Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monumental Arch topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NCPC approves concept comments on proposed 250‑ft Memorial Circle arch after heated public debate
Summary
The National Capital Planning Commission voted to approve staff comments on concept plans for a proposed 250‑foot monumental arch at Memorial Circle, while public speakers—veterans, preservation groups and architects—urged delaying action until NEPA, Section 106 and, some argued, congressional authorization were complete.
The National Capital Planning Commission on June 4 approved staff comments on concept plans for a proposed 250‑foot monumental arch in Memorial Circle, moving the project to additional review stages even as scores of public witnesses urged the commission to withhold support until legal and preservation reviews are complete.
Chairman Sharf opened discussion by reminding the commission that the vote at hand would not be a final approval of the arch’s design or height but rather a request that reviewers comment on concept plans submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior. He also flagged a legal question he said staff and the applicant must address later: “I believe speaking personally that the best reading of the law is that the height of buildings act is not applicable to federal construction,” he said, and asked the applicant to provide legal analysis for the commission’s future reviews.
The project team described the concept as a visitor destination occupying Memorial Circle on Columbia Island: a stone‑clad arch with a mezzanine and observation deck, a 60‑foot central statue and flanking eagles, ticketing and security in the south leg, and pedestrian plazas with seat walls and bollards. Staff recommended further studies on transportation, pedestrian and ADA access, security/risk assessment, FAA air‑safety review and additional viewshed visualizations before any preliminary or final action.
Public testimony dominated the session. Preservation organizations, architects and veterans’ groups together urged delaying substantive action. Ed Sterling, Mid‑Atlantic regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, urged the commission not to advance the project without a completed Section 106 review and an environmental review, saying the current submission is premature and noting, “This commission … has the authority and the responsibility to say that that is not acceptable.” Carol Quillin, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, similarly told the commission that the arch’s scale and location risk “diminish[ing] some of our nation’s most powerful landmarks.”
Veterans and family members called the Memorial Circle location inappropriate for a massive triumphal structure, arguing the arch would interrupt the intended visual link between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House above Arlington National Cemetery. Gary Langston, a veteran with relatives interred at Arlington, asked the commission to prioritize solemnity and to follow the law and inclusive public processes before advancing a project that touches hallowed ground.
Project supporters on the commission said the concept merits further study rather than outright rejection. Vice Chairman Levenbach, who moved the motion to approve staff comments, said the commission should use its review process to test traffic, safety and design refinements and called Memorial Circle “one of the few locations in the National Capital Region where an iconic civic monument could be appropriate.” The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with one recorded no (Commissioner Cash).
Next steps identified by staff and commissioners include: a traffic and pedestrian safety study that clarifies routing and parking; a Section 106 consultation schedule and NEPA analysis; continued FAA coordination on any construction above 200 feet; additional photo‑visuals and pedestrian‑level viewsheds from viewpoints the commission requested; and a legal rationale from the applicant regarding application of the Height of Buildings Act to the federal project. NCPC staff reiterated they will not take final action until required federal historic‑preservation and environmental processes are complete.
The commission’s action was procedural: it approved staff comments to inform later preliminary and final reviews rather than authorizing construction. Opponents signaled that they will continue to press legal and policy challenges, and supporters signaled they will press for expanded technical study and refined designs to respond to the commission’s requests.
What happens next: the applicant is expected to respond to NCPC’s requests for additional documentation, the Section 106 process will proceed with consulting parties, the FAA advisory findings will be incorporated into environmental materials, and NCPC will consider the project at subsequent review stages.
