregoning and Mr. Acosta. I enjoyed working with both of you in 

local government and regional bodies over the years. Did I just 

hear you say, Ms. Tregoning, that you’re talking about 109 million 

square feet? 

Ms. TREGONING. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. New? 

Ms. TREGONING. [Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If my friend is familiar with Tyson’s Corner, 

that’s almost 2–1/2 times the size of everything that’s in Tyson’s 

Corner, one of the emerging edge cities in the United States, so 

that’s a lot of square footage. 

To your point, Mr. Meadows, I would also say just from my own 

observation, having worked on affordable housing, the best way to 

get affordable housing is to preserve what you’ve got. The idea that 

you’re going to construct new affordable housing is, frankly, very 

problematic, even with the affordable density bonus that most juVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86796.TXT APRIL
36 

risdictions, in fact, do try to encourage, but very difficult given today’s construction costs. And so, you know, preservation’s the key, 

and that may have something to do also with building height, because the two may not be compatible, but in terms of changing 

building height while trying to preserve affordable housing, so—— 

Let me just read what the Founders said they wanted to achieve 

in the design of the city. They envisioned, ‘‘a city with sweeping 

vistas that emphasized civic structures and an orderly system of 

boulevards with reverential private buildings.’’ 

Is that spirit still something the National Capital Planning Commission follows, Mr. Acosta? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. I think our recent updates to our comp plan, 

for instance, talk about the importance of vistas to and from the 

monuments throughout the city. I think that’s not only a national 

interest issue, but I think the residents of our city enjoy that, too. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And Ms. Tregoning, listening to you describe 

things like pleasant views, it sounds consistent with also that original vision for the city. 

Ms. TREGONING. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Help us understand a little bit the statutory 

framework here. I’m familiar with how we work in Virginia, but it 

may be a little bit different, because the National Capital Planning 

Commission, you have limited—I remember we had to submit 

things to the National Capital Planning Commission, but you 

didn’t have statutory authority over zoning or planning per se in 

Virginia, did you? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Not in Virginia. We—except for Federal property. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. But to the chairman’s point, for example, 

if you look at Rosslyn in Arlington, lots of high rises, much closer 

to the L’Enfant part of the city, as the chairman pointed out, than 

say parts of northwest. You have no jurisdiction with whatever 

goes on in the County of Arlington? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Except for Federal property. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Pardon me? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Except for Federal properties. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Except for Federal properties. So do you have 

statutory authority over the planning process in the District of Columbia? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Irrespective of whether they’re Federal properties 

or not? 

Mr. ACOSTA. It’s—well, we look at certain zoning proposals in an 

advisory role to the District. The comprehensive plan for the Nation’s capital both have Federal elements and local elements, as 

prescribed by the law, and that we work jointly in terms of putting 

together that plan, the focus has been. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Exactly. So the adoption of a comprehensive plan 

by the District of Columbia is not entirely its own willful act. It involves your consent, your review? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, it does. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And potentially a veto? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, it does. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The comprehensive plan, the D.C. law, is required before any zoning occurs? 

37 

Ms. TREGONING. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And it presumably, like Virginia law, it runs 

with the land, so whatever the FAR on a particular site or the language granting density runs with the land. Is that correct? 

Ms. TREGONING. Right. And zoning cannot—must be not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. When you’re talking about building height 

changes, you know, we’re going to add some stories, you’re changing the FAR, the floor-to-area ratio. Is that consistent with the existing comprehensive plan or would you have to amend the plan to 

take that into account as well? 

Ms. TREGONING. We would have to amend the plan to take that 

into account, absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And do we care about, Mr. Acosta, FAR? We’re 

talking building heights, but what about the mass of a building on 

the same footprint? 

Mr. ACOSTA. It’s an important issue, I think. We do take a look 

at that, but in terms of reviewing it against conformity with the 

Federal law, it is about heights. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Tregoning and Mr. Acosta, are you familiar 

the residential high rise building called the Cairo? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. 

Ms. TREGONING. Very familiar. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Now, refresh my memory. I used to—my wife 

and I had an apartment on P Street, and I am old enough to remember when that building, which had really been run down and 

became a flophouse, was bought and renovated, and there were stories at the time that that building exceeded the height limits in 

Washington, D.C. Is that correct? 

Ms. TREGONING. It’s the thing that caused the height limits to be. 

There were no height limits in the District until that building arose 

at 164 feet. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And when did that occur? 

Ms. TREGONING. In the late part of the 19th century. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So that triggered, in many ways, the discussion 

we’re having right now? 

Ms. TREGONING. I mean, Mr. Connolly, you are very familiar 

with local government. So the residents and the citizens in the vicinity of that building did what your constituents did: They ran to 

their local government to protest, to make sure that it wouldn’t 

happen again, and that local government at that time was the U.S. 

Congress. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, thank you for bringing up the 1894 construction of that building. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, as a then-resident 

of the District of Columbia, we were at least glad it got renovated. 

Chairman ISSA. Yeah. Oh, you’re talking about when it was renovated, not when it was built. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. When it was renovated, yeah. I missed the original construction. 

Chairman ISSA. I’m going to briefly ask a couple of related questions. Mr. Acosta, one of the other bans, I understand, here in the 

38 

District is after the fires of the early 20th century, we banned 

wooden construction down here in the District area. In other words, 

suddenly all those wooden buildings were all old, and there’s a date 

and suddenly they were all brick and stone. Is that right? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I believe so. 

Chairman ISSA. But our Founding Fathers thought wood was 

just fine, apparently. So it was okay to build chicken coop houses 

for the first 100 years of our founding, but there came a day when 

we realized we needed to do better in a high density modern city. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Absolutely. 

Chairman ISSA. And that was going on all over the country, that 

in high density modern cities, the recognition that it was just about 

impossible for a fire department to keep up with, and particularly 

row homes, with what happens in fires. And that’s still today. I 

mean, wood homes in the District, although precious and all protected, are hard to protect. Is that true? 

Mr. ACOSTA. It depends on the fire fighting technology. 

Chairman ISSA. And so leaving the Height Act alone for a moment and setting that aside, the architectural planning of the city, 

has it achieved all of the goals, in other words, this fairly eclectic 

high and low, because we don’t have minimums, the penthouses we 

saw earlier? Can we do better than that? 

Mr. ACOSTA. We can always do better, but I think in general, it 

has achieved some of the goals we’ve talked about, including the 

preeminence of the memorials, because of the lower heights. I think 

it has done a lot in terms—— 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I appreciate the memorials, but let me interrupt for a second. The Federal construction, there’s been a lot 

mentioned about jurisdiction over Federal construction. When I 

look at Federal buildings and major embassies like the Canadian 

Embassy and so on, what I see is no consistency of height, no consistency of the architecture. There’s some butt ugly Federal buildings that were built in the 60’s. I don’t know what it was in the 

60s, but the protestors should have been protesting the architecture. Isn’t that true? 

So when I look at the development of the city, don’t we have both 

in Federal building construction and in the commercial buildings 

epitomized by K Street, don’t we have a need to do better than 

we’re doing today? And if so, isn’t it long overdue for us to update 

a master plan with great detail of the vision for the 21st century? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I actually concur with that. I think one effort 

that—— 

Chairman ISSA. I’m looking for concurrence here. Trust me. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, for instance, one effort that both the District 

and NCPC has looked at is kind of what is the future of the southwest of the—you know, south of the National Mall, which is the 

Federal Center down there. And that I think we both agree that 

times have changed. The buildings are inefficient, it’s a single-use 

district. It could become much more of a vibrant place. 

Chairman ISSA. And St. Elizabeth isn’t really a new area. It’s an 

area that fell into decay for a number of years that’s being revitalized. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, it is. 

39 

Chairman ISSA. It was once a great area apparently. I certainly 

look at some of the large structures there that either have been removed or, in some cases, renovated. 

To a certain extent, aren’t we dealing with the revitalization of 

a city where, and I think Ms. Tregoning mentioned this, it had 50 

years of decline in population, in significance of people wanting to 

live in conventional residential structures, relatively little new construction until the post 70’s period. And the last decade or so has 

been an amazing time for the District. I’ve served 13 years. I’ve 

watched the District go from, and Mr. Meadows mentioned this, 

these sort of no go zones versus go zones, and we’re watching them 

being pushed out. 

So in light of that, and recognizing what Ms. Norton said, don’t 

we in Congress have an obligation to task you, as the two bodies 

overseeing the future, not just in the height, because I said I’d set 

it aside for a second, but also in the planning of a city, there are 

large areas that could have modern affordable homes. There are 

areas like K Street that have relatively little residential and a high 

capacity for lobbyists. We don’t expect that if you build a residence 

on K Street, that it’s going to be occupied by the downtrodden or 

the needy of the District, because the downtrodden and the needy 

of the District, I understand that we have the highest—to be in the 

top 5 percent of income producers, D.C. is the richest city from that 

standpoint. No city has more of, if you will, what it takes to be the 

top end of income. But, Ms. Norton—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Which is why, Mr. Chairman, we’re glad you live 

here. 

Chairman ISSA. I pay my taxes in California. Thank you. I do 

pay my property taxes here. 

But I think, and I’ll close with this. My concern is this: Ms. Norton needs areas of development that are currently underdeveloped. 

The K Street corridor has metastasized because of the growth of 

government. The concentration of Federal buildings, new Federal 

buildings in the District will only exacerbate that concentration. 

Let me just ask a closing question, and I will go back to the 

height. If I go out to JFK Stadium, which is up and down. It’s probably 12 feet above sea level. I think it’s kind of down there. And 

I go from there to the river, don’t I see an example of historic district where they mowed down probably huge amounts of homes to 

build that stadium. 

And now the question is, how do we attract a football team or 

how do we attract something back to these underutilized areas? 

Isn’t the challenge for the District of Columbia, for the Federal 

Government to challenge you, work with you and ask you to come 

back on the modification of the Height Act beyond anything we 

might mandate as a result of this study, and a real plan that is 

much more future looking? In other words, we’re only going to deal 

with this every 40 or 50 or 100 years. What are you going to do 

to give us the vision for the next 100 years, and are you prepared 

to do it? And, Mr. Acosta, in your opening statement, you said it 

needed to happen. How long will it take? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, typically the comp plan updates typically take 

2 to 3 years to produce. 

40 

I do think you raise a couple of very good points. I think this is 

the first time that the city in a very long time has been faced with 

growth, and that I think it makes a lot of people nervous to some 

extent, but I also think it’s an opportunity to kind of re-examine 

and revisit some of these issues. 

The issues that you’ve raised with respect to property, actually 

the Federal Government over the last 10 years have actually, you 

know, through the assistance of Mrs. Norton, you know, you look 

at things like Walter Reed as being kind of a place for new private 

development to occur. The area by the stadium, which you pointed 

out had—— 

Chairman ISSA. That’s not affordable housing up there. 

Mr. ACOSTA. It isn’t affordable housing, right, but it could be. 

But Reservation 13, which is adjacent to RFK Stadium is another 

piece of Federal land that was given to the District for future development. Poplar Point, which is across the river, with a huge 

track of land that could be redeveloped, that was an old Federal 

property that was transferred back to the District. So there are 

plenty of opportunities to grow with respect to these vacant lands, 

and the District has done a very good job of trying to identify what 

is going there. 

But I do think what is needed today in terms of pulling together 

the pieces to make the community feel comfortable about the prospects of growth, to look at the implications in terms of what it may 

mean to our national symbols, you know, I do think we have to pull 

that together in terms of revisiting this comp plan. That is the one 

thing that we both have agreed to. I think the question is, you 

know, how does it relate to ultimately heights as a final matter, 

but I think this is all interrelated that—— 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I heard 2 years. And my time is up, so 

briefly, would you agree that 2 years for this kind of challenge is 

something that if we challenge you, that you can come back to Congress with much more—hopefully a consensus in 2 years on the 

long-term future of these areas for the District? 

Ms. TREGONING. I think that a comp plan takes at least 2 years. 

What I would—I guess what I would say is that the process is already a well-known, well-understood, well-developed process within 

the city, that it already has the review and approval required by 

the National Capital Planning Commission. The comp plan has to 

be passed by the council, so it becomes a District law, so then you 

also get it again in the holdover period at Congress. 

So my point is whether we do it now over the next 2 years or 

whether we do it 5 years from now or 10 years from now, you 

know, I don’t know the next time we’ll have a chairman of this 

committee who’s as interested in ths issues as the current chairman is. 

Chairman ISSA. Eleanor is looking forward to the opportunity. 

Ms. TREGONING. I’m just saying, I don’t know. We haven’t been 

asked this question, in my memory: What does the District think 

the Height Act means and how does it affect its future. And honestly, I’m not very confident that when the need is imminent for 

the city, that we’ll have someone who has an ear to that need. 

So I would argue that those protections already exist. They could 

be made more robust, perhaps, if you’d like to make them so, but 

41 

they are already very, very well used. Every time the NCPC has 

vetoed a portion of the comp plan, the city has changed it, and 

must. Our own Home Rule Charter requires that we change it, otherwise, that provision shall have no effect in the city. So those are 

robust protections. 

So I would argue that the changes that we’re asking for have to 

be accomplished through the comprehensive plan, and that’s something that we should indeed undertake together. I think the next 

comprehensive plan revision, there’ll never be more interest in a 

comp plan than there will in this one, but that the law itself should 

change now. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I agree 

with Ms. Tregoning. The chairman’s interest here came from his 

own understanding of the District. He didn’t confer with me and 

said, do you think it’s wise to have a hearing? He doesn’t do that, 

but I’m very pleased he did, and I think Ms. Tregoning makes a 

good point that if the city doesn’t want changes, it thinks it won’t 

ever want changes and it’s making that decision for better or worse 

right now, because these opportunities don’t come up very often. 

Mr. Chairman, I also associate myself with your views about the 

undistinguished look of downtown Washington. I’m not sure that’s 

because of the Height Act. It seems to me there’s got to be better 

architects than the ones who have built downtown Washington. It 

is one of the least distinguished, most pedestrian downtowns, and 

I have never thought that that had to do with the Height Act, and 

I hope that’s not the reason. 

And I also must say that among the things I try not to do is to 

say to residents in the great beyond, there is a hope for something 

that nowhere in the country for a reason that is structural, that 

affordable housing will come out of what we’re doing here today, 

or what we’re discussing here today. The fact is that there is no 

case to be made for affordable housing coming out of the status 

quo. There is, I think, even less case to be made for affordable 

housing coming out of taller buildings. 

One way or the other, the country is going to have to live within 

the market system, and that’s what we’ve got and that’s what we’re 

all going to have. And understand what is happening to big cities. 

How do you keep them diverse, how much does city planning have 

to do with it, but I for one do not see the elixirs either in the 

spread of development that I myself have put a priority on or in 

taller buildings. 

That said, I’m making no promises that way. That doesn’t decide 

the issue for me, because I do think we are getting growth and I 

think trying to figure out if that growth will continue is very difficult, but you certainly have to plan for it. And then there are differences on whether the way to plan for it is to look across the city 

or to also look for taller buildings. 

Now, Mr. Acosta, I didn’t get to ask you questions before. I note 

you said, page 4, Commission recommended that the Federal 

Height Act remain in place city-wide and no changes be made to 

the formula, et cetera, or the approach. Now, did not the CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86796.TXT APRIL
42 

sion overrule the staff recommendation, and what was the staff recommendation? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, the staff recommendation actually had to do 

with the comprehensive plan and kind of whether you put the cart 

before the horse, whether you change the law dealing with heights 

before you undertake the next comprehensive plan. 

I think, based open the testimony that they heard during the 

hearings, we had several hearings on this matter, as well as the 

council, as you know, Mr. Mendelson sits on our Commission, his 

statements regarding his opposition to the mayor’s position, and 

also kind of the need to do the comprehensive plan first and then 

change the law, I think our Commission was essentially swayed 

to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, Ms. Tregoning, did you disagree with that notion to do the comprehensive plan first? 

Ms. TREGONING. I do disagree, in that the effect is essentially the 

same. You know, whether you change the law now or you change 

the law in the future, the only thing is you have no certainty in 

the future that there will be a Congressman or there will be a 

chairman of this committee who’s in the slightest bit interested in 

this issue. 

We have to change the comp plan, it has to be approved by the 

NCPC, it has to be passed by the council, it has to have public 

input. And even if we end up with the same result as if we don’t 

change the Federal Height Act, it will be the District’s decision, 

and that, in and of itself, is an important principle, but it is possible that a future city leader, a future planning director, a future 

council might find it very much in its interest to make judicious 

changes to heights of buildings in some parts of the city, and this 

would allow that to happen. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. See, I see room for accommodation there, but 

I don’t want to pursue that further. 

You also say in your testimony, Mr. Acosta, because you go right 

on right after that to say, Commission recognize that there may be 

opportunities for ‘‘strategic change’’ in areas outside of L’Enfant 

City. 

Does that mean you don’t see any opportunity for ‘‘strategic 

change’’ inside that massive area inside L’Enfant City? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, I think we should kind of view this as a 

whole. I think the greatest concentration of Federal interest, the 

things that we care most about as a Nation are essentially the 

L’Enfant City. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentlelady yield for a second? 

Ms. NORTON. Certainly. 

Chairman ISSA. We had a disagreement on what L’Enfant City 

was, and because I live at Boundary, now called Florida, you’re 

talking, I assume, the smaller L’Enfant, not the expansive one that 

goes all the way to Florida. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, we’re talking about the L’Enfant City. 

Chairman ISSA. You are? All the way to Florida? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, all the way the Florida. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. I think that—— 

43 

Ms. NORTON. So it’s all the way to Florida. And on the east and 

the west—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. The rivers. 

Ms. NORTON. —what is it, east and west? 

Ms. TREGONING. The rivers. 

Ms. NORTON. Huh? 

Ms. TREGONING. The Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers. 

Mr. ACOSTA. The rivers. The Potomac and the Anacostia—— 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. 

Mr. ACOSTA. —rivers, roughly. 

Ms. NORTON. So what neighborhoods does that include, if—you 

know, so—— 

Ms. TREGONING. Capitol Hill, Shaw. It includes, you know, most 

of Dupont Circle, of Georgetown, and Mt. Vernon. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, you want to change heights within those 

areas? 

Ms. TREGONING. For the most part, no, because only on streets 

that are basically, you know, 120 feet or higher would there be any 

actual change in—— 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. This is old Washington. That is old Washington. So what kind of streets are we talking about? 

Ms. TREGONING. It’s—— 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, there’s 14th Street. 

Ms. TREGONING. It would—it would largely be not the—it would 

largely be the avenues, so it would be Pennsylvania Avenue, it 

could be Massachusetts Avenue, it could be parts of Rhode Island 

Avenue, parts of those avenues, and, again, not probably through 

historic districts, so it’s modest. So those monolithic height increases that we saw in the modeling, we’re not proposing that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, do you envision most changes, if any, coming 

outside of L’Enfant City or within L’Enfant City? 

Ms. TREGONING. Over time, most of the changes will probably be 

outside the L’Enfant City, but you know, our proposal for the city 

is some very judicious changes inside the L’Enfant City that would 

make building tops more beautiful and would take advantage of 

the dense transit that we have inside the L’Enfant City. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would the gentlelady yield just for a moment? 

Ms. NORTON. Certainly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The chairman asked this question, but let me ask 

it again. The monumental core of L’Enfant City is 10.7 square 

miles. That’s 16 percent of the original L’Enfant City. You’re talking about all of L’Enfant’s plan, not just the monumental core? 

Ms. TREGONING. Correct. Most of it would not be happening at 

the monumental core. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. I thank my colleague. 

Ms. NORTON. But it does include downtown D.C.? 

Ms. TREGONING. It does. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Acosta, you speak about the so-called 

ratio approach on page 5, that it allowed, and here I’m quoting you, 

greater height precisely where it was least appropriate on 

L’Enfant’s streets, framing views of the U.S. Capitol and the White 

House. 

Now, Ms. Tregoning, do you agree that those areas would not be 

protected if D.C. had flexibility? 

44 

Ms. TREGONING. I don’t agree, for the reasons we earlier discussed, that the city is designed so that the views are at the end 

of streets, that they are terminated, those views, with significant 

civic and monumental structures, and so those views aren’t destroyed by having—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, just a moment. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Acosta, that the view is at the end 

and not—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, the—— 

Ms. NORTON. —in the areas leading—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. Of the streets that are being proposed for taller 

buildings, the wider streets, they typically are the streets that radiate from the Capitol or terminate at the White House, these are 

significant view sheds. 

One of the beauties of the L’Enfant plan of the city is kind of, 

like, the spaciousness that you see on the streets. That’s why it’s 

wide, that’s why it’s ceremonial, that’s why you can see the whole 

dome. The taller the buildings are along the street, the more 

crowded it becomes, that you see, you know, kind of the spaciousness around the capital, the foreground of the buildings seem taller, your perception of the important symbol of the dome is—it’s 

smaller, it’s diminished. And I think what was the point we were 

trying to make with this. 

I think the key issue here is really this: that we want to understand what’s possible outside of L’Enfant City, because of the 

growth issue, because much of it is residential, what are some of 

the options to accommodate growth before we make determinations 

about what happens inside of L’Enfant City? From a national 

standpoint, from a Federal interest standpoint, that is what we 

care about collectively, and that I think it’s—we should do no harm 

until we have a better understanding after the comp plan is completed what can be done to accommodate, if the District does grow, 

what can be accommodated there before we make any changes to 

those important views. That’s our legacy. That has to be here centuries from now. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you think in the past, we could pass a law— 

I mean, Ms. Tregoning, that it is very controversial, your position 

that the viewpoints at the end and not in between is what matters. 

I mean, isn’t this the kind of thing that you and Mr. Acosta ought 

to be reaching some accommodation on? 

Ms. TREGONING. And we would actually have to reach some accommodation in order for a comp plan to be approved. We’ve proposed to institute—— 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, but as has been indicated, what is before the 

Congress at the moment is not the comp plan but whether there 

should be any changes in the law. And the chairman and I are trying to find whether there are ways to satisfy the different views 

that we see even here before us, which may, by the way, reflect 

some of the views in the city. So would you continue? 

Ms. TREGONING. I was just going to say that these differences are 

important differences and they do take time and study to understand and to work out, but a change to the Federal Height Act does 

not change the height of buildings in the city. They won’t change 

until there’s a comp plan. And we have to agree, because they 

45 

could veto, based on the Federal interest, the very things the they 

say they object to. So we could live with that. That’s something 

that we know that we’ll have to work with them on, but the change 

to the Federal Height Act doesn’t do any harm, it doesn’t do anything until there’s a change to the comp plan. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what this says, it has to come before you before—— 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, let me just make the recommendations clearer. I think what is on the table right now in terms of what Congress could consider are changes in the L’Enfant City. That is what 

the District is requesting. They aren’t suggesting any changes outside of L’Enfant City. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. NORTON. Certainly. 

Chairman ISSA. I think I have a certain role in presenting this. 

What I asked was for the city to review the Height Act and to figure out whether or not changes could be proposed. I never envisioned, and quite frankly, I was very pleased that a lot of the study 

and a lot of the proposals, a lot of the architects that participated 

began visualizing specific changes. 

I only asked the not-so-rhetorical question of after 100 years, 

couldn’t Congress consider a change to the Height Act, and if so, 

what would be some of the guidelines? 

What I think I heard, and if the gentlelady would give me just 

another moment, is the city presented a hypothetical that included 

some specifics of the changes, which went beyond just should we 

consider a change to the Height Act. It actually proposed them. 

Those were treated, I think, as though they would go into effect if 

NCPC said yes. You said no, seven to three, with the two Members 

of Congress who have votes abstaining. That meant you rejected 

the District’s specific proposal. 

The interesting thing for me, and this also includes the city council’s, Mr. Mendelson’s, resolution, is that I heard separately to my 

astonishment for the first time ever a rejection of home rule, a rejection of could we give you a process to go further at some future 

time assuming you could reach a yes. And I think that’s what I’ve 

heard today. And that’s one of my frustrations is, I expected you 

all to say, gosh, this will take years and years, and it’ll probably 

be done in bits and pieces. And I think Eleanor and I would hope 

that some of the first pieces would not be K Street, but, in fact, potentially blighted areas, areas of new development. I did not expect 

for the first time ever to have people say, Please don’t give me authority. I can’t be trusted, but to a certain extent, I’m hearing that. 

And all of us here, who’ve never shied away from being given more 

authority, one of my challenges now, not just today, but the public 

comment and so on afterwards is before I leave this chair, do I, in 

fact, find a way to make changes to the Height Act that in the future would leave you with choices, even if those choices required 

obviously the consent of both your agencies and even potentially a 

referral back to Congress, or do I simply close up the book on a 

1910 law and wait until the city and NCPC come to us at some future time, and if so, am I living up to my obligation? So that’s how 

I define it, which is a little different than I asked you to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Let them answer. 

46 

Chairman ISSA. Please. Any comments? 

Ms. NORTON. I want to hear how they respond to that. 

Ms. TREGONING. I would just say I think you framed it exactly 

right. And I have to say that I’m also confused and appalled that 

after the city fighting so hard for any increment of additional democracy—and democracy is messy, it isn’t consensus-based, there’s 

always disagreement. 

I don’t think that the Congress, and with all due respect, should 

protect the District from the consequences of its own choices in 

terms of electoral decisions. So if we want to retain heights, that 

is within our power even after you change the law. That’s entirely 

within the control of the District of Columbia. And we may never 

have higher building heights, but we desperately want the ability 

to decide. And our pressure for growth gives us the sense of urgency to seek it. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Eleanor. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. Just a couple more questions, if I could just 

finish—— 

Chairman ISSA. Well, why don’t I come back to you, because I 

think Mr. Meadows will be done after one more. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

Mr. Acosta, I want to come back to you, because one of the troubling things, even though I’ve shared that there’s a very high bar 

that I would look at from this standpoint, I would come back to 

you. Certainly there are areas of agreement and there’s certainly 

areas of modification that I would encourage you and your board 

strongly to see how we can accommodate those, if nothing more, to 

make sure that we can get the chairman where he doesn’t have to 

use that wood ladder to get up on the roof, but there has to be 

areas—it becomes very easy when you have a body like yours to 

just say no. And I’ve dealt with it all my life, and so I would encourage you strongly to look for those areas where we can find consensus. 

I guess what I’m trying to figure out is what is our objective? Is 

it additional tax base? Is it affordable housing? Where exactly is 

the city wanting to go with this in terms of, at the end of the day, 

how do say you’re successful? 

Ms. TREGONING. So it’s the things that you mentioned. It is additional tax base, it is affordable housing. The thing is, we’ve made 

the investments to make our city more livable and a place that’s 

desirable for people to be, which is good, right? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Ms. TREGONING. We’re not a shrinking city anymore. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. TREGONING. But the very thing that’s made us successful is 

also putting a lot of pressure on our long-time residents, on the 

people who would like to be here, on the children of people who 

currently live here, can they afford to ever live in our city? The 

major—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But I doubt that they will ever be able to afford 

to live on Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Ms. TREGONING. The thing is, the tax base that’s increased has 

given us the capacity to do amazing things. The mayor just anVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86796.TXT APRIL
47 

nounced $187 million worth of spending on affordable housing. 

That wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you saying that because of this height restriction, that development is going outside the city? 

Ms. TREGONING. It is. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So that’s your premise here today is, is that people are building outside the city because of this height restriction? 

Ms. TREGONING. We’re about, and Mr. Connolly can help me with 

this, between 10 and 11 percent of the region’s population. For the 

last several years, we’ve been capturing something closer to 14 or 

15 percent of the region’s population growth, and a similar—not as 

large a number, but we’re batting above our—we’re punching above 

our weight in terms of both jobs and housing. That may or may not 

continue into the future, but if our prices continue to rise, if our 

supply continues to be constrained over time, yes, we’re absolutely 

going to lose more people to other jurisdictions. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you haven’t seen that yet? 

Ms. TREGONING. No. We have. That’s been our story for 50 years, 

for the last 50 years. It’s only recently that we’ve begun to do better relative to the rest of the region, and we still have very expensive rent, so we don’t have the diversity of jobs, we don’t have the 

diversity of housing that we’d necessarily like to have. And people 

who can’t afford to be here are starting their companies somewhere 

else, because, you know, our rents are too high. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. What I would like for you, if you would just 

put a priority in terms of what you’re hoping to see in terms of affordable housing, number of units that this would do, because I 

have a hard time grasping that, because actually what you’re proposing would have the counter effect, because as you go further 

out, it would actually allow for more affordable housing there. We 

had a statement. I’ll give you an analogy. It’s like selling the filet 

from the beef cattle and saying, we’re going to develop the filet and 

we’re going to leave, you know, the rump roast for everybody else. 

And so if you look at this, what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to 

figure out a way to allow for urban renewal, some of the great 

things that are happening here, and yet at the same time, not 

hamstring it so much, Mr. Acosta, that there is no growth within 

that critical area. And I think that’s what I’m looking for. Where 

is the balance, because if not, we’ll end up with greater heights in 

this corridor that we all want to protect from a visually aesthetic, 

pleasing manner, but we’ll still have the Henry’s soul food out close 

to where I live. And so that’s what I’m looking for, is this balance, 

and I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking 

member to hopefully come up with a solution. I’ll yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I’m personally fond, by the way, of the tri tip, 

which is slightly outside that filet area. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my friend from 

North Carolina’s beginning to sound like a bleeding heart conservative, but I really welcome his interest and his insight into affordable housing. I reiterate, my own experience is if you want affordable housing, you have to preserve it. You’re not going to build a 

lot of new affordable housing, given today’s construction. It just 

isn’t economically viable. And so I don’t know what the District is 

48 

doing in terms of preservation, but growth incentives can actually 

work against that. So you’ve got to be careful what parts of the city 

you target. 

Mr. MEADOWS. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s my point exactly. And I concur with the 

gentleman from Virginia. In addition to that, we’ve been on a committee where we’ve talked about some of these Federal buildings 

that do not get used. I would look to work in a bipartisan fashion 

to get some of those where they’re actually developed and used 

within the city on a regular basis. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Point well taken. 

Ms. NORTON. If the gentleman would yield, since we seem to 

have some kind of consensus, I don’t know about the chairman, on 

this one. Look, the fact is that the major complaints in the city 

about the cost of housing more than I’ve ever seen before. Rents 

are too high, housing too high, we’re in the top 10 already of most 

expensive cities in the United States. 

That’s why I take the gentleman’s point. You lose credibility 

when you come before Members of Congress who believe in the 

market economy, understand the market economy, have seen its effects on housing throughout the country; when you say there is a 

way to reduce the cost of housing, and that is by adding more housing, which, and this is what I want to get across to you, Ms. 

Tregoning, that housing has not, except for that 8 percent, been for 

the people who’ve lived here most of their lives, that hasn’t been 

for middle class people, that hasn’t been for people in the lower 

middle class. 

Let’s face it. It’s been for single people who don’t yet have families. It’s been for single people who are able to take the housing because two and three of them are living in housing that should have 

been occupied by one person, but it has two bedrooms, and that’s 

how they can afford the rent. 

So with all acclaim about spreading development, of which I have 

been a part, I will not say from this rostrum that that is the way 

to reduce the cost of housing in a city which does not have room 

to expand, or even if it expanded by four stories going up. And I 

thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Absolutely. My friend from Washington, D.C., 

might be interested to know my wife and I bought our first home, 

it was a co-op apartment in the District of Columbia, and in 1974, 

that apartment cost $16,600. Even we could afford it. Housing was 

a lot more affordable when I first moved to this area than it is 

today, and it’s a challenge for all of us throughout the region, I 

might add, not just for the District of Columbia, but particularly 

acute in the District. 

Mr. Acosta, let me ask, you said in your testimony that there 

might be areas outside the L’Enfant City where maximum heights 

could be increased, but it’s got to be studied. You want to give us 

some hints of targets, target areas that would fall under that rubric? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, the study itself, the District put forward a series of illustrative areas, they ranged everything, as Ms. Tregoning 

49 

said, from Friendship heights to Poplar Point to other places. That 

could be considered for additional height. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, are you—I guess I’m—is the National Capital Planning Commission, is that study underway by the NCPC or 

is it just something you’re saying we ought to study that? 

Mr. ACOSTA. It’s something that we would have to pursue in the 

next comp plan update. I think that’s part of the answer. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. In light of this hearing and other conversations, 

don’t you think maybe that should be in the work plan? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The chairman made a good point. Looking at 

parts of the city and what they border; for example, do we really 

care that much about building heights in areas of the city that border Chevy Chase or Bethesda, where building heights right across 

the border are not restricted? 

Mr. ACOSTA. There are fewer Federal interests with—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sorry? 

Mr. ACOSTA. There are fewer Federal interests with respect 

to—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. So, I mean, my only point is, I mean, we 

may reject them or not, but clearly, there are some areas of the city 

ripe for that kind of examination. 

Mr. ACOSTA. There could be. I think you’re absolutely right, that 

that’s a discussion that we would have as part of this. I think one 

of the issues that, you know, because of the timing, the District 

could not put forward, you know, two or three areas explicitly that 

would be targeted for heights. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. ACOSTA. They did it as part of this process. We could have 

evaluated it for Federal interest, but I do think it does take a discussion now with the community and that they want to be engaged 

in kind of where these targeted areas might be. And I think that’s 

part of the bigger question out there, whether this could be accommodated under the current height limits or do you need more 

height to kind of get to the densities that it requires. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, Mr. Chairman, let me just say, as I said to 

you privately, and to my friend from the District of Columbia, too, 

I hope we also, at some point, have a discussion about the Capitol 

Hill area. I think there are real security issues in terms of how this 

place is functioning and designed road-wise, pedestrian-wise, proximity to various and sundry transportation nodes, including CSX, 

that are of concern to many of us and ought to be of concern to everyone in the region. 

Ms. Tregoning, I think you and I were on a panel once where we 

actually talked about some of those concerns under the aegis of the 

Council of Governments, and I would just hope at some point, Mr. 

Chairman, while you’re chairman, we might be able to take a fresh 

look at that, because I think it really needs some planning help. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. I understand that the committee has 

received an inordinate, or an unusual amount of input from residents of the District of Columbia directly. I want to make sure that 

it’s announced here today that we’ll include all of those in our 

record. 

50 

Additionally, as I said in the beginning, I’m going to hold the 

record open for 7 days, so I would take additional comments from 

the District of Columbia from residents and interested parties. 

I’m going to summarize a couple of things I heard today, because 

I think that leading up to this hearing, things that were said would 

make people believe that there’s no area of agreement. What I believe I heard, and I want to be corrected if I go outside what I 

heard, there is no question but that a small change in penthouse 

could be beneficial to the city, and not be in any way objectionable 

to NCPC; that there is clearly a high level of concern when it 

comes to L’Enfant Plaza and particularly old L’Enfant Plaza; that 

as we go further away from the Capitol and the White House, and, 

of course, we normally rise on the north side, that these areas have 

generally less concern, and that the area of vista and preservation 

sadly is also at the area of greatest concentration request, in other 

words, we referred to K Street, but there are other areas. 

Lastly, that when we ring the city, Maryland on the north, Virginia on the south in some cases, what we find is areas in which 

neither one of your organizations has any authority, and those 

States and their incorporated cities are free to expand to any 

height they want, and yet we have artificially in—let’s just say, the 

first half mile or mile around the city, we’ve artificially created a 

similar, or not an identical limitation. Well, there’s no identical 

need. I think I heard that, Mr. Acosta, specifically, that they would 

be seen as less Federal interest, but had hypothetically the city 

said for the first some distance, up in the north it would be a mile, 

in the south it might be less, if they’d submitted a ring and said 

we’d like to be able to essentially build and obstruct Maryland from 

looking at the building, we’d like to obstruct Virginia from looking 

at the building unless they want to raise higher, because we feel 

we have that right and no obligation to the people of Chevy Chase 

or the people of northern Virginia, that you might have looked at 

it and said, well, under home rule, what would be the harm, since 

500 feet further in one direction or another, somebody could build 

if they chose to and obstruct effectively everybody else? 

Was I accurate in saying that, even though I said it deliberately 

in sort of an extreme way, but recognizing that that’s what I 

thought I heard you say is that you had little or no interest in 

those areas that are perimetered by two other States? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yeah. Those would be reviewed obviously on a caseby-case basis. In some locations there may be Federal parks, for instance, that abut it or Federal facilities that might abut it, there 

may be particular view sheds. 

Chairman ISSA. I’m sure the Pentagon doesn’t want to lose their 

view of the Capitol. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Right. So, you know, again, that’s actually part of 

this comp plan process, is that it does allow us to—for the District 

to make proposals, you know, to be fully vetted by the community 

so they understand the assumptions that go into it, as well as kind 

of the growth that may occur and what it may mean to them. Once 

it’s vetted by the community and the council accepts it, it comes 

back to us for a Federal interest review. I think that’s the way the 

process works in terms of how these height issues might be adVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86796.TXT APRIL
51 

dressed in the future. That was essentially the proposal that the 

District had put forward. 

Chairman ISSA. And lastly, what I think I heard, although previous statements may indicate differently, that you both agree that 

there’s a check and balance, that the rejection that came from 

NCPC would have been if there were no Height Act, the same rejection at this time, that you were not prepared to approve the plan 

for greater height as it was submitted by the city, and that effectively your seven-to-three vote would have been exactly the same 

if there’d been no Height Act. 

And I realize you were looking at both a hypothetical plan and 

a modification of the Height Act, but if the Height Act had no restrictions, you still would have had substantially the same vote, I 

assume. 

Mr. ACOSTA. It would have occurred, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Well, I think we have a better understanding of how we got here today. I’m not done looking at this or 

listening and reading. I’m not done with the District of Columbia’s 

residents having input. 

And, Mr. Connolly, I am certainly—immediately following this, I 

look forward to having a further dialogue on Federal buildings in 

this area. And I think that Mr. Mica and a whole raft of Members 

want to try to get it right, including on some of those buildings I 

described less than kindly that were built in the ’60s and ’70s. 

Ms. Norton, you had a closing comment? 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify where the 

final authority would lie. 

Before I do that, I noticed that on page 2, you indicate a full 

paragraph of consultation with Federal agencies and that they had 

views on adverse effects for all kinds of things, including Federal 

headquarters and the like. Were these all within L’Enfant City? 

Mr. ACOSTA. They were actually throughout the entire city. The 

Federal facilities are throughout the entire city. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Therefore, in the plan that you have put 

forward and the plan that Ms. Tregoning as put forward, would 

there be retention of ultimate authority in the Federal Government? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, the—yes. I think if you use this comp plan 

process, it becomes the law, it comes to the Hill for, you know, a 

30-day preview period. 

Ms. NORTON. I’m not talking about the 30-day period now, because remember, the reason I’m not talking about the 30-day period is that we’re talking about changes both within and without 

L’Enfant City. And I indicated, and I gave the hypothetical, at least 

in my opening remarks, where the changes did not involve the Federal interest. And I think that some in the city are concerned about 

that kind of change, that you’d kind of have runaway development. 

And, indeed, I’d like to ask you, if the District or the Federal 

Government stuck to the way it looks at legislation coming and 

there were changes in the Height Act, let’s say outside of L’Enfant 

City, that did not involve the Federal interest such as perhaps 

what Mr. Acosta was alluding to on page 2 with all the Federal 

headquarters, it didn’t involve any of that, how should the hypothetical that comes in real-time from the 1990s, apparently, the 

52 

early 1990s, where apparently a developer convinced the council to 

interpret the Height Act as it now stands as allowing for a height 

greater than the Height Act allows, the worry seems to be about 

exceptions like that, because they’ve seen at least one occur. How 

would that be handled? 

Mr. ACOSTA. In terms of the comp plan? In terms of any height 

changes in the future? 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I think part of the issue is, you know, how are these 

height changes going to be flagged as part of the comp plan process. I think there was a lot of concern that this could look more 

like spot zoning, where two or three parcels as opposed to kind of 

taking a thorough and kind of careful look at areas could occur. I 

think that was what we heard from some of the testimony, and 

that I think a lot of the concern was, you know, that process hasn’t 

been thought all the way through. You know, changing heights this 

way is a new thing, would be a new thing. It would be a substantial difference in terms of how people and how the community 

interface with the planners and with the city and with even NCPC. 

So I think there was lot of concern about, you know, we haven’t 

set this up, they don’t know exactly what would happen, they don’t 

necessarily—you know, this is from the community. They’re not 

sure, you know, how they would be notified about these things or 

whether it would be kind of done quickly or not or kind of at the 

last moment. A lot of the questions kind of ranged—were kind of 

in that area of focus. 

So I think that’s—you know, those are things that, you know, if 

Congress at some point in time decided to make a change, would 

have to be worked through. 

I do think one of the bigger issues is really people enjoy the certainty that’s out there today, and any change that you make, you 

know, affects their neighborhoods, affects their property, affects 

their assets, and I think to some extent, that’s how people are reacting to this particular issue. It’s an important issue, too, that 

they see this personally and they see this as, you know, very fundamental to their property, their communities, you know, to the 

way they live. And that, you know, while they—I think everybody, 

you know, appreciates the home rule arguments, I think, you know, 

they put the two together, and I think that’s essentially what is 

happening over this process. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Tregoning, do you see any way to avoid that 

hypothetical—it wasn’t hypothetical—that example from the 1990s 

where an exception was made, and the Congress overturned it, and 

here we’re talking about exceptions that would not violate the Federal interests. Do you think that the District could figure out a way 

to keep controversial exceptions or interpretations like that from 

occurring when there was no backstop in the Congress of the 

United States? 

Ms. TREGONING. I do, and I have had this conversation with 

Chairman Mendelson of the Council of the District of Columbia 

that these are laws that we can change and strengthen if we feel 

the need to do so. For that matter, we could enact our own version 

of a height limit that would have to also be passed, but would also 

53 

have to be changed by an act of the council, a majority, a supermajority. You can imagine all sorts of ways. 

But there is no perfect land-use process in any place in the country. And, again, the quality of our government, you know, is a consequence of the actions of our citizens. If democracy is messy, I relish the opportunity for our city to roll up our sleeves and figure out 

how to do this. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I urge you to try to think through some of the 

ideas you just laid on the table so that you can quiet some of the 

concerns in the city, and so that we are not faced with the embarrassment of some people not trusting themselves to make a home 

rule decision. But it will take some work, and it will take some consensus between the executive and the legislative branches. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you. 

I thank our witnesses and our panel. This was an unusual hearing. 

I also want to thank the concerned audience. And, again, this is 

an ongoing process. It won’t be closed, at least during my tenure. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86796.017
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86796.018
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86796.019
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86796.020
60 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86796.021
61 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86796.022
62 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86796.023
63 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86796.024
64 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86796.025
65 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86796.026
66 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86796.027
67 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86796.028
68 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86796.029
69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86796.030
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86796.031
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86796.032
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86796.033
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86796.034
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86796.035
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86796.036
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86796.037
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86796.038
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86796.039
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86796.040
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86796.041
81 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86796.042
82 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86796.043
83 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86796.044
84 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86796.045
85 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86796.046
86 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86796.047
87 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86796.048
88 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86796.049
89 


Insert offset folio 50 here 86796.050
90 


Insert offset folio 51 here 86796.051
91 


Insert offset folio 52 here 86796.052
92 


Insert offset folio 53 here 86796.053
93 


Insert offset folio 54 here 86796.054
94 


Insert offset folio 55 here 86796.055
95 


Insert offset folio 56 here 86796.056
96 


Insert offset folio 57 here 86796.057
97 


Insert offset folio 58 here 86796.058
98 


Insert offset folio 59 here 86796.059
99 


Insert offset folio 60 here 86796.060
100 


Insert offset folio 61 here 86796.061
101 


Insert offset folio 62 here 86796.062
102 


Insert offset folio 63 here 86796.063
103 


Insert offset folio 64 here 86796.064
104 


Insert offset folio 65 here 86796.065
105 


Insert offset folio 66 here 86796.066
106 


Insert offset folio 67 here 86796.067
107 


Insert offset folio 68 here 86796.068
108 


Insert offset folio 69 here 86796.069
109 


Insert offset folio 70 here 86796.070
110 


Insert offset folio 71 here 86796.071
111 


Insert offset folio 72 here 86796.072
112 


Insert offset folio 73 here 86796.073
113 


Insert offset folio 74 here 86796.074
114 


Insert offset folio 75 here 86796.075
115 


Insert offset folio 76 here 86796.076
116 


Insert offset folio 77 here 86796.077
117 


Insert offset folio 78 here 86796.078
118 


Insert offset folio 79 here 86796.079
119 


Insert offset folio 80 here 86796.080
120 


Insert offset folio 81 here 86796.081
121 


Insert offset folio 82 here 86796.082
122 


Insert offset folio 83 here 86796.083
123 


Insert offset folio 84 here 86796.084
124 


Insert offset folio 85 here 86796.085
125 


Insert offset folio 86 here 86796.086
126 


Insert offset folio 87 here 86796.087
127 


Insert offset folio 88 here 86796.088
128 


Insert offset folio 89 here 86796.089
129 


Insert offset folio 90 here 86796.090
130 


Insert offset folio 91 here 86796.091
131 


Insert offset folio 92 here 86796.092
132 


Insert offset folio 93 here 86796.093
133 


Insert offset folio 94 here 86796.094
134 


Insert offset folio 95 here 86796.095
135 


Insert offset folio 96 here 86796.096
136 


Insert offset folio 97 here 86796.097
137 


Insert offset folio 98 here 86796.098
138 


Insert offset folio 99 here 86796.099
139 


Insert offset folio 100 here 86796.100
140 


Insert offset folio 101 here 86796.101
141 


Insert offset folio 102 here 86796.102
142 


Insert offset folio 103 here 86796.103
143 


Insert offset folio 104 here 86796.104
144 


Insert offset folio 105 here 86796.105
145 


Insert offset folio 106 here 86796.106
146 


Insert offset folio 107 here 86796.107
147 


Insert offset folio 108 here 86796.108
148 


Insert offset folio 109 here 86796.109
149 


Insert offset folio 110 here 86796.110
150 


Insert offset folio 111 here 86796.111
151 


Insert offset folio 112 here 86796.112
152 


Insert offset folio 113 here 86796.113
153 


Insert offset folio 114 here 86796.114
154 


Insert offset folio 115 here 86796.115
155 


Insert offset folio 116 here 86796.116
156 


Insert offset folio 117 here 86796.117
157 


Insert offset folio 118 here 86796.118
158 


Insert offset folio 119 here 86796.119
159 


Insert offset folio 120 here 86796.120
160 


Insert offset folio 121 here 86796.121
161 


Insert offset folio 122 here 86796.122
162 


Insert offset folio 123 here 86796.123
163 


Insert offset folio 124 here 86796.124
164 


Insert offset folio 125 here 86796.125
165 


Insert offset folio 126 here 86796.126
166 


Insert offset folio 127 here 86796.127
167 


Insert offset folio 128 here 86796.128
168 


Insert offset folio 129 here 86796.129
169 


Insert offset folio 130 here 86796.130
170 


Insert offset folio 131 here 86796.131
171 


Insert offset folio 132 here 86796.132
172 


Insert offset folio 133 here 86796.133
173 


Insert offset folio 134 here 86796.134
174 


Insert offset folio 135 here 86796.135
175 


Insert offset folio 136 here 86796.136
176 


Insert offset folio 137 here 86796.137
177 


Insert offset folio 138 here 86796.138
178 


Insert offset folio 139 here 86796.139
179 


Insert offset folio 140 here 86796.140
180 


Insert offset folio 141 here 86796.141
181 


Insert offset folio 142 here 86796.142
182 


Insert offset folio 143 here 86796.143
183 


Insert offset folio 144 here 86796.144
184 


Insert offset folio 145 here 86796.145
185 


Insert offset folio 146 here 86796.146
186 


Insert offset folio 147 here 86796.147
187 


Insert offset folio 148 here 86796.148
188 


Insert offset folio 149 here 86796.149
189 


Insert offset folio 150 here 86796.150
190 


Insert offset folio 151 here 86796.151
191 


Insert offset folio 152 here 86796.152
192 


Insert offset folio 153 here 86796.153
193 


Insert offset folio 154 here 86796.154
194 


Insert offset folio 155 here 86796.155
195 


Insert offset folio 156 here 86796.156
196 


Insert offset folio 157 here 86796.157
197 


Insert offset folio 158 here 86796.158
198 


Insert offset folio 159 here 86796.159
199 


Insert offset folio 160 here 86796.160
200 


Insert offset folio 161 here 86796.161
201 


Insert offset folio 162 here 86796.162
202 


Insert offset folio 163 here 86796.163
203 


Insert offset folio 164 here 86796.164
204 


Insert offset folio 165 here 86796.165
205 


Insert offset folio 166 here 86796.166
206 


Insert offset folio 167 here 86796.167
207 


Insert offset folio 168 here 86796.168
208 


Insert offset folio 169 here 86796.169
209 


Insert offset folio 170 here 86796.170
210 


Insert offset folio 171 here 86796.171
211 


Insert offset folio 172 here 86796.172
212 


Insert offset folio 173 here 86796.173
213 


Insert offset folio 174 here 86796.174
214 


Insert offset folio 175 here 86796.175
215 


Insert offset folio 176 here 86796.176
216 


Insert offset folio 177 here 86796.177
217 


Insert offset folio 178 here 86796.178
218 


Insert offset folio 179 here 86796.179
219 


Insert offset folio 180 here 86796.180
220 


Insert offset folio 181 here 86796.181
221 


Insert offset folio 182 here 86796.182
222 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 183 here 86796.183