NCPC grants preliminary approval to proposed Memorial Circle arch after heated public opposition and amendment on height review

The National Capital Planning Commission provisionally approved preliminary site and building plans for a proposed monumental arch at Memorial Circle on July 9, 2026, after three hours of presentation, public testimony, and deliberation.

NCPC staff opened the project review with a detailed presentation of the applicant’s updated preliminary design and related studies. Jamie Herr summarized the application, its program and site changes and staff’s recommendation for preliminary approval with comments. Herr told commissioners that staff recommends the Commission find the project inconsistent with the Height of Buildings Act as submitted and request that “the applicant revise the project design to comply with the Height of Buildings Act and return to NCPC for final review.”

The project would place a 250-foot monumental arch in Memorial Circle on Columbia Island, with two legs, an observation deck and prominent statuary; the submission includes new pedestrian crosswalks, actuated traffic signals, bollards, security features and a proposed stormwater palette. Staff identified key outstanding issues — including viewshed impacts, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, lighting levels relative to the National Mall hierarchy, FAA aeronautical requirements and Section 106 and NEPA compliance — and recommended a return for final review once those items are resolved.

Public testimony: majority opposition

About 40 people gave oral testimony in groups. Veterans, family members, architects, historians, preservation groups and community organizations spoke overwhelmingly against placing a 250-foot arch at Memorial Circle. Cynthia Morrison, a Gold Star mother, summarized a frequent theme: “The open space between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery is not just empty land. It is deliberately designed and historically significant. That unobstructed corridor was intended to create a direct and symbolic relationship between President Lincoln’s leadership and the immense human cost represented at Arlington.”

Others raised procedural and legal objections. Priya Jain, chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Society of Architectural Historians, told the commission the Section 106 submission and alternatives analysis are inadequate and asked the commission not to approve the project at this stage. Rob Neewig of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Ed Sterling of the National Parks Conservation Association urged the commission to ensure full Section 106 and NEPA processes and to consider alternative sites such as the proposed Capitol Street oval near the Anacostia waterfront.

Applicant responses and technical points

Project team witnesses, including Julie Fetzer of the National Park Service’s transportation program and Nicholas Sharpen of the design firm, answered commissioners’ questions about parking, pedestrian access and visitor throughput. Fetzer said the nearest Arlington National Cemetery parking areas are about a 10‑minute walk from the proposed arch site and that linear distances could be provided in the final submission. The applicant told the commission the Park Service could process roughly 80 interior visitors per hour for ticketed interior access while modeling up to 900 pedestrians per hour at the circle in surface circulation scenarios.

Height, legal authority and process

A critical point in the discussion was whether NCPC should accept staff’s framing that the Height of Buildings Act applies to this federal project. Chair Scharf moved — and the commission adopted — an amendment to the Executive Director’s Report that (1) retains the report’s opening statement about NCPC’s historic role in preserving the District’s horizontal skyline, (2) notes that NCPC will continue to consider whether the Height of Buildings Act is binding on federal construction and (3) formally requests the applicant provide a justification for the project’s height when the project returns for final approval. Commissioners debated the legal and precedent implications at length, with some arguing the act is federal law that has historically constrained federal projects in the District and others noting sovereign‑immunity and statutory interpretation questions that merit further study.

Vote and next steps

On the substantive motion to approve the preliminary site and building plans with the amended commission actions, the commission voted to carry the motion; the chair directed the project team to return with the requested additional analyses and to address the transportation, safety, lighting, Section 106 and NEPA issues before final review, expected at a future meeting (the chair mentioned a likely September final review). The record shows at least one commissioner voted against the preliminary approval and at least one registered a "present" vote while multiple commissioners supported the motion; the motion carried.

What this means

Preliminary approval permits the project to move forward in the NCPC review sequence but does not authorize construction. The commission explicitly asked the applicant to provide stronger documentation on statutory authority or a justification for height, fuller Section 106 and NEPA materials, FAA aeronautical findings and more detailed traffic and construction‑period mitigation (including measures to avoid disrupting funerals at Arlington during pile driving and crane operations). Several preservation and veterans organizations also urged the commission to consider alternative locations where a large celebratory arch would not intrude on a solemn commemorative corridor.

The commission indicated it expects the applicant to return with revised materials addressing the commissioned items before taking final action.