WILLIAM SCHARF, Chair, Presidential Appointee (At-Large) STUART LEVENBACH, Vice Chair, Mayoral Appointee LINDA ARGO, Mayoral Appointee, District of

Columbia MICHAEL BLAIR, Presidential Appointee JESSICA BOWRON, Acting Director, U.S. National

Park Service STEPHEN BRUCH, Director, Facilities Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service EVAN CASH, Office of the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia ANITA COZART, Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia ARRINGTON DIXON, Mayoral Appointee, District of Columbia DANIEL FALCONE, U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform WILLIAM HENDERSON, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

MARCEL C. ACOSTA, Executive Director MEGHAN HOTTEL-COX, General Counsel & Secretariat DIANNE SULLIVAN, Director, Current Planning

C O N T E N T S

Page

1. Commission Roll Call 4

2. Report of the Chairman

3. Report of the Executive Director

4. Legislative Update 13

5. Consent Calendar Items 14

6. Action Items 17

6A United States Department of the 17 Interior, Memorial Avenue, Washington, D.C. – New Monumental Arch

6B United States General Services 220 Administration, 2701 Martin Luther King Boulevard, SE, Washington, DC – St. Elizabeths West Campus Gate 7 Garage and Site Development

Adjourn 244

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1:09 p.m.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Sorry, can everybody hear me? Barely. Okay. I'll try to speak up for those in the room.

My parents have been telling me my whole life I speak too loudly. So, this is a difference.

Good afternoon and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's July 9th, 2026 open session. First, Madam Secretary, can you please take the roll call?

COMMISSION ROLL CALL

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Commissioner

Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? COMMISSIONER BOWRON: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Here.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? (No response.) MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Marcel Acosta,

Executive Director and Diane Sullivan, Current Planning Division Director are, also, in the

meeting.

And, with those present, Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum to proceed.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Today's meeting is live streamed and will be available in a few days on video on the NCPC's website, as is our customary practice.

If there's no objection to the agenda, the agenda as posted is adopted as the order of business.

And if you would all please stand for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance.) REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Agenda item two is the Report of the Chairman. First, I hope everybody had the opportunity to enjoy July 4th, the semisesquintennial celebrations of our great republic.

One thing that I would just note, is

that as I move through the various celebrations that have been kind of ever present in the District over the last month, whether it was the events on the mall or the fireworks show, I was really struck by the number of people who had come to D.C. from all over our country and all over the world, to take in this momentous occasion here in our nation's capital.

As I've said consistently at meetings in the past, D.C. and the capital region is truly how America holds itself out to the world.

And it certainly means a lot to Americans of all stripes from all over our country.

And I think preserving the beauty of our capital, making sure that this incredible city remains as unique and remarkable as it has always been over its long and storied history. It's obviously something that's crucial to the mission of this commission.

It's a job that I hope we all take very seriously. And I know that the work that we've done and others have done to beautify the

capital in the lead up to these celebrations certainly was remarked upon, certainly was appreciated.

And I think it goes without saying that we should continue those sorts of practices. We should continue making sure that this capital remains as beautiful a public resource as it has been long into the future.

I've been honored to lead this Commission over the past year. I think it's been exactly a year now.

So, we've made it through 12 eventful months. It's been a great honor to get to chair this Commission with a history of well over a century now.

And I sincerely hope that NCPC will continue doing the outstanding work that it's done, will continue serving an important and productive role in the future of Washington,

D.C. just as it has in the history of

Washington, D.C. Second, I'd note that we do have the

monumental arch back on our agenda today. Last time when we considered this project for concept review, there were unfortunately a number of, let's say, disturbances in the public gallery, which I thought were unproductive.

I think it's very important that these meetings continue to remain open to the public.

I've tried to ensure that these meetings remain, to the extent possible, in person as opposed to online.

We have a lot of people signed up to testify today, which is absolutely a good thing.

I think the public deserves the right to comment on matters that come before this Commission.

And I hope that the public who are present here today are respectful, both of the people who have come here to comment on the project, as well as the various Commissioners, as we deliberate both the arch and really all the other matters that come before this Commission for consideration.

With that having been said -- oh, we have a new representative here today, Daniel Falcone, who's been designated by Congressman Comer's team at the House.

Welcome, Mr. Falcone. You follow in big footsteps. First, Ellie McPherson and was it Paul Giacchetti? I believe was his name.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Ellie McGowan.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Ellie McGowan. I'm getting these names mixed up.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: And Ryan Giacchetti, yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I apologize. I got back to America at about 2:00 a.m. last night. But yeah, Ellie McGowan and Commissioner Giacchetti.

But, Commissioner Falcone, welcome. We're excited to have you here, and we look forward to having you on our team going forward.

That's all I really have today. Thank you as always to the professional staff, both for your diligent work in the lead up to this

meeting, and, also, for really teaching me and instructing me over the last year as to the work of this Commission.

It's been an incredibly rewarding experience for me. And I really appreciate everything that you do and everything that you've done to help me get up to speed and get more familiar with the important work that we do.

With that, agenda item number three is the Report of our Executive Director, Marcel Acosta. Marcel, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MR. ACOSTA: Yeah. Thank you, Chair Scharf, and good afternoon. We're pleased to welcome two urban planners who have recently joined NCPC's Long Range Planning Division.

First, we have Will Oliver, okay. Will is an urban planner and policy analyst with experience of land use planning, housing and community development, and federal regulatory

analysis.

Most recently, he served at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He, also, worked at the D.C. Office of Planning and at the Urban Institute.

Will holds a bachelor's degree in urban studies and sociology from the University of Pennsylvania.

We, also, have Michael Bochynski. Michael is a transportation land use professional who, also, worked as a research and project assistant for the National Center for Smart Growth and the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland. He, also, worked at the Clean Water Fund.

Michael holds a master's in community planning from the University of Maryland.

Again, welcome to Will and Michael. My written report is in your packets and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Marcel. Do any Commissioners have any questions or

comments for our Executive Director?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing and seeing none, Will and Michael, welcome to the team. We're excited to have you.

This is an incredible group of people, and I'm sure if you've been chosen by our outstanding leadership team that you're up to the job. And we look forward to hearing more from you in meetings in the future.

Agenda item number four is the Legislative Update. Meghan, do you want to proceed with that?

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Sure. I don't have any specific legislation with an update this month. But, I'm happy to answer any questions on pending legislation if Commissioners have any.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Do any Commissioners have any such questions for our esteemed Secretary/General Counsel?

(No response.) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing and seeing none, thank you, Meghan. And, with that, we'll proceed to agenda item number five, which is our Consent Calendar. There are two items on this month's Consent Calendar.

The first is an application from the National Gallery of Art for approval of comments on concept plans for the West Building 7th Street entrance improvements.

The second item is another application from the National Gallery of Art for approval of preliminary and final site development plans for their exterior signage project.

Are there any questions or matters for discussion on the Consent Calendar from any Commissioners?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing and seeing none, is there a motion to approve the Consent

Calendar? VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: So moved. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice

Chairman Levenbach. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you. I didn't

catch who was first on the second there. That was the reason for my momentary pause. Is there any discussion on this item

before we proceed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing and seeing

none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and the second and take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Vice Chairman Levenbach and seconded by Commissioner Henderson.

With that, Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? COMMISSIONER BOWRON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries unanimously. ACTION ITEMS

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. With that motion having passed, we have two items on our Open Session Agenda for today.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

MEMORIAL AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. - NEW

MONUMENTAL ARCH

The first is agenda item 6A, which is a request to approve preliminary site and building plans for the new monumental arch.

And, from our team, we have Jamie Herr presenting. Jamie, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. HERR: Members of the Commission, the U.S. Department of the Interior has submitted preliminary site building plans for a new monumental arch in Memorial Circle in Washington, D.C. for Commission approval.

At the preliminary stage, the

Commission is focused on whether the applicant addressed the comments made during the concept review, general consistency with the comprehensive plan, and a range of building and site design topics including viewsheds, building massing, landscape, and circulation.

The project is proposed for Memorial Circle, an existing traffic circle on Columbia Island in Washington, D.C. The project site, circled in green, connects the Arlington Memorial Bridge to Memorial Avenue and the George Washington Memorial Parkway.

The site on Columbia Island is in between the boundary channel.

(Audio interference.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: That's a sound I've never heard before in these meetings. Sorry.

(Laughter.)

MS. HOTTEL-COX: As a reminder, can all virtual attendees please mute their microphones during the presentation. Thank you.

MS. HERR: All right. To the west, the Arlington National Cemetery and to the east is the Lincoln Memorial.

Now, I'll give a brief overview of the site history. As a reminder from the concept review, the need for a bridge connecting the northern and southern shores of the Potomac River in the area of the Arlington Memorial Bridge was documented as early as the mid-1800s.

The concept for a Memorial Bridge and Avenue first emerged after the Civil War and gained momentum when it was included within the McMillan plan, which proposed improvements to the Washington, D.C. Park system.

According to the cultural landscape report published by the National Park Service in 2024, the Memorial Avenue corridor was designed as a symbolic and physical link between the Lincoln Memorial, a tribute to the 16th American President, the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, and Arlington House, the former plantation home of Confederate General Robert E.

Lee.

The design of the corridor took shape amidst the City Beautiful movement, which promoted formal and classical treatments for architectural, engineering, sculptural, and landscape features, all of which were incorporated into the evolving designs for the Arlington Memorial Bridge and the Memorial Avenue corridor.

The corridor was built in phases. Arlington Memorial Bridge was constructed between 1926 and 1932. The Boundary Channel Bridge was built between 1929 and 1930. Memorial Avenue was built beginning in 1930.

And, finally, Memorial Circle was constructed on Columbia Island beginning in 1940. Memorial Circle was designed as part of the Western terminus of Arlington Memorial Bridge as a means to connect the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Arlington Boulevard, and Memorial Avenue.

Now, we'll review the existing site

conditions. The area has changed significantly since the original design to the current conditions today, with several connecting roads, highways, parkways, merge lanes, off-ramps, and trails both at grade and below.

The most recent design changes to the Circle from 2020 were intended to improve transportation safety at and near Memorial Circle while maintaining the memorial character of the area. The goals were to reduce risks at key locations within the corridor and to reduce conflicts between trail, walkway, and roadway users.

These changes included splitting the eastern traffic island to create continuous vehicular movement as shown here. These changes, also, restricted pedestrian access around the Circle, and currently there is no pedestrian access across Memorial Avenue on the east side of the Circle or to the center of the Circle itself.

The existing site sits in the middle in

the center of an important view corridor along Memorial Avenue between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House.

Now, with that as background, I will review the proposed preliminary design. I will give an initial overview of the updated project and the review elements in more detail in the order of the Executive Director's Report.

The applicant is proposing a 250-foot tall arch as shown here in this rendering. According to the applicant, the purpose of the arch is to celebrate 250 years of American independence by honoring America's founding principles through installation of a structure at the intersection of Arlington Memorial Bridge and Memorial Avenue within the George Washington Memorial Parkway, in a manner consistent with the avenue's established role as a ceremonial gateway and avenue of heroes celebrating valor, sacrifice, and American heritage.

Staff supports the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the nation's independence

and recommends the Commission support the purpose of the project to celebrate America's semiquincentennial.

The proposed arch consists of an arch structure with two legs at a height of 166 feet to the top of the mezzanine. The observation deck and statuary plinth is 24 feet in height, and the larger central statue is 60 feet, for a total of 250 feet.

The exterior of the proposed arch will be clad in stone. The vertical faces of the arch facing east and west, previously at the concept plan, included recessed or framed spaces that would typically house statuary or relief sculpture, but have been replaced with a smooth surface.

The remaining sides retain these recesses. As of the concept review, no specific details on the future use of these spaces has been identified.

The remaining details are consistent with the concept design, including the top area

of the arch gold lettering, quoting the American Pledge of Allegiance on both east and west-facing sides.

Above the primary arch structure and mezzanine is a recessed area housing the observation deck, interior space, and above that the proposed statuary. The proposed design still includes a central gold statue flanked by smaller gold eagles on each side.

All the statuaries facing east toward the Lincoln Memorial, there are, also, additional gold decorative elements on the underneath side of the arch and on each vertical face. The proposed interior of the arch has been updated.

At the ground level in the south leg is ticketing and security, back of house spaces, stairwells, and elevators. In the north leg is an exit hall, back of house spaces, stairwells, and elevators.

At the mezzanine level above the legs, the plans include a stair hall, restrooms,

program spaces, and stair and elevator lobbies.

Two of the staircases and one elevator in the center of the mezzanine provide access to the observation level above.

The proposed arch sits within a plaza that includes granite pavers encircled by a seat wall and two pedestrian access points lined with bollards. The two access points face east and west aligned with the opening of the arch.

The Circle is shown with the new pedestrian crosswalks connecting visitors via pedestrian refuge islands and new traffic signals.

This enlarge detail of the proposed site plan shows the Belgian block apron, a planting strip that will be used for storm water management, a barricade seat wall, granite pavers, and bollards. The updated design includes recessed lighting and traffic signals at the crosswalks.

The Circle is shown with new pedestrian crosswalks and post-mounted pedestrian actuated

traffic signals, connecting visitors via pedestrian refuge islands next to the traffic circle.

Pictured here on the east side, there are two new crosswalks that will start at the landing of the Memorial Bridge, crossing the traffic onto an island before crossing the circle drive lane into the arch plaza itself.

The applicant has updated the plans with four traffic signals at each pedestrian crosswalk, and actuated signal posts will be used to control vehicular traffic and allow pedestrians to use the various crosswalks.

Now, I'll review the Height of Buildings Act and recommendations for the project. NCPC's role as the central planning agency for the federal government in the nation's capital has included application of the Height of Buildings Act to preserve the horizontal skyline of the District.

NCPC has historically held that the

Height of Buildings Act is binding on federal projects, and NCPC has consistently applied that position in project reviews since being tasked with that authority in 1938.

As such, staff recommends the Commission finds that the Height of Buildings Act applies to the project, and consistent with NCPC's role, to apply the Act through its review of projects, the project as designed is inconsistent with the Act.

Therefore, staff suggests the Commission request the applicant revise the project design to comply with the Height of Buildings Act and return to NCPC for final review.

As noted in the Executive Director's Report, application of the Height of Buildings Act would not prevent the stated goal of 250 feet as the Act differentiates between habitable building space and architectural embellishments like statuary.

While the habitable building space

would be limited under the Heights of Building Act to 130 feet plus the 20-foot penthouse, NCPC could approve statuary above that height. Here, the applicant would need to redistribute 40 feet from the arch structure to the statuary to achieve the intended 250-foot height.

I will now review the updated pedestrian accessibility plans and recommendations. The concept plans indicated new pedestrian crosswalks with pedestrian actuated signals, but no other details about pedestrian access or safety.

And the Commission requested a transportation study that evaluated the proposed pedestrian access to ensure visitors could avoid pedestrian vehicular conflicts.

The applicant has updated the plans and included a preliminary traffic study showing the same traffic island configuration with the addition of four full signals at each of the eight pedestrian crosswalks to stop traffic for pedestrians.

This plan detail shows the three crosswalks in the traffic island on the east side of the Circle with the new crosswalk from the Mount Vernon Trail at the south.

In addition to the proposed traffic signals, the plans reconfigure the Circle and connecting roadways to eliminate vehicular merge movements through the Circle, including the northbound and westbound traffic through movements around the circle from northbound Washington Boulevard. The preliminary traffic study states this is to improve pedestrian safety and driver expectations.

Staff finds the traffic movement will be simplified and the addition of pedestrian activated traffic signals will provide safer pedestrian and bicycle circulation for visitors to the arch, as well as daily commuters.

Staff, also, finds that while the proposed traffic signals will improve pedestrian safety, the inclusion of 32 individual traffic signal poles around the Circle could also create

visual clutter in the viewshed and recommends the Commission encourage the applicant to consider fewer individual traffic signal poles should additional analysis warrant a reduction without compromising safety.

Now, I'll review the proposed vehicular network changes and recommendations. As previously noted, there is currently no pedestrian access via crosswalks to the Circle or across Memorial Avenue on the east side, as the Circle sees heavy volumes of traffic, especially from northbound Washington Boulevard to eastbound Memorial Bridge and from the bridge to northbound Arlington Boulevard. Both of these move-ins have continuous lanes around the Circle currently.

At the concept review, the Commission requested a transportation study that identifies any potential impacts of the proposed project on the road network and level of service.

The applicant has prepared a preliminary traffic study, and according to the

submission, the plans include removing the left turn lane on northbound Washington Boulevard to enter the Circle and continue north and west. The plans also include moving the trail crossings closer to the Circle from the existing location and adding the four full traffic signals at each crosswalk.

The study notes that there will be impacts to vehicular traffic and access around the Circle, including the removal of the northbound and westbound movements around the Circle, where visitors will no longer be able to access Arlington National Cemetery directly from Washington Boulevard.

The study notes that there will be -yeah. Let's see. The applicant has, also, stated that further refinement of traffic signal timing will occur as visitation to the arch is better understood.

The District Department of Transportation, or DDOT, and Arlington County have submitted comments on their preliminary

information, and staff recommends the Commission request the applicant provide, as part of the final submission, updated information regarding the potential offsite impacts to the vehicular transportation network in response to comments from DDOT and Arlington County, and requests the applicant continue to work with the Federal Highway Administration, District Department Transportation, Arlington County, and other agencies, as appropriate, regarding the proposed changes and impacts to the surface transportation network.

Now, I'll review the proposed loading and unloading plan and recommendations. At the concept review, the Commission requested information regarding parking and loading and unloading for visitors to the arch to ensure safe access for those of all abilities and minimize disruption to the traffic network.

The applicant is proposing to utilize the Arlington National Cemetery garage for visitor parking and Memorial Avenue for visitor

pickup and drop-off. As such, staff recommends the

Commission request the applicant provide details regarding pickup, drop-off, and loading locations, and coordinate with Arlington National Cemetery prior to final review regarding the use of the Memorial Avenue and the cemetery parking garage for arch visitor parking.

Next, I will review visitor safety and their recommendations. At concept review, the Commission requested the applicant provide as part of this review a risk assessment and evaluation of the project to ensure that the proposed design will address security considerations.

The applicant included a summary of the project's security considerations and details regarding the site elements, including the barricade seat wall, bollards, security cameras, and interior screening features.

As such, staff recommends the

Commission support integration of site security features, including the seat wall, to help protect the visitor experience while not detracting from the project design.

Next, I will review aviation safety and the recommendations. The Commission previously recommended during the concept review, the applicant continue consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project on air navigation and provide an update to the Commission as part of this review.

The Commission, also, advised the applicant that any design recommendations provided by the FAA should be incorporated into the proposed project prior to the Commission's final action.

According to the submission, the FAA conducted a limited aeronautical review concerning the feasibility of the arch and found the structure would have no significant adverse effect on airspace and visual instrument

procedures at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, subject to the inclusion of red obstruction lights.

The FAA still requires a full aeronautical study for the actual -- the final design of the arch prior to its construction. And, therefore, staff recommends the Commission requests the final plans include any navigational or safety lighting as required by the Federal Aviation Administration, and advises the applicant that if, subject to the full Federal Aviation Administration study, any component of the project design that must be altered, the updated design must be submitted to the Commission for review.

This section will cover viewsheds and their related recommendations. At concept review, the Commission requested updated photo visualizations of existing and proposed pedestrian level views from, number one, the north steps of the Jefferson Memorial looking toward the Lincoln Memorial, and from the George

Washington Memorial Parkway; number two, looking south toward the Circle from a point immediately south of I-66; and number three, looking north toward the Circle from a point near the Lyndon

B. Johnson Memorial Grove.

The applicant has included updated renderings from some of these vantage points, which demonstrate the visual impact of the arch, which I will review now.

This is a new rendered view from the Jefferson Memorial looking toward the arch with before on the left and after on the right. This is a new rendered view from the George Washington Memorial Parkway looking south, before on the left and after on the right.

Based on the new submitted renderings of distant views, visual impacts will be evident but less visible than the direct views from the Memorial Avenue Arlington Bridge access.

At the concept review, the Commission, also, requested to see the design options that were explored to avoid or minimize impacts on

the visual connection between Arlington House and the Lincoln Memorial. This is the before and after view from the Arlington House to the Lincoln Memorial, which is one of the obstructive views.

According to the applicant, during and prior to the design process, various smaller arch heights were evaluated.

The smaller arches were ultimately dismissed, because the applicant believes they would have had greater impact on the cultural landscapes, specifically the views between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The smaller designs fully obstructed this view and did not create any new viewing opportunities.

By contrast, the proposed arch would allow a less obstructed view through its central opening. In addition, it states that because the arch is intended to celebrate 250 years of American independence, the smaller heights were not considered representative of this milestone.

Based on the submission, staff

recommends the Commission find the scale of the arch and its openings have a relational impact on direct and panoramic views from different elevations resulting in trade-offs, which should be considered in balance with the project's overall purpose and need.

In its current form, the proposed arch will allow for framed views of the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House from the lower elevations of Memorial Bridge and Memorial Avenue. It will fully obstruct reciprocal views of the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington from the higher elevations of Arlington House and the Lincoln Memorial Terrace.

And it will introduce a new panoramic view of the monumental core from the observation deck. As such, staff recommends the Commission request the applicant continue to consult, as necessary, with the federal agencies and the Section 106 consulting parties needing -consulting parties, to continue to explore ways

to minimize impacts to historic resources and to determine appropriate mitigations to resolve adverse effects to be included in a programmatic agreement.

The next session for review and recommendations is project design and materials.

At the concept review, the Commission requested the applicant provide as part of this submission, information regarding the proposed arch and site materials pallet, including cladding, paving, pedestrian features and security elements, the proposed lighting strategy, including nighttime renderings from key views, demonstrating the lighting concept in context, and the proposed storm water management strategy.

The applicant has submitted the proposed materials, including three potential granite cladding options for the exterior of the arch shown on the left, with the paving materials and other materials as shown.

Staff recommends the Commission request

that prior to final review, the applicant provide information about the final granite cladding selection.

Submission states the applicant intends to include lighting at the site, including in-ground recess up-lighting, up-lights above the impost base, and tablature attic story into an up-lighting of the statuary. And eight 14 to 20-foot tall ground-mounted light stanchions, pictured here, are planned around the Circle to ensure the arch is brilliantly illuminated.

The applicant has provided two rendered nighttime views, shown here, and staff recommends the Commission request the applicant submit a narrative describing the proposed lighting concept and its relationship to the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery that includes relevant details on the proposed lighting stanchions and any other site lighting, including illumination levels proposed, such as foot limbers or other measure, to understand the relative brightness of the monument as compared

to other national monuments and memorials, and to protect the lighting hierarchy of the National Mall.

The applicant has included storm water management details in the submission, and indicated that they will utilize bio-retention with native grasses and shrubs around the perimeter of the Circle to accommodate runoff.

Additional coordination with the District Department of Energy and Environment will be necessary to meet all applicable permitting requirements.

Finally, our project coordination recommendations for the applicant to consider that were not already mentioned. At the concept review, the Commission previously requested, as part of this submission, updates on the Section 106 process and the National Environmental Policy Act evaluation process, as completion of both is required prior to the Commission's final action.

The applicant is lead federal agency

for the preparation of the environmental assessment, and finding of no significant impact pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and NCPC utilized the applicant's environmental assessment for purposes of compliance with NEPA.

The National Park Service initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act on June 6th, 2026, and prepared a draft assessment of effects and programmatic agreement and held a consulting party's meeting on June 15th, 2026.

NCPC designated the National Park Service as lead federal agency for the purpose of compliance with the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act. Completion of this process will be necessary prior to final review.

As a reminder for the next stage, a final review, the Commission will focus on topics such as if the comments provided during this review were adequately addressed,

architecture and lighting details, and ensuring confidence that the plans will not substantially change.

This concludes my presentation. As noted previously at this preliminary review stage, the Commission is currently focused on topics such as the project's consistency with the federal elements of the comprehensive plan, the architectural and landscape strategy, the appropriateness of the site for the given context, and how the project will affect views, viewsheds, and circulation.

I have incorporated those recommendations into the presentation, so I will not read them again. They are included here for your reference.

In conclusion, staff recommends the Commission approve the preliminary site and building plans for the proposed monumental arch located on Memorial Circle and Columbia Island in Washington, D.C., with comments to be addressed prior to final review.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that NCPC has received a substantial number of public comments on the project. The vast majority of the comments received were in opposition, and the most common concerns related to the impact to the setting of Arlington National Cemetery, views, height, and scale, and safety.

The applicant team and the architect are here to answer any questions the Commission may have and staff is available, as well. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Jamie. I have a couple questions, actually, for the project team, if there are folks who are available?

First, how far, with respect to parking, how far is the Arlington, sort of, parking complex from the arch itself? Do we know that?

(Off-microphone comments.)

MS. HOTTEL-COX: And while she does that, if you could introduce yourself for the

record, that would be great.

MS. FETZER: Yeah, sure. Hi everyone.

Good afternoon. My name is Julie Fetzer. I'm currently acting as the Transportation Program Manager for the National Capital Region of the National Park Service.

So, as you can see on the map here, the ANC parking areas, which are indicated on the bottom left-hand side of the screen, are generally the areas where people would park and then walk up King Street and then down Memorial Ave.

So, it's about a 10-minute walk.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay.

MS. FETZER: I don't have the linear feet handy. We can include that in our final submission.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: And if somebody were like, taking an Uber over or whatever, they would be dropping off in that proposed loading/unloading area? Is that the idea?

MS. FETZER: Either in that loading and

unloading area, or more likely along Memorial Ave.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Interesting, okay. Will we have details on what's going into the recessed spaces and sort of the, I guess, statuary type stuff prior to final in September?

Is that something that's -- what I'm trying to avoid is having to come back in with new plans and go through this whole process again.

MR. SHARP: Yeah, the plan is that the structure -- this is Nicholas Sharp, with Harrison Design.

The plan is that the monument itself will not change. But, the statuary will be fitting in within the niches and areas that have been created within it.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay, gotcha.

MR. SHARP: And that'll be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts on its own track, and then ultimately here.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Do you know rough

timeline on that or?

MR. SHARP: I don't know.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. And then, lastly, before we bring this in for final, would it be possible to get rendered views from the observation deck itself?

Of what it would look like looking out from the observation deck of the proposed arch over both D.C. and in the direction of D.C. and then over Arlington?

Is that something that's feasible?

MR. SHARP: Yes, we can produce that.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay,

MR. SHARP: Yes, certainly.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: That's all I have. Do any other Commissioners have questions either for Jamie or for the project team?

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: So, I want to talk about the traffic pattern and make sure I understand what you've done here.

So, did you look at the option of just

accessing Memorial Circle from Memorial Avenue, and not having the access coming from Memorial Bridge?

MS. FETZER: Yes, we did. We looked at a range of different alternatives, which varied from a tunnel underneath the Circle, all the way to, what we would call having the lightest touch on the landscape, which would be limiting access to the western side of the Circle, where traffic volumes are relatively low.

As we evaluated those alternatives, one of the things that we found is that concern for safety by limiting access to just one side of the Circle.

Generally, pedestrians are going to take the path of least resistance. So, if they have to go out of their way in order to reach a crosswalk, they're more likely to take unsafe behaviors and try to divert into traffic in order to get to where they're going.

So, as folks are walking along Arlington Memorial Bridge, they're going to be

very drawn to the arch, kind of want to get there as quickly as possible.

So, because of that, the expectation for them to go out of their way and walk around the Circle in order to access it, did not feel like a realistic expectation. In order to provide that safe crossing opportunity and encourage people to use the crosswalk, having access on both sides of the Circle was generally preferred as the safest option.

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Okay. And did you -- I think we talked about how many estimated visitors you think you were going to get in a year in the last meeting.

Have you run those numbers to get an idea?

MR. SHARP: I don't have the total numbers, but the park service -- the security will be the bottleneck really. And so, they said that they can process roughly about 80 visitors an hour, and I think open, roughly the hours of Arlington National Cemetery, which I

believe was 9:00 to 5:00.

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: You said 80 an hour? Okay.

And if you think about visitation to the cemetery as a benchmark, you know, what do you think demand versus supply is going to be?

MR. SHARP: I don't have those numbers, but I can produce them for you.

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Yeah, because that'll give you an idea of foot traffic. I think it's four million people that visit the cemetery every year.

Not that everybody would go to the arch or other people would go just to the arch and not necessarily to the cemetery. But, it'd probably be good to think through, like, how much foot traffic you're going to get, supply and demand, how 80 would match up with demand.

MS. FETZER: We did evaluate a higher number of pedestrians visiting. The number that Nick gave was generally folks who will be able to have a ticket to visit the inside of the arch

in a given hour.

We evaluated a much higher number. We evaluated up to 900 pedestrians visiting the center of the Circle every hour.

What we found, was that can generally be accommodated without major impacts to traffic by strategies like creating very wide crosswalks, balancing the amount of green time for those pedestrians, versus vehicles doing things like adaptive signal timing to make sure that pedestrians have enough time to cross with that demand.

So, we are confident that we can -- the traffic signals that are proposed surrounding the Circle, in combination with the pedestrian infrastructure that is proposed, is able to handle a much higher number of visitation per hour.

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Commissioner

Ingrassia?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Thank you for the presentation. I thought it was very detailed, especially with the planning and attention that went into safety features, managing foot traffic, car traffic.

I just had a question. It seems like there's a lot of like, you know, traffic signs now and lights and posts combined with the lighting surrounding the arch itself.

I'm wondering if there's concern that there may be a little too much visual clutter at this stage, at least based on these plans?

And if there's anything being considered to potentially mitigate some of that visual clutter?

MS. FETZER: Of course. Thank you for the question there. The number of traffic signals that are currently proposed was a conservative look at potentially the maximum number that would be needed at this point in schematic design.

As we move forward, those number of traffic signals will be reduced to those that are needed in order to provide visibility for drivers to the signals themselves.

So, right now there's four proposed per crosswalk. We would anticipate that number to go down to between two to three for most of the crosswalks as the design progresses.

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Any other questions before we proceed to public testimony? Yes?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Back on transportation related questions.

MS. FETZER: I was just sitting down.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: The estimates that I saw that were submitted of traffic impacts after the arch is completed, is that correct that these are for after completion, as opposed to during construction?

MS. FETZER: Yes.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Okay. Are there estimates for the impact during

construction?

MS. FETZER: We do have those and we can provide them in the final submission.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: That's something I would like to see then.

MS. FETZER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: There's also, I think, from looking at the maps, but I'm not entirely clear, during construction, is there going to be eastbound traffic from the direction of the cemetery or southbound parkway to the bridge?

MS. FETZER: Yes. So, eastbound traffic coming from the cemetery will be routed to the northern side of the Circle.

So, the northern side of the Circle, which is currently one way westbound, will now feature two-way traffic during that temporary maintenance of traffic period during construction.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Okay.

MS. FETZER: And then, the other

movement that you asked about, can you remind me?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: No, that was -

MS. FETZER: That was it?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: That was it.

MS. FETZER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Other than also noting that, you know, there is a significant rehabilitation of the Roosevelt Bridge going on at the same time.

MS. FETZER: Correct.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: So, we're going to be layering traffic impacts upon traffic impacts for roughly the same three-year period. So, that would be just a consideration in how to execute.

A separate question, and this was raised in the comments by various Arlington County entities was, and I appreciate the contact with the FAA on the design and the lights, and I think that's very important.

But, they raised two issues. One is the height of the cranes during construction and impact on air traffic with that. Is that something that's being discussed?

MR. SHARP: Yes, it is. And that's currently being evaluated. So, we'll have something to submit by final submission.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Okay. And the same thing with the concern that they raised about the airline's plans for if an engine goes out on a plane, that the path, because their comment at least, and I don't know if it's true, is that is where a plane would go to turn around.

MR. SHARP: Yeah, we're still in communication with the FAA and evaluating all the scenarios that could potentially happen.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Will that be done in time for the final submission?

MR. SHARP: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. And when we see the final lighting plan, I'm assuming

that'll include at nighttime the sort of FAA-

mandated red lights? Is that correct?

MR. SHARP: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Any other questions?

Hearing and seeing none, thank you, Jamie, and thank you, Nicholas. And I'm sorry I missed your name. Julie, thank you for your insightful testimony.

We'll now turn to public testimony today. We have about 40 people signed up to testify today, some in person and some online. As we usually do, we're going to hear from witnesses in groups of five and hold on Commission questions until after we move through five witnesses.

Our first group of witnesses are Cynthia Morrison, Susan Douglas, Jimi Shaughnessy, Priya Jain, and Shady Migally.

Cynthia Morrison, Ms. Morrison, I believe you're here in person. I see somebody coming forward. There we are. Thank you,

ma'am.

You'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. And as I've done in previous meetings, I try to give at least a little bit of leeway towards the end of that period.

But, also, try to keep things on time in order to keep things going, and make sure we're staying in concert with our rules.

But, Ms. Morrison, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. MORRISON: Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Morrison. I'm from North Carolina and I'm a gold star mother.

My perspective comes from generations of service. My father served our country, my grandfather and my uncles on both sides of our family served, as well.

Service, sacrifice, and honoring those who wear the uniform have always been part of my family's story. My son, Landon Joseph Morrison, carried forward that tradition.

He was a graduate of the United States

Air Force Academy, and he served honorably in both the United States Air Force and the United States Space Force. Tragically, he passed away last July, and his death was determined to be 100 percent service connected.

I want to begin by saying that I am not opposed to honoring our nation or commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States. My concern is not with commemoration itself, but with this specific proposal, its location, its scale, and its impact on a historic memorial landscape.

The open space between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery is not just empty land. It is deliberately designed and historically significant memorial vista.

That unobstructive corridor was intended to create a direct visual and symbolic relationship between President Lincoln's leadership in preserving the union and an immense human cost represented by those interred

at Arlington National Cemetery.

The Arlington Memorial Bridge is not simply a crossing between two points in Washington, D.C. It's part of a carefully designed connection between two sacred spaces.

Whether looking toward Arlington from the Lincoln Memorial or back toward the Lincoln Memorial from Arlington, that unobstructed vista creates a powerful relationship between leadership, history, service, and sacrifice.

When I cross that bridge, my attention is drawn toward Arlington National Cemetery and what lies beyond those gates. Those are grounds I have walked with my son as he was beginning to think about his own path in life.

When he was in the eighth grade, we watched the changing of the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier together. We stood among those rows of headstones and reflected on what service and sacrifice truly mean.

And even after that experience, he chose to serve this country. For me, that view

is not merely visual, it is remembrance.

It represents continuity and sacrifice and the lived reality of military service and loss. I'm deeply concerned that placing a large monument in this corridor would alter that experience by shifting the focus away from Arlington itself and toward the structure.

The landscape was long -- has long allowed reflection and reverence to remain in its center. Some landscapes derive their meaning not from what is added to them, but what -- but from what has been intentionally left undisturbed.

I respectfully ask the Commission to consider not only what is being proposed, but what already exists in this space and what could be lost if its character is permanently changed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Morrison. Our next witness is Susan Douglas, who I believe is, also, here in person.

Ms. Douglas is representing the Third Act Virginia, and will therefore have five minutes to provide her testimony. Ma'am, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. DOUGLAS: Good afternoon. In June, I voiced concern about the arch and its disregard for the historical viewshed, the disrespect it would convey to those who fought for our country, traffic issues at Memorial Circle, FAA concerns about local air safety, and a pending lawsuit and Congressional Bill both intended to stop construction of the arch.

Today I have two additional concerns. Construction of the arch requires Congressional approval, and the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, must be carefully considered.

We have just celebrated the 250th anniversary of our independence, which was secured and has been sustained by the U.S. Constitution since 1787. That is the supreme law of the land and it serves as the foundation for our legal system.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution states in part, "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

Known as the property clause, it grants Congress supreme authority over these assets. Simply put, Congress decides whether, where, when, and what may be built on federal land.

Memorial Circle is administered by the National Park Service. It is federal land and falls under the jurisdiction of the property clause of the Constitution.

Approval for building on this land rests solely with Congress. Trump's assertion that he does not need congressional approval for the arch is absurd.

He is relying on congressional authorization granted in 1925 for two pillars that were never built and bear no resemblance whatsoever in size, scope, or style to the

proposed arch. This 100-year-old authorization provides no legal standing given the updated federal laws and review processes.

At your June meeting, you agreed that NEPA requires you to assess the environmental effects of the arch before rendering a decision.

The NEPA process provides for public review and comment on any significant impact on human environment resulting from the arch to include human relevance.

In other words, any direct or indirect threat or harm to cultural resources. The arch is a direct threat to the historic and cultural significance of the viewshed between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial.

That viewshed symbolizes the reunification of the North and South following the Civil War. This is our history. It must not be rewritten.

Memorial Circle is an open and reflective space which commands the solemnity owed to the hallowed grounds where over 40,000

service members and their families are buried. This peaceful space is a cultural resource and must be preserved.

The arch would be a slap in the face to our veterans. And it would directly harm those for whom this space is sacred.

Public comments provided to CFA, NCPC, and NPS have been overwhelmingly opposed to the arch for this very reason, harm to human relevance. Over 1,600 written comments were sent to the CFA, 99.8 percent opposed.

You received nearly 2,000 written comments between this meeting and last. The vast majority strongly opposed.

During a recent public comment period provided by the National Park Service, 100,936 comments were submitted. And an AI-conducted review by NPS showed that those comments are overwhelmingly in opposition.

Very little support for the arch. The people have spoken. We do not want this arch built at Memorial Circle, sacred ground for

Arlington National Cemetery and part of the historically significant view from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial.

The preamble to the Constitution begins with three iconic words, we the people. Those all-important words symbolize the foundation of American democracy and the power of its citizens to self-govern.

I urge you to listen to and respect the wishes of the people, and to acknowledge that Congress has the final say in this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Douglas. Next, we have Jimmy Shaughnessy, who I believe is in person.

Mr. Shaughnessy, you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. SHAUGHNESSY: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here today to voice my opposition to the planned construction of the Triumphal Arch in Memorial Circle.

I speak as a private citizen, a Marine Corps combat veteran, son of a veteran, and grandson of generations of combat veterans spanning nearly 200 years.

Buried in Section 60 are my great-grandfather and my great-grandmother, both of whom served in our nation's conflicts. He with sword and rifle on horseback, she working triage in Army field hospitals.

The origin of this arch was not born from conversation and contemplation with military members, veterans, their families, or the entities that serve these populations. It was not a discussion with the American people, not a discussion for the American people, but rather an attempt to gain the attention of one man.

Are we worth so little that at the core of our remembrance and the pillars of this arch will be rebar and poured concrete, gnarled and stamped for quick erection with no time for delicate conversation?

We don't want stunning views and fees. We want our peace. We want the integrity of Arlington's entrance to be preserved.

This arch is not for the people. This arch is for one person. For whom do we owe our allegiance? Our nation's warriors learn from history and from ancient history to craft new forms of fighting in hopes of preserving our democracy.

Our democratic values have been tested within our ranks before. They did not cease to prevail then and they have not ceased to prevail for the next generation. At the previous meeting, there was discussion of stunning views gained from this arch. What are the views that we lose?

Every view from our contemplated landscape will be dominated by this overt symbol of hasty, selfish celebration. Approaching drivers will have their view of Arlington obstructed as they gawk at the mammoth sterling white blocks of stamped facade.

Once atop the observation deck, there

are two choices, gawk with an amusement-like stare at the cotton bright gravestones diligently plotted across the hillside, or turn your back on our fallen comrades and take in the stunning views.

The Administration has chosen to ignore the established protocol and the precedent for this project, which is allowing Congress to write into law the authorization for construction of a memorial structure. Instead, rubber stamping every aspect of this project contradicting the very purpose of preestablished criteria meant to determine the structure's path.

The precedent cited for this project is beyond flawed and outdated, 100 years old and two pillars apart is hardly sturdy footing for an arch. This project does not honor any living or deceased patriot of ours.

This is not political. This is eternal. We, the uniformed, fought for a better

life for ourselves, our families, and the next generation of patriots.

We united around the flag during deployments and incredibly hard times. We united around the upturned rifle, skewered into their empty boots.

We are still united by our service. We are continually united by these places. We find unity in these spaces.

We will be united by parks. We will not be united by an arch. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Shaughnessy. Next up, we have Priya Jain who is, I believe, with us virtually.

She is representing the Society of Architectural Historians, and we'll have five minutes to provide testimony. Ms. Jain, please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. JAIN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Priya Jain, and I speak here

today as Chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Society of Architectural Historians. These views do not represent those of my employer, Texas A&M University.

The Society of Architectural Historians founded in 1940, is the leading organization for architectural history in North America. We previously voiced serious concerns about the proposed monumental arch at your last meeting in June, particularly that it disrupts historically significant views of our national landmarks.

Despite any substantive improvements, the applicant has resubmitted their plans for approval in less than a month. All information the applicant has added, for example, for Section 106 compliance, overwhelmingly indicates that the arch will have detrimental impacts on our national historic properties.

We therefore ask you to vote not to approve this project and offer the following reasons in support. First, the assessment of effects report submitted by the applicant

determines a finding of adverse effects to a very large number of cultural resources such that their integrity will be irreparably harmed.

This should trigger a serious reconsideration of this entire project. Moreover, as pointed out by Section 106 stakeholders, the applicant has missed many affected cultural resources, which means that their submission is woefully incomplete and harmful impacts of the project are even more substantial than currently known.

Second, this project does not stem from any critical public needs, but simply from an executive order to broadly promote beautification in the nation's capital. This beautification should not come at the cost of causing grave harm to our existing historic properties.

The executive order also calls for preservation of our history and heritage, which this project runs counter to.

Third, the applicant is required to

develop and present alternatives that will mitigate the project's adverse effects. We believe this effort has been seriously lacking.

The applicant briefly states looking at one option of smaller arch heights. Where is the assessment of other sites and locations or non-arch designs for the monument?

Fourth, the applicant has submitted a draft programmatic agreement to resolve adverse impacts. However, we contend that this agreement is ill-suited, premature, and ineffective.

The applicant should execute a memorandum of agreement instead, with specific pre-established litigation measures after and not before consulting parties and public comments have been received, reviewed, and meaningfully considered.

Fifth, the required Section 106 NEPA and other processes have been rushed and perfunctory. Consulting parties and the public were given a mere ten calendar days to provide

comments on a nationally significant project with such substantial adverse effects.

Many relevant cultural organizations were not even allowed to be part of the consultations.

Sixth, the project is still missing important reviews and clearances, for example, under Section 4F of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act. Environmental reviews must be efficient, effective, and inclusive of all federal requirements at the outset to minimize duplicative effort and wasted taxpayer dollars.

And, finally, the proposal continues to have various unresolved functional issues related to traffic, pedestrian safety, storm water management, lighting, aviation compliance, et cetera, that should be addressed before pushing this design to approval.

In closing, we want to reiterate that the United States has a long and fine tradition of public debate over the meaning and form of monuments in Washington, D.C.

From the rejection of an 1841 sculpture depicting George Washington as a Roman emperor, to the long deliberative process that led to the 2004 World War II Memorial, Americans have fostered a culture of debate and open-ended public participation.

While these long timelines do provoke frustration, they also ensure results of which we can be proud. We do not rush decisions about our memorial landscape and welcome broad public input.

We change ideas when they are bad and reject memorials that are unsuitable. We urge you to do the same, reject this hasty and inappropriate proposal, respect public opinion, and engage in a deliberative design process to ensure that we end up with a fitting memorial for America's 250th anniversary.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Jain, or Professor Jain, I should say. Next on the list, we have Shady Migally, who I believe is

also attending virtually.

Mr. Migally, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And, please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. MIGALLY: Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Shady Migally.

I speak as a professional architect, founder of ME Innovations, and the designer of the Independence Arch an alternative proposal for the monumental arch at Memorial Circle.

The updated design is displayed behind me today, and I have submitted revised hard copies to the Commission.

These revisions address the historic preservation and visual concerns identified during the Section 106 review and in public comments, preserving key historic sightlines while creating a distinctly American national land.

I agree with a key point raised by architectural critics. Authentic classical

architecture is defined by proportion, hierarchy, and discipline composition rather than the replication of historic monuments.

The Independence Arch was conceived as an original American civic monument that preserves the historic landscape, ensure public safety while minimizing the conflict with structure, and incorporate a meaningful American independence day event that commemorates the signing of the independence, that Declaration of Independence in a way found nowhere else in the world rather than an imitation.

The proposal demonstrates that we can achieve the project's patriotic purpose while preserving Memorial Circle's proud character and creating a landmark worthy of America's 250th anniversary.

As a practicing architecture, I am presenting and submitting a complete architectural solution, rather than simply expressing opposition of the current proposal. The design package documents the architectural

concept, site planning, preservation consideration, and public benefits, supporting analysis for the Independence Arch.

In the spirit of Section 106 process, which encourages that consideration of alternative that avoid or minimize adverse effects, I respectfully ask the Commission to recognize this fully developed alternative and give it thoughtful consideration.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Migally. That concludes our first group of five witnesses.

Do any Commissioners have any questions for any of these five witnesses?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing and seeing none, we'll move to our next group of five witnesses who are, and again, excuse me if I get any name pronunciations wrong, but Meg Cowan, Carolinn Kuebler, Michael Lemmon, Neil Rocklin, and Gary Langston.

Ms. Cowan, I believe, is attending virtually. Are you with us, ma'am?

MS. COWAN: I am, yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Ms. Cowan, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. COWAN: Thank you. My name is Meg Cowan and I live in Wilmot, New Hampshire. As an American citizen, I strongly oppose approval of the preliminary and final site and building plans for the proposed new monumental arch.

NCPC should not approve this project. At its June meeting, the Commission identified serious unresolved issues involving traffic and pedestrian safety, parking and loading, height justification, FAA coordination, materials, lighting, security, Section 106, and NEPA.

These are not minor details to be cleaned up after approval. These are threshold issues that go to whether this project is appropriate, lawful, safe, and respectful of its setting.

The aviation issue alone should prevent approval at this time. A preliminary FAA review is not the same as a completed aeronautical study, especially for a 250-foot structure near Reagan International Airport in its approach and departure corridor.

The fact that this so-called monument would require red obstruction lights, only underscores how inappropriate it is for the solemn landscape near Arlington National Cemetery.

I have worked in New Hampshire tourism for more than 40 years, including as a tour guide in the White Mountain National Forest. I know what happens when a place becomes a required stop.

Buses arrive, crowds gather, traffic backs up, trash appears, restrooms and walkways are strained, and the place itself starts serving the attraction instead of the other way around.

That may be manageable in a large

recreation area designed for visitors. It is entirely wrong for the solemn, civic, and commemorative landscape near Arlington National Cemetery and the nation's memorial core.

Most importantly, this proposal is an affront to the men and women buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Those who gave their lives and service to this country should not have a 250-foot vanity monument looming over the landscape where they are laid to rest.

Arlington is not a backdrop, a branding opportunity, or a place for self-glorification.

To impose this arch there would be, in my opinion, a desecration of the memory of our war dead.

A 250-foot occupied arch with elevators, ticketing, restrooms, programming space, and an observation deck would create a spectacle and a pressure point in a place that demands restraint. This project would not honor that landscape, it would desecrate it.

NCPC should not approve the preliminary

or final site and building plans. This application should be rejected, deferred, or withdrawn.

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Cowan. Next up is Carolinn Kuebler, who, I believe, is with us in person.

Ma'am, I'm sorry if I'm getting your last name very wrong. How do you pronounce it for the record?

MS. KUEBLER: Good afternoon. My name is Carolinn Kuebler.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Kuebler, I apologize.

MS. KUEBLER: I am an architect who has been practicing in Washington, D.C. for almost 50 years. I am also an inveterate history buff, especially of American history.

As both, I appreciate the profound significance that D.C.'s iconic buildings have on the symbolic expression of that history. The very fabric of the federal city is itself a monument to the founding of this country, a

constitutional republic based on the radical idea that the people can govern themselves.

Now, on the 250th anniversary year of that idea, I fear that NCPC in conjunction with NPS, is about to approve and embark on a project that will destroy one of the most symbolic aspects of that physical monument. That project is a Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle.

NCPC and NPS have already received thousands of comments, most of which are adamantly opposed to the construction of this arch. We've heard some of them already.

Major objections are based on important considerations such as safety, pedestrian, vehicular and air, design, the height and the mass of the arch are wildly inappropriate. Environmental impacts, studies are incomplete.

Legal, various federal laws governing construction of federal monuments as well as those requiring adherence to local review processes have been flouted. Funding, Congress must appropriate this and to date has not.

Structural, can the island on which Memorial Circle sits support the arch's massive stone and concrete piers and constructability. The logistics of shutting down the GW Parkway for construction of this arch are alone mind-boggling.

But, the most important one, the one that threatens the monumental expression of the federal city as a symbol of American democracy is the destruction of the iconic access between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House.

Described on the National Park Service’s own website as the Memorial Avenue Corridor, this access was conceived as a grand entryway to Arlington Cemetery and a symbolic link between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House.

The sightline established between the

D.C. and Virginia anchors was intentional, and meant to symbolize the call for national reconciliation that occurred after the Civil War. And this it has profoundly, majestically,

meaningfully.

But, over the years, the Memorial Avenue corridor has become so much more. Not only as an integral part of the nation's architecture of remembrance, but also as a profound memorial for veterans, for families of the fallen buried at ANC, for all Americans who honor and cherish the service rendered by our troops.

The monstrously inappropriate size of this triumphal arch will block this sightline destroying the visual connection and its symbolic memorial to sacrifice, honor, and valor.

NCPC must stop this obscene proposal before it is ever built and before it can further desecrate the brave men and women who are buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Kuebler. Next up we have Michael Lemmon who, I believe, is attending virtually.

Mr. Lemmon, are you with us?

MR. LEMMON: I am.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Well, sir, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. LEMMON: Thank you. I'm having a little technical problems on this end, but I will do my best.

First of all, I would note that I'm most concerned with process. I should also note that I'm one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit opposing the arch.

Such important enduring monumental undertakings should undergo a careful review by concerned stakeholders to include veterans and their families, local residents and the general public, historians, architects, and our local and congressional representatives, and all Section 106 stakeholders.

In particular, congressional consideration and approval of such monuments essential to the capital's national character and broad public support and legitimacy.

Integrity matters.

Failure to proceed in keeping with the integrity of the statutory and congressional process will profoundly undermine the integrity of the result and its durability. I read the 185-page report, very impressive, but I note there are significant issues outstanding that need to be addressed before proceeding further.

As a proud Vietnam vet, I recall the early intense controversy surrounding the design and construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. An often painful process of discussion and debate, nonetheless produced an outcome with broad public acceptance and veteran support, making it one of the most revered and visited sites in Washington, D.C.

Such a deliberative consultative process about this planned arch could lead to a more lasting and positive results than a rushed top-down imposed outcome that is broadly and intensely opposed, as illustrated by public comments to date.

Lastly, I urge members to walk the hallowed grounds at Arlington National Cemetery if they have not yet done so, to assess the impact of this monumental arch, especially on internment ceremonies and graveside visitation and access.

As a combat veteran, I feel a duty to protect the memory and honor the sacrifice of my comrades and all those buried there. This vainglorious monumental arch does neither.

Thank you for your consideration.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Lemmon. Next up we have Neil Rocklin, who, I believe, is with us in person.

Mr. Rocklin, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. ROCKLIN: Thank you. I am Neil Rocklin. Three and a half years ago I was elected to serve as Commissioner for ANC 2F02, and I am also on the Community Development Committee for 2F02.

Last month I attended the National Capital Planning Commission meeting. I heard testimonies regarding the monumental arch and returned to my district planning to poll my constituents to gather their opinions about the arch.

And I asked if they wanted me to testify before you and it was unanimous. All respondents wanted their voice to be heard and all were opposed to the monumental arch.

On July 2nd, I read in the Washington Post, D.C. official tells Trump to build his arch somewhere else. Then I reviewed all of my constituents' opinions to discover what was the basis for their opposition.

My constituents objected to the monumental arch blocking the sightlines from the Lincoln Memorial to the Lee House, destroying the solemnity of Arlington National Cemetery.

The scale of the arch exceeded the height restriction dwarfing the Lincoln Memorial and the unclear intent and meaning of the arch.

These objections would be mitigated by placing the arch in an alternate location, specifically located at the oval at the arrival of South Capitol Street and the Anacostia River.

It would create an energizing focal point for a still emerging neighborhood, suitable for a celebratory crowd as shared by the District of Columbia State Historical Preservation Officer David Maloney in his June 26 letter to the National Park Service.

I conclude that by adopting the recommendation for an alternate site, the monumental arch would not become an object of divisiveness and win the support of my constituents, serving to unite people in the District of Columbia and become another reason for citizens throughout the country to visit their nation's capital.

I understand when I came in today that I am listed as a consulting party and I would welcome the Commission reaching out to me. Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr.

Rocklin. Next up we have Gary Langston, who, I believe, is with us in person as well.

Mr. Langston, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. LANGSTON: Thank you. My comments today focus on the Section 106 review results and the Executive Director's recommendation.

We're informed by recent conversations with multiple members of Congress as well as Gold Star family members. I've been encouraged to speak out by all of them to inform more of the American people about how the arch would harm these hallowed grounds.

Even former Washington Post publisher Don Graham weighed in on this in a Facebook post, encouraging residents and visitors to Washington to view the eternal flame at night from the Potomac Waterfront before the arch or its lighting blocks that uniquely Washington experience, this viewshed.

I'm a retired officer and a Washingtonian. My parents are interred at Arlington. My wife is a Persian Gulf War vet.

I would happily, to pick up on what Mr. Lemmon said -- I visit the cemetery often. I would happily walk the grounds and host anyone involved in this project to accompany me, to understand the perspective from a funeral, the perspective from inside the grounds of the cemetery.

That said, I have four very specific comments. The direct effects boundary that's in the assessment report is misleading, because it does not include cemetery grounds themselves in the direct effects boundaries.

So, it overlooks specific sections of the cemetery that will be in view of the arch. I'll name the sections 55, 56, 57, 60, 66, 73, 74, 75 and 76.

Those are, what I would recommend is simulated views from inside the cemetery from those affected sections so that you can see

better for yourselves what the impact would be.

Secondly, the simulations we've seen so far are summertime, leaves on simulations. Someone else in the comments had made a suggestion that simulations include not just night, but also leaf off simulations. The cemetery takes on a -- it’s a very different viewshed in the winter when the leaves are off.

Third, just as important as the tone and solemnity of the formal entrance is, so too is the solemn environment of the actual grave site locations. That gets back to walking the ground.

Go to these affected sections and think about how the arch changes the tone not only at the entrance, but also within certain sections of the cemetery.

Lastly, I read surprisingly that the NCPC's own memorials and museums master plan explicitly states that the existing circle at the west end of Memorial Bridge is not viewed as an appropriate location for a future memorial.

Instead, there's a prime site located nearby near the Spanish American War Memorial, the smaller piece of ground obviously for something on that scale, not like this.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Sir, I'm going to have to cut you off there. But, thank you very much for your insightful comments, for your testimony.

Do any Commissioners have any questions for these five witnesses?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing none, we'll proceed to the next group of five. Next up we have, those are Bryan Green, Linsay Burnett, Edward Stierli, Peggy Barlett, and Amy Ballard.

Mr. Green, you're with us virtually. I can see you. You have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. GREEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My name is Bryan Green. I'm an architectural historian in Richmond, Virginia.

I would like to spend my three minutes on a question this Commission has not yet been asked to consider. Whether a monumental arch is the right structure for the site?

Apart from its height, its cost with a sequence of approvals behind it, I believe it is not. And the reason lies in the arch is a form as well as in the form of this particular arch.

A triumphal arch is a powerful architectural form. Its meaning and use have remained clear and consistent for centuries.

History supplies the examples. The Arch of Titus in Rome displays in relief the spoils carried home from the sack of Jerusalem.

The Arc de Triomphe in Paris is inscribed with the names of Napoleon's victories and the generals who won them.

The soldiers and sailors memorial arch in Brooklyn commemorates the Union Civil War victory, not the war's brutal human cost.

Each of these commemorates a victory, the vanquishing of an opponent, a triumph

brought home and paraded about. That's what the form says, whatever the inscription carved upon it says.

But, the language, but this is not the language this corridor has ever spoken. Arlington National Cemetery holds the nation’s dead not because they won, but because they served in war and peace across the full span of the nation's history.

The Lincoln Memorial at the eastern end of this axis speaks in the register of the post-Civil War, binding up of the nation's wounds, not celebrating the victory of one section over another.

The bridge that carries the axis across the Potomac designed by McKim, Mead & White was built between 1926 and 1932, is a memorial bridge, not a triumphal one.

The Hemicycle for the Women in Military Service for America Memorial that later occupied it in 1997, extended that through a quiet on-grade amphitheater rather than through any

vertical gesture of conquest.

Every element the McMillan commission and its successors placed along this axis for more than a century spoke the language of memory and service. None of it spoke the language of triumph, because service and not victory is what this corridor was built to honor.

The proposed arch breaks that grammar rather than extending it. It does not matter for this argument whether the structure is 250 feet tall or 150 feet tall, a triumphal arch of any size announces a victory.

And the cemetery does not exist to announce victories. It exists because the nation asked people to serve and they answered.

And it is that service, not triumph that's being honored.

A monument that speaks otherwise at the threshold of that cemetery misunderstands what this corridor has spent more than a century saying.

I've submitted in prior testimony and

in writing the scale of legal and procedural objections to this proposal, and I stand by all of those. But, I ask the Commission today to weigh this along one item alongside this.

The form itself is wrong for what lies at the end of the axis. It would interrupt. For that reason, together with the many other reasons the public has raised, I urge this Commission not to approve this proposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Green. Next up we have Linsay Burnett, who, I believe, is with us in person.

Ms. Burnett, you will have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. BURNETT: Thank you. My name is Linsay Rousseau Burnett. I was a combat photographer and public affairs sergeant with the First Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division deployed to Iraq in 2004.

One day I may be laid to rest in Arlington across the river from where you propose to build. I'm also the daughter of two retired national park rangers who spent their careers protecting places like this one across our country.

And I come to you as the person that this arch claims to honor and the person raised to protect what it would destroy. It betrays both.

The Park Service's own report says this can be built 20 hours a day year round for up to three years under cranes taller than the arch itself.

Arlington buries its dead close to 30 times a day. Under this plan, families would lower their loved ones into the ground to the sound of pile drivers, taps against concrete pumps.

We ask our dead for everything. The least we owe them is silence. And for three years we would deny them even that.

You may look at Memorial Circle and see an empty lawn, but it is not empty. It was left open on purpose.

Ninety years ago, two columns were approved for that spot, but they were never built. Fourteen feet across set hundreds of feet apart, they would not have touched the view.

The open ground is the design. It lets the line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington hold its meaning. A country made whole after the Civil War.

And the excuse for skipping Congress is that same permission for columns we were wise enough to never raise. Free nations build arches to the dead.

In Belgium, the Menin Gate is a triumphal arch carved with 54,000 names of the missing. And every night a town stops its traffic to the sound of the last post beneath it.

America's own law carries the same

instinct. The Commemorative Works Act forbids a memorial to any person under 25 years after their death so that history, not vanity, decides.

America does not build monuments to its living rulers. Dictators do. Kim Il-sung built one in Pyongyang for his birthday and Saddam built one in Baghdad, cast from molds of his own arms.

Asked by CBS's Ed O'Keefe who this arch was built for, President Trump said, me. America does not guild the living.

On June 4, this Commission refused to approve the arch. You demanded answers from the Interior Department on the height under the Height of Buildings Act, on the danger to air traffic, on pedestrian safety, and from what we've heard today, those answers and those problems have not been cured and the deepest ones cannot be.

Congress has never authorized it, the design was sole sourced through an unrelated

contract to avoid open bidding.

And Interior now swears it is not a memorial, even as the President calls it his, so it can slip past the Commemorative Works Act entirely.

This is National Park Service land, the ground my parents gave their careers to keep. In the words of the Park Service's own founding law, quote, unimpaired for those who come after us.

Your Commission has its own charge, to protect the design of the city. Reject this arch. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, ma'am. Next up we have Edward Stierli. And again, forgive me if that pronunciation is a bit off.

Sir, you're here with us in person. And you'll have, or sorry, excuse me, you're representing the National Parks Conservation Association.

And, as a result, you'll have five minutes to provide your testimony. Please

proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. STIERLI: Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Ed Stierli, I'm with the National Parks Conservation Association.

We're a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, and has about 1.9 million members around the country. And we've advocated for national parks in this region for decades.

So, let me just say at the outset, NPCA, we're very supportive of commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States.

And we've supported many of the investments we've seen leading up to July 4th and honoring American history and strengthening our parks. But, that's unfortunately not what's before you all today.

So, first and foremost, you know, Congress has not authorized this work. The Commemorative Works Act allows for a commemorative work on National Park Service land at this site only to move forward if it's

authorized by law.

The authorization that's been cited so far for this project dates back to the 1920s. It directed a commission that no longer exists to place two decorative columns at the bridgehead within a spending limit that has long since been spent and those columns were never built.

So, whatever that provision once contemplated, it was not the 250-foot arch and cannot provide the authorization that the Commemorative Works Act requires today.

So, the District's preservation officer, I think, put it pretty plainly. I mean, this would be the largest and most visible memorial constructed in the capital since the Washington Monument. So, only Congress can decide if such a work belongs here.

Second, after reviewing, I mean, the environmental review has some real holes in it. The environmental assessment examined only two alternatives, essentially build it or do

nothing.

So, there were no alternative sites, no alternative designs, no reduced heights. For a project of this magnitude, that is not a very good alternatives analysis.

The document also concedes that the arch would obstruct the reciprocal view, as was stated earlier, between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House. It identified the impact on, you know, many national historic landmarks, including Arlington National Cemetery.

It discussed, you know, drilling into bedrock, cranes 320 feet high, construction up to 20 hours a day for three years, 80 to 100 truckloads going through this circle every single day at the gateway to a cemetery where 30 funerals are conducted every weekday.

So, in this case, you know, with impacts of that significance, a full environmental impact statement would be necessary.

Additionally, you know, the historic

review has been compressed. And it left out the people that were most at stake, which is probably why you're hearing particularly from so many veterans today.

Virginia's historical preservation officer described the consultation as fait accompli, and noticed that the applicant's plans were already marked released for construction.

The District's preservation officer had never even been contacted with the project until June 5, and declined to concur in the draft programmatic agreement.

So far in the Section 106 process, no veterans organizations were named as consulting parties, not one. You know, and this is at the gateway to Arlington.

The public was given ten calendar days to review more than 180 pages of technical material. And, even though there was a significant number of comments, over 100,000, you know, a ten-day comment period is not enough.

And, particularly when it excludes

veterans, you know, that's not a deliberate process and these landscapes generally have been given much more time to make considerations, especially of something that's this immense.

And, I should note, you know, NPCA, we're a consulting party in the Section 106 review that's ongoing right now for the White House visitor screening facility. And that process has worked.

You know, relevant partners were brought to the table early, concerns were heard, new alternatives were suggested and recommended, and historic resources surrounding that are going to be better protected as a result.

So, it does show that you can build and preserve at the same time when the consultation is given room to function. I feel like that's a really good recent example of that.

So, you know, we're asking you, given everything that's happening thus far, we're asking you to decline approval of the

preliminary site and building plans until such a record exists.

Congressional authorization needs to be provided, because of the Commemorative Works Act, before an environmental impact statement, you know, with NCPC, of course, as a cooperating agency and, there's been a genuine analysis of alternative sites and locations and designs, and a Section 106 process that has a meaningful comment period and full participation from a range of stakeholders that'll be impacted by this project.

You know, the National Mall, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Arlington National Cemetery, these are products of generations of deliberate planning and public stewardship.

And, you know, the Commission has the authority to insist upon a complete record before it acts, and we respectfully urge you to exercise that today.

So, thank you very much for the time.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr.

Stierli. Next up is Peggy Barlett, who, I believe, is here with us in person.

Ms. Barlett, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. BARLETT: Thank you. My name is Peggy Barlett. And my parents and grandparents' remains are at Arlington National Cemetery and I treasure the quiet dignity of this site.

Visible from many vantage points, it is elegant and spacious yet connected to the monuments across the beautiful river.

The new monumental arch, as proposed, will clash with these surroundings. It's much too big. Its design is fussy, imitative, and intrudes on the harmony of the surrounding area.

A female figure with large wings and two enormous birds are not consistent with the dignity of the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials.

The scale of the arch contaminates the sightlines from both sides of the bridge and seeks to dwarf and intimidate the visitor.

I share concerns about lighting, such a tall and intrusive structure requiring perhaps eight 20-foot tall light stanchions and the pinnacle light, red blinking light required by the FAA. I share the concern that the project as conceived may violate the lighting hierarchy of the National Mall.

I'm also concerned about pedestrian safety. The arch is located in the middle of a busy traffic circle, and the addition of traffic lights does address this safety concern but will also cause significant traffic delays.

I wonder if the Commission has really thought about the public attitude toward the arch if it turns out that the estimate of one half mile pileups every rush hour is really true.

Backups, a proposed 32 traffic signal poles do not support a serene environment and I was glad to hear today that that number may be reduced.

Such a construction is fundamentally

flawed. It is egotistical in size and ambition and is jarring to the aesthetics of the mall.

I urge you to reject this proposed design as not in keeping with Arlington's solemn memorial to service and sacrifice.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Barlett. Next up is Amy Ballard, who is with us here in person, I believe.

Ms. Ballard, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready. Thank you.

MS. BALLARD: Good afternoon. My name is Amy Ballard and I am speaking today as an individual citizen.

My perspective is shaped by my career with the Smithsonian Institution where I served as senior historic preservation specialist. Because I spent years navigating the regulations of the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act process, I am deeply concerned by how this review is being conducted for the proposed monumental arch.

A project of this scale demands

transparent consultation, not an accelerated rubber stamp. Federal regulations explicitly dictate that Section 106 must be initiated very early in the project planning state, so that a broad range of alternatives can be generally considered.

Instead, what we see here is the definition of putting the cart before the horse.

The design and specifications are at an advanced phase before even engaging the Section 106 review.

Rushing a massive array of documents and even a draft programmatic agreement treats a mandatory federal review like a bureaucratic roadblock. The expedited Section 106 process does not apply here. This is clearly explained in letters from the Virginia and District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Historic Landmarks Commission.

Because the proposed structure alters a

premier national historic landmark viewshed, it triggers a heightened statutory duty under Section 110(f) to minimize harm to the maximum extent possible.

I urge the National Park Service, the Administration, and this Commission to pause, reset, and champion a thorough review process. Let the 106 review run its proper course so we can find a path that truly respects our historic landscape and rule of law.

General Norman Schwarzkopf once observed that, quote, the truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is just doing it, end quote.

Protecting the integrity of this process is the right thing to do, and I urge you to find the institutional courage to do it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Ballard. Do any Commissioners have questions for any of these last five witnesses before we proceed?

Hearing and seeing none, our next witnesses will be Kristopher Reichert, Stephanie Fisher, Larry Madison, Sam Van Kopp, and Rob Nieweg.

Kristopher Reichert, I believe you're here with us in person. Do we have Kristopher with us? Are you Mr. Reichert?

MR. REICHERT: I am.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Well, you've got three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready, sir.

MR. REICHERT: Great, thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you.

MR. REICHERT: I'm Kristopher Reichert, and I grew up in Arizona and have called the DMV and D.C. specifically home for the better part of a decade.

I currently serve as co-chair of Principles First for the DMV chapter. We're a community of principled moderates from all walks of political life, and we believe in principles over party and meeting in the middle to make a

difference.

Growing up in Arizona, I was raised in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, John McCain, and Jeff Flake, who believed public service was defined not by loyalty to a person, but by constitutional principles. Today, I consider myself an Eisenhower independent because I believe that kind of principled steady leadership is becoming increasingly rare. Professionally, I've spent my career in U.S. healthcare where I've seen firsthand how broken institutions erode public trust.

I'm here today to oppose the proposed monumental arch, not simply because of who occupies the White House, but because of what this proposal signals to every administration that follows.

One enduring tradition of the American republic has been restraint in elevating sitting Presidents through permanent monuments and civic symbolism. Our greatest memorials emerged through time, public consensus, and history's

judgment, not the preferences of those holding office. That tradition reflects a fundamental American principle. Our institutions, our symbols, and our nation are larger than any one individual.

History reminds us that the authoritarian governments often elevate living leaders through monuments, architecture, and civic symbolism. We saw it in Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Mao's China, Saddam's Iraq, and countless other authoritarian regimes.

America intentionally rejected this model. No kings, no personality cults. We built a republic where the Constitution, not any one individual, is meant to endure.

Restoring monuments and fountains is worthwhile, but restoration cannot stop at the surface or it becomes a cosmetic distraction from the real work of strengthening the institutions, civic trust, and democratic norms that made those monuments worth building in the

first place. The greatness of our capital is never measured in marble, but in principles it represents. Eisenhower once said, a people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

No administration, regardless of party, should claim the privilege of reshaping America's monumental core without first demonstrating the restraint that has defined our republic for nearly 250 years. If this Administration had demonstrated that restraint, we would not be here today. Instead, it has exercised a consistent pattern of disregard for democratic norms, institutional restraint, and constitutional traditions.

This proposal should be understood within that broader context, not as an isolated decision. I respectfully ask the Commission to reject this proposal. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Reichert. Next up we have Stephanie Fisher, who is with us virtually. Ms. Fisher, you have

three minutes to provide your testimony. And

please proceed whenever you're ready.

Ms. Fisher, are you with us?

MS. FISHER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Can you hear me, ma'am?

MS. FISHER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: You have three minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. FISHER: There we go, the video. Good afternoon, thank you for having me. My name is Stephanie Fisher, and I've been a Gold Star mother for over 14 years now. My son, Army Sergeant Thomas Fogarty, is buried in Section 60 of the cemetery. He died in a roadside bomb attack in Afghanistan while serving on his third tour, one that he asked to go to.

And he previously served in Iraq for two tours. He was 30 years old, and he left behind two little boys for me to raise, three and five years old. I was their permanent legal

guardian. Over the years, I've brought his boys to the cemetery multiple times to visit their father's grave, to explain where their father was, to tell their story, why he volunteered, why we lost him.

And I wanted to console them by showing them that he was resting in a very beautiful, special spot reserved for the heroes in our country. I wanted them to know exactly where to find him in the years to come.

And the choice to bury Tom so far from home, because we're on the West Coast, I needed to ensure that he would be where he wanted to be, with his fellow soldiers on sacred ground that defines our country. Arlington epitomizes and honors the sacrifices made in human flesh by our nation. And so many have died defending this democracy and upholding the rule of law outlined by our founding fathers.

When I visit the grave site, I always gaze out at the vistas of the greater D.C., focusing on the Capitol and the Lincoln

Memorial. Seeing them clearly always gives me so much comfort, pride, and renews my strength.

But, most of all, I want everyone to know the solace that is provided there with the quiet and the honor and the dignity. I cannot describe to you what that solace does as a balm to my heart.

The architects of Arlington were geniuses in their design, and anyone tampering with that demonstrates a complete lack of hubris. The audacity of putting any structure of that type in Memorial Circle shows a complete lack of respect for Arlington National Cemetery.

And I'm going to stop here on my remarks because every speaker who has spoken before me has covered my feelings and more beyond expectations. I think that the presentations here this afternoon are complete.

I concur with them. The laws, all the things that should be done before any project like this is approved, I concur with the remarks of my fellow speakers and objectors.

And I want to thank you for allowing me

to speak today just as a mom who lost my son. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you very much for being with us, Ms. Fisher. Next up we have Larry Madison, who, I believe, is also with us virtually. Mr. Madison, can you hear me?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: I believe Mr. Madison, as well as Sam Van Kopp, unless he is here in person, both of those individuals are missing. So we can move on to number 20.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Next up then we'll have Rob Nieweg, who's representing the National Trust. Sir, you have five minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. NIEWEG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, staff of the National Capital Planning Commission. My name is Rob Nieweg, and I speak here on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. We're grateful for the

additional opportunity to provide input.

We've already shared serious concerns with this Commission about earlier iterations of this proposal. To be clear, we strongly oppose construction of the monumental arch at this location for the following reasons.

First, the location and scale of the arch would overwhelm nearby historic landmarks such as Lincoln Memorial, Arlington House, and Memorial Bridge. The arch would be inconsistent with the solemn character of Arlington National Cemetery and would mar the highly meaningful vista across Memorial Bridge, which has long been defined by restrained grandeur in its memorials and long open sightlines honoring the surface and sacrifice of the veterans buried at Arlington and the national unification after the Civil War.

Second, the proposal would be inconsistent with Washington's urban planning framework. This Commission has applied the Height of Buildings Act to federal projects for

the last 88 years. The result is a capital city beloved for its low horizontal skyline that rightly emphasizes the U.S. Capitol Building and the Washington Monument.

We support the staff legal analysis that continues to apply the Height Act to federal projects. Abandoning this approach now would upend a consistent urban planning principle that's been a century in the making.

Third, federal law requires the review of the proposed arch under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and for that review to be completed prior to approval by NCPC and other agencies. The purpose of this review is an important one, to ensure that new construction does not needlessly harm the nation's historic places without at least considering less harmful alternatives.

We were pleased to see this Section 106 process begin in recent weeks. We are deeply concerned, however, about the limited nature of the consultation, the rushed timeline, the

exclusion of many parties, including the exclusion of the National Trust, from the consultation process, and concerned about the failure to consider less harmful alternatives. We urge this Commission to fully consider the Section 106 findings before granting final approval.

Fourth, flaws and uncertainties remain in the updated proposal under review by you today. Each new rendering submitted underlines our primary concern that the proposed arch is totally inappropriate in its scale and its location. The new images clearly show that the arch blocks the view of the Lincoln Memorial from vantage points on the Virginia side. It looms larger on the skyline than everything other than the Washington Monument. From the District side, placing the arch in the foreground completely overpowers the sacred rolling hills and rows of grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Fifth, we disagree with the argument

that the proposed arch is not subject to the Commemorative Works Act. The arch requires the approval of Congress, which has not yet been obtained. And we urge the Commission to proceed with your review in accordance with the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act.

We also support the suggestion of the

D.C. State Historic Preservation Officer to consider alternative locations that would be more appropriate for this project. In a June 26 letter, the Preservation Officer proposed shifting the arch to the base of South Capitol Street at the Anacostia Riverfront. Moving the project to this location would avoid adverse effects on existing memorials.

This alternative location would also place the arch on a direct access with the U.S. Capitol Building and would create a celebratory focal point for the bustling neighborhood that continues to emerge between Audi Field and Nationals Park. It's a much more inviting and hospitable place for crowds of visitors to see

the arch.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Time.

MR. NIEWEG: Thank you. Thank you for hearing our comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, sir. Did either of the two witnesses we missed, Larry Madison or Sam Van Kopp, appear while Rob was speaking?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: No, they did not.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. With that, we'll move on. We're obviously sorry to have missed them. Do any Commissioners have questions for these last three witnesses?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll proceed to the next group of five, who are Rebecca Miller, Geoffrey W. Barron, James Lardner, Jackie Ostfeld, and Robert Harris.

Ms. Miller is attending virtually and is representing the D.C. Preservation League. Ms. Miller, can you hear me? Ms. Miller?

MS. MILLER: Yes, I can hear you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. We've got Ms.

Miller. Ma'am, you have five minutes to provide your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. MILLER: Thank you, Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Rebecca Miller. I'm the Executive Director of the D.C. Preservation League. We were founded in 1971, and DCPL has spent more than five decades advocating for the protection of Washington's historic and built environment. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I am testifying on behalf of the organization in opposition to both the proposed construction of the monumental arch within Memorial Circle and the National Park Service's deeply flawed handling of the Section 106 review process under the National Historic Preservation Act.

The proposal to insert an oversized historically discordant triumphal arch into Washington's meticulously planned landscape represents a profound misunderstanding of the

city's civic architecture. This landscape is defined by the L'Enfant and McMillan plans, which emphasize open vistas and democratic symbolism.

As we have stated previously, the precedent images shown by the applicants are in fact not precedent setting. They were never built. There are thousands of sketches of areas of Washington that have never been -- come to fruition. So these are not, in fact, precedents that should move forward, and they also ignore the capital's unique cultural landscape.

The applicant's assertion that the 1910 Height of Buildings Act does not apply to federal buildings and memorials is false. When Pierre L'Enfant designed Washington, D.C. in 1791, he envisioned a grand horizontal city modeled after Paris, featuring wide avenues and clear sightlines radiating towards monumental public buildings.

While the McMillan Plan of 1902 was a visionary report and not a binding law, it

completely shifted the political climate in Washington. When Congress drafted the revised Height of Buildings Act of 1910, lawmakers used the exact aesthetic logic of the McMillan Plan to justify the math cementing the plan's horizontal European-style vision into law.

The 1910 Height of Buildings Act rendered the 1899 law moot, and specifically states that no building, I repeat, no building shall be erected, altered, or raised in any manner to exceed the height of 130 feet. It goes on to speak about the different avenues that could have up to 160 feet. This is not one of those streets.

To diminish the federal law to simply one that limits D.C. zoning is not correct. Not only does the D.C. government have no ability to change this law, but exempting this project from the Act would set a precedent that would unravel more than a century of careful planning and practice by this Commission.

I will move on to the regulatory

vehicle by which the NPS is attempting to bypass public accountability. The Section 106 process hasn't devolved into a bureaucratic farce; it started as one. It is clearly an exercise designed to shield the controversial project from genuine public and expert scrutiny, rather than to reduce the harmful impacts of our shared heritage, which is owned by the public.

The implications of this heavy-handed maneuver extend far beyond the immediate threat of the triumphal arch. If allowed to stand, this exclusion would set a devastating precedent for future of federal historic parks, historic sites, and National Register of Historic places itself.

If these could arbitrarily lock out long-established preservation organizations from Section 106 review, any federal agency can do the same. The action signals that the public and its nonprofit advocates are merely impediments to be managed and excluded rather than legitimate partners in stewardship.

To retain a semblance of legitimacy, the National Capital Planning Commission, which has Section 106 authority, should take over this process to ensure it is carried out in a manner that includes site alternatives, minimization alternatives, and inclusion of consulting parties like the D.C. Preservation League and other nonprofit preservation organizations and veterans groups that have requested this inclusion.

The Section 106 process should be reset, and review of alternative sites should begin as has happened on other major memorials and monuments in the past. The cultural landscapes of our nation's capital belong to the American public, not to a single administration or individual's whims.

It is crucial to address this mockery of a process before irreversible damage is done to our historic and built environment, as well as the integrity of the regulatory framework designed to protect it. Thank you for your

time.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Miller. Next up, we have Geoffrey W. Barron, who I believe is with us here in person. Mr. Barron, you are representing the Third Act District of Columbia, and you will have five minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. BARRON: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am Geoffrey Barron on behalf of Third Act D.C. Third Act is a national organization mobilizing older Americans to help protect our climate and our democracy. Founded four years ago, the organization includes 100,000 volunteers in 29 states. Third Act D.C. is the organization's D.C. chapter, with 1,200 local members.

We members of Third Act D.C. join the many hundreds of individuals and organizations who overwhelmingly have made it clear in testimony before the Commission of Fine Arts and before you that we do not want an arch at

Memorial Circle. It will take over, block, and dominate the vistas and reverential spaces of and between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery that planners designed and visitors have cherished for generations.

In addition, I speak here in line with Third Act's mission to protect democracy. In 1986, Congress passed a law, the Commemorative Works Act, specifically to ensure democratic accountability and participation in the approving of new monuments in Washington. Yet, the Trump Administration is coming to your Commission and mountain a legal battle, not to follow the intent and guidelines of that legislation, but rather to attempt an end run around it. And as with the demolition of the East Wing of the White House, it is already having initial work done at the site.

As we celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary, I trust that everyone in this room cherishes Lincoln's vision of our government as of the people, by the people, and for the

people. We elect presidents in the hope and trust that they will forward this vision and work on behalf of all Americans. That is their job. But that is not what President Trump is doing with this arch. He is attempting to impose his will and his desires on the American people and the people of Washington.

Our monuments, like our government, should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. When a leader attempts to impose his will on his people without their consent, when he uses the powers of his office to try to skirt the law or act in spite of it, we call that authoritarianism. We could also call it bullying.

A monument that is erected through bullying will be resented and reviled by the people it is imposed on. Do you Commissioners want to be part of that? Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Barron. Next up, we have James Lardner, who is also here with us in person. Mr. Lardner, you

have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you are ready.

MR. LARNDER: Thank you. My name is James Lardner. I'm testifying as an individual.

I am also a member of Third Act, as are several other witnesses here. Many people have made many arguments against this proposal. Others, witnesses and commenters, have talked about the impact on Arlington National Cemetery and the experience of visiting there. You have heard testimony about the carefully constructed sightline from Arlington House to the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the Capitol, about the complicated mix of feelings evoked by that sightline, feelings of grief and reflection as well as pride and gratitude.

I would like to home in one simple point, something all of us assembled here know in our bones. This arch would never be built, would never even be considered with or without modifications, but for the fancy of one man. One would-be autocrat who, acting in the

tradition of thuggish dictators around the world and throughout history, wants to build over-thetop monuments, a whole bunch of them, that tell a simple, jingoistic national story of winning and triumph and smug self-congratulation.

The thing is, people like that cannot build those monuments alone. They need helpers, not just paid laborers and contractors to do the physical work, but also the members of bodies like yours. They need public officials charged, in theory, with making a careful and independent evaluation and bringing their best professional judgment to bear, but who are willing in practice to set other considerations aside in order to satisfy the whims of the supreme leader.

The English language is rich with words for such people. Sycophants. Bootlickers. Lackeys. Suck-ups. Toadies. And so far, that is how the majority of this panel's members have chosen to act. While you cannot by yourselves guarantee the arch's construction, you

absolutely do have it in your power right here and now to decide if that is how you truly wish to go on defining yourselves and to be remembered when America, as it surely will, thinks better of this moment of ugly leadership.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Lardner. Next up is Jackie Ostfeld, who I believe is with us virtually. Ms. Ostfeld, are you with us?

MS. OSTFELD: Yes, I'm here.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Ma'am, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you are ready.

MS. OSTFELD: Okay. I don't know if my camera is on. It's telling me the host needs to do it. There you go. Thank you so much.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. When President Trump first unveiled a model of the proposed triumphal arch, a reporter asked him a simple question, who is it for? His answer was just as simple. Me, he said. That

answer should tell us everything we need to know. Our public lands are not here to serve the vanity of any president. They belong to every American, and they should be managed with future generations in mind.

As a director for Sierra Club's Outdoors for All campaign, I spend every day working to expand access to our public lands while protecting the places that make those experiences possible. Across the country, America's national parks are facing a crisis. The Trump Administration has cut National Park Service staff through widespread reductions in force, even as parks continue to welcome millions of visitors every year.

Visitors are seeing the consequences, as fewer people are left to care for the places they came to experience. Now, instead of directing resources to those parks, the Administration is taking money that visitors paid through National Park entrance fees and redirecting it to the President's personal

vanity projects in Washington. Trump's proposed arch is simply the latest example of those misplaced priorities.

Americans pay those entrance fees because they expect that money will be used to care for the parks they visit. They expect it will preserve historic places, improve visitor experiences, and protect the landscapes for future generations. That is not what is happening. This proposal would permanently alter National Park Service land that frames the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.

At 250 feet, the proposed structure would be twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial, and would block the line of sight that connects the Lincoln Memorial with the entrance to Arlington. This is the gateway to Arlington National Cemetery, where more than 400,000 servicemembers are laid to rest. It is a place that calls for thoughtful stewardship and deep respect. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms.

Ostfeld. Next up, we have Robert Harris, who I believe is with us here in person. Mr. Harris, you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. HARRIS: Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes sir.

MR. HARRIS: Good. I want to thank the board for letting us come to this meeting today, for all these wonderful people that have stepped up here and spoke. I can't even begin to cover everything they did and said because they know so much more than I do, but when it comes to the arch, the young lady just said, originally it was going to be the arch, and now it's memorial arch.

But originally, it was the arch, and they're going to put this thing in front of Arlington Cemetery, and that whole area down there is sacred ground for the military. You got the Vietnam Memorial, you've got the World War II memorial, you've got Arlington Cemetery.

I think the Korean memorial is down there, too, but no one seems to notice that all these monuments are around the military.

And there's lots of places to put this memorial, like somebody suggested, down by the Capitol. There's plenty of land around the Capitol, that we could put it there, or we could put it in East Potomac Park because -- right on the river. People would see it coming and going, which would be a nice feature.

Long story short, I want to thank this board for letting us come here today, and I think this board should find a way to put this on public television so people can see what goes on with the response that you have from the people that come here to speak today, because there's a lot of good information here today for the board to take into consideration when you go to vote.

The last time you voted, you voted almost 100 percent to have it put in where it's going to go. Hopefully, this time, with the

people that spoke, because there was a lot of good information, you may change your minds, which would make me very happy, because I normally don't step up for this kind of thing. But this is one thing that has to be stopped immediately because it cannot be put in front of Arlington Cemetery or the bridge.

Thank you very much for your time and your effort to do the right thing here because some day there will be reports after this is all done, and hopefully you'll be on the side of the team that said not to do this. Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Do any Commissioners have any questions for these last five witnesses before we proceed to the next group?

Hearing and seeing none -

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Apologies. If we could take a brief recess so that we can reset

the streaming service, so that we don't run out of time?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: That seems quite reasonable. We'll take a brief -- you think you need five minutes? We'll take a five minute recess at this time, and then we will pick back up with witness testimony on agenda item 6A. Thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 3:23 p.m. and resumed at

3:31 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We'll move on at this point to our next set of witnesses on agenda item 6A. Those are Karen Shemwell, David Parker, Frances Macdonald, John Ayers, and Susan Grodsky. Ms. Shemwell, I believe, is attending virtually. Ma'am, can you hear me?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Unless Ms. Shemwell is here in person, it appears that she has not joined, so we can move on to David Parker.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Mr. Parker, you're also attending virtually. Can you hear

me, sir?

MR. PARKER: Yes, I can.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Mr. Parker, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you are ready.

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Chairman Scharf and Commission members. I'm David Parker, practicing architect, preservationist, and fellow of the American Institute of Architects.

I spoke before on this application but would like to make additional observations.

First, the proposed location is highly problematic, and the adverse impacts it will create cannot be mitigated. The NEPA compliance table lists 299 contributing resources that will be directly affected. The NCPC Executive Director's report acknowledges the proposed arch will, quote, fully obstruct reciprocal views of the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington. The arch will be an imposition and an impediment, a direct violation of the McMillan Plan, and the most basic rationale for the Lincoln Memorial's

placement, and of Memorial Bridge.

Furthermore, the 2001 NCPC Memorials and Monuments Master Plan, which was done in conjunction with CFA and the National Capital Memorial Commission specifically states, quote, the existing circle at the west end of Memorial Bridge is not viewed as appropriate for the location of a future memorial.

Second, the symbolism of the proposed arch is contradictory and incongruent. Throughout history, triumphal arches have been built to, quote, present a particular narrative about rulers and nation states. This arch is proposed as a monument, rather than as a memorial. Monuments are built for admiration and historical celebration, while memorials are built for respectful remembrance.

Third, the height of the proposed arch exceeds Washington's Height of Buildings Act, which NCPC has always considered binding on federal projects. The NCPC Executive Director's recommendations to make the arch compliant would

significantly change its proportions while dramatically enlarging the top statuary, alterations that would undoubtably require reducing the size of the arch's opening, further diminishing keyhole views that the applicant claims it will frame.

Fourth, alternatives with less adverse impacts should be considered. The D.C. State Historic Preservation Officer recently proposed an alternative site at the three-acre Capitol Street oval, adjacent to the Anacostia waterfront, which is much closer to the Capitol than the present location. One and a quarter versus two and three quarter miles, which the current site is from the Capitol. A monumental arch at that location would avoid adverse effects, while eliminating interference with the solemnity of the Lincoln Memorial and graves at Arlington National Cemetery. This site would position the arch as a celebratory gateway to Washington, directly on axis with the Capitol and the new Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge,

creating a dramatic focal point for the vibrant neighborhood between Audi Field and Nationals Park, while yielding cultural and economic benefits to the area.

Finally, this project should be subject to the congressional approval under the Commemorative Works Act. The claim that Congress authorized the arch when it considered two columns a century ago is not credible, and those widely spaced columns, which would not have blocked any views, are fundamentally different from the proposed monumental arch. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Parker. Next, we have Frances Macdonald, who is also with us virtually. Do we have Frances Macdonald with us?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Unless Frances Macdonald is here in person, it appears they have not joined, so we can move on to John Ayers.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. John Ayers,

who I believe is with us in person. Mr. Ayers, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you are ready. Thank you, sir.

MR. AYERS: My name is John Ayers. I'm speaking today as a D.C. resident for almost 40 years. At the June meeting, Commissioner Blair explained his support for this project, saying, in my view, the fact that the scale is so grand is part of the allure. I think that our nation's 250th birthday is a testament to how big our nation is and how great it is. Frankly, I think that's how the President means it too, so I am in support, end quote.

Commissioner Blair also observed, rightly, I think, I think we all agree, that everyone is entitled to their view, and that is precisely why Congress designated this Commission as the central planning agency for the capital. Because views will differ, its task is not to decide whether a proposal is alluring or favored, but to apply the laws and

planning framework that protect the nation's capital. It is also why Congress required the Commissioners appointed by the President be qualified and experienced in city or regional planning. Decisions of this magnitude demand discipline, planning, judgement.

When decisions are reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act, the question is whether the agency is engaged in reasoned decision making. In plain terms, the action you take must be supported by the findings you make.

Through that lens or simply a sound decision making, the recommendation does not justify the approval it seeks.

First, plans or drawings that were shown today to address the recommendation's concern over the Height Act do not resolve the problems before you. In fact, they confirm it.

Plans changed enough to comply to the Height Act are plans for a different building. We're talking about a 22 percent reduction in the principal structure as well as other changes to

the structure. It's a different building. And the record contains no analysis of that building, no staff evaluation of published recommendation, no opportunity for public review.

The recommendation's treatment of the Comprehensive Plan is also fundamentally flawed, and the conflicts run far beyond the Height Act.

In June, I identified at least 12 plan policies with which the project is inconsistent. Commissioner Cozart expressed her hope that when this project returned, the submission would address them. The project has returned, and these points remain unaddressed.

In 185 pages, the recommendation cites four policies by number, and engages only one of the twelve that I cited. The recommendation tries to blunt this by reminding us that the Commission takes a holistic approach, and that, on the whole, the project is generally consistent. But a holistic approach, a holistic weighing, must actually weigh, not skip the

considerations.

A vote to approve the plans because the plans are preliminary is not harmless kicking the can down the road. Agency action becomes part of the record and communicates that these plans are sufficiently consistent with governing law to move forward. Now, not later, is the time to discharge your statutory responsibility.

The recommendation does not justify the approval it recommends. I respectfully ask that you vote no. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Ayers.

Next up, we have Susan Grodsky, who I believe is joining us virtually. Ms. Grodsky, can you hear me?

MS. GRODSKY: Yes, I can. Let me make sure my video is on.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can see you ma'am.

You have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you are ready.

MS. GRODSKY: Well, I'd like to start

by saying good afternoon, and thank you for listening. My name is Susan Grodsky. I'm a native Washingtonian. I was born at Columbia Hospital. I attended Watergate concerts when I was a child. You'd sit on the back steps of the Lincoln Memorial and listen to the service bands. And as you might guess from someone who's grown up here, I have friends buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Now, all the points I was going to make in opposition to this arch have already been made. I'm not going to repeat them. I'm going to tell you a story. So the story is, when I was in fourth grade, we began our day the same way every day. We all stood up, and we faced the flag, and we put our hands over the hearts, and we said the Pledge of Allegiance. And then we did what our teacher called democracy in action, which was we voted on what game we were going to play at recess.

Now, one day, the freeze tag contingent was really well organized, and they won the

vote. And I was really unhappy about that because I had voted for red rover. So I started to object, and then all of the freeze tag kids started yelling at me, majority rules, majority rules, majority rules. And one kid, Patrick, really obnoxious kid, he yells at me, shut up, Susan. Majority rules.

So, I don't know where you all stand on red rover versus freeze tag, but there's a takeaway point, and the takeaway point is this.

In a democracy, majority rules. I have been listening to all of this testimony. Everyone has spoken out against that arch. There is not one vote in favor of it. And I hope you people learned in fourth grade the same thing that I learned, and that's that in a democracy, majority rules. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Grodsky. And I'm sorry for that traumatic experience that you had in fourth grade. Do any Commissioners have questions for, I guess, these three witnesses? Or did either of the two

witnesses we missed join us?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: No, they did not.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Do any Commissioners have any questions for these past three witnesses?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll move on to the next group of five, who are Anne Jaegerman, Sherman Neal II, Frederick Gottschalk, Darrell Stamper, and Lawrence MacDonald. Anne Jaegerman, I apologize if I'm getting that wrong, is with us in person. Ma'am, you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. JAEGERMAN: Okay. My name is Anne Jaegerman. I'm a resident of D.C. and a private citizen. I want to talk about the hasty process for the arch's design and approval. I did some research about other relatively recent additions to Washington's memorials using a book about Washington's outdoor sculpture by James M. Goode, Wikipedia, and the Park Service website.

About the World War II Memorial. In 1987, a vet asked a representative if a World War II Memorial could be constructed. Representative Kaptur had to introduce a bill to the House four times before it was passed in 1993. A nationwide design competition drew 400 submissions. Goode says, the original design underwent many changes between 1996 and its completion in 2004. St. Florian's design went through two dozen public reviews. All of these changes over a seven-year period were refinements that enhanced the design of the memorial.

Wikipedia notes that critics were bothered by the expedited approval process. Congress, worried that World War II vets were dying before the memorial could be built, passed legislation exempting the World War II Memorial from further site and design review. The site selection and finished memorial were criticized extensively.

About the Korean War Veterans Memorial.

At the request of the Korean War Veterans Association, Congress and President Reagan approved a memorial in 1986. Four architects from Penn State University won the design competition from a group of 543 entrants. Their design was rejected by the CFA, as was a second design by another firm. In 1992, a final third design was accepted. It took seven years to finalize the memorial's design. The memorial was completed in 1995.

About the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. The efforts of Alpha Phi Fraternity, of which King had been a member, to build an MLK monument in D.C. gained momentum in 1986, the first year King's birthday was celebrated as a federal holiday. In '96, Congress authorized the Department of the Interior to permit the fraternity to establish a memorial on government land. In '98, Congress authorized a nonprofit foundation. In '99, the CFA and the NCPC approved the site.

The foundation held a design

competition, which drew 906 entries. In 2000, the judges selected a design. There was a delay in 2008 because the design that was approved by the CFA and NCPC was not approved by the Park Service due to security concerns. A compromise was approved in 2009. The memorial opened in 2011.

It is notable that all of these memorials had public constituencies that supported their construction, that the design processes took years, and that congressional approval was required. In a democracy, things often move slowly to consider expertise from many disciplines, to allow for public participation, and to build consensus. President Trump's impatience does not create the kind of emergency that would justify abridging the customary processes for deciding whether, when, where, or how to build a memorial to the sesquicentennial. I oppose the arch. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms.

Jaegerman. Next up, we have Sherman Neal II, who I believe is with us virtually. Mr. Neal, you are representing the Sierra Club, and you have five minutes to present your testimony. Please proceed whenever you are ready.

MR. NEAL: Thank you, Chairman. Honoring the legacy of the service members who gave their lives in defense of this country requires protecting the hallowed ground where they rest from desecration by all persons, both foreign and domestic. That includes the President. This vanity project threatens the eternal rest that those service members have earned. Every day I choose to honor the triumph and legacies of service members like Medgar Evers, Lieutenant Colonel Hector Santa Anna, Major Megan McClung, and those who served this nation and represent the soul of what this nation could be.

I'm speaking to you on behalf of the millions of members of the Sierra Club, 3.5 million, to be exact, as the Director of their

Military Outdoors Campaign, where for 20 years we've supported and uplifted the veteran community by creating spaces to heal in nature and uplift veteran voices in conservation. I'm, also, speaking to you as a Marine Corps veteran, the son of a sailor, the brother of an airman, the cousin, nephew, and friend to countless members of my extended family who have served in every branch of America's military. I have earned the right, and I have the obligation to speak for the people currently interred at Arlington, people who gave their lives to defend an imperfect nation with the expectation that people like you would protect their legacies, our land, and the integrity of our republic today by rejecting this monument.

I was in my mid 20s and just months away from my first deployment when I first gave serious thought to where I'd want to be buried if I died at war. Every material possession I owned could fit in my Jeep Wrangler. Materials didn't stress me out. Contemplating death

itself did not stress me out. Nothing made me stop and think more than the question of whether I would earn the right to be buried in America's most hallowed ground, Arlington National Cemetery, by displaying valor in combat.

In 2014, I drove alone to Arlington from Marine Corps base, Quantico, to better understand what it meant to make the ultimate sacrifice. I departed from Manion Hall, a barracks named after First Lieutenant Travis Manion, a young man who was killed in battle in 2007. I knew his grave would be located in section 60, where the people close to my age, in a conflict that I would eventually join, were laid to rest. Over 7,000 of them are there today. I certainly didn't want to die, but I trusted that my country would treat my final resting place with the solemn honor and respect that the service members buried in Arlington have earned.

I thought about these things in the spring of 2015, where I would support the

establishment of Camp Manion, where Marines led the effort to defeat ISIS in western Iraq, at a place formerly known as Al-Taqaddum Air Base. Since then, I've seen families hosting picnics as the grave sites with their young ones, I've seen soldiers wipe away tears for the brothers they've lost, I've felt the heaviness of the moments watching the guards post at the tomb of the unknown soldier. I know that ensuring that none of these lives were expended in vain requires defending democratic practices at home today, and increasing support to the veterans among us.

I'm testifying today, again, on behalf of 3.5 million people, but I'm, also, testifying for myself. I'm testifying as a person who still needs to know, believe, hope, that you, and the people that follow you, will take these opportunities to declare that this still matters, that the soul of the country still matters, and that this is going to be a place, the main place, where we honor the legacies of

those who have served the country honorably. So, to do that, we must protect these lands from further desecration, and share adherence to the law, regardless of the pressures from the exec, and most importantly, refuse any monument to a monarch who has not served to cast a shadow on those who have gave their lives in service to this country.

When I drove to Arlington before my time at the basic school in Quantico, I believed that if the worst happened, my country would protect that sacred landscape and give it the dignity it deserves. This is an important time to remember the steps this administration has already taken to diminish the legacies of those heroes at Arlington. Many of those legacies are already in jeopardy while they rest, from erasure due to their sexuality, the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their willingness to dissent. We're fighting those battles today, while at the same time, we're fighting these battles on land. We're fighting for souls,

we're fighting for places, we're fighting for communities. It's time to honor the commitments to living veterans by committing resources to individual wellness and correcting systemic environmental injustices in the communities where they live, instead of committing future crime to the environment and their place, and their souls.

So, while many of us may never find sustained rest after service while we live, I respectfully request that you permit us to allow them to find dignity and rest in death. I know I personally would never find rest under the shadow of this arch. I appreciate your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Neal.

Next up, we have Frederick Gottschalk, who I believe is with us here in person. Mr. Gottschalk, you're representing Common Defense, and you have five minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed whenever you are ready.

MR. GOTTSCHALK: Okay. I thought I

would be the most casual person dressed, but Ms. Jaegerman has put me to shame. I want to point out that these are my views, and the views of thousands of veterans across the nation that are, also, members of Common Defense. Are there veterans on this Commission? Okay, I saw one hand go up. That's good. These words should resonate with you, and I hope you take them to heart.

This structure seems to be planned as poorly as the reflecting pool renovation and our national fair. It has not been planned on the scale of the more than six years of careful, deliberative, planning that went into the construction of the World War II Memorial or similar monuments. The Chairman, you used powerful words at the beginning of this meeting. You want to preserve the beauty of our capital. This proposal does not facilitate that goal. It detracts from the beauty of our capital.

The memorial would detract from the natural, peaceful, serenity of the memorial area

outside of Arlington National Cemetery. I go there all the time, and I love just being there in the nice, quiet area that it is there. I don't often state this, but like several of the speakers today, I'm a decorated combat veteran.

I have stood under Saddam Hussein's concrete arch. It was crumbling in 2009, less than 25 years after it was constructed in Iraq. It's crumbling because it was built by a man that was disdained by the population of the nation, and I just want that to be noted.

I am further appalled that a monument of this nature would block the view between where I am to be buried with all of my friends in Arlington National Cemetery, the view between my fair city, Arlington National Cemetery, and the seat of our nation's leadership. Actions, not objects, are what commemorate and memorializes an administration. I'm further appalled by that the funding that would be allocated for this monument, when there are so many other needs in the veteran community. If

you want to commemorate veterans, if you want to talk about how you support veterans, put the money where it's needed, not in some object.

Currently, permanently combat disabled veterans that have been medically retired are not being fully supported by this administration. Let that sink in for just a second. Permanently disabled veterans, combat disabled veterans are not being supported by this administration, yet this administration wants to put an arch in front of the cemetery. In addition, this administration is considering cutting earned benefits from veterans like myself who suffer from hearing loss and sleep apnea. So, they're trying to take more money away from veterans while they're building an arch in front of the cemetery. Surely whatever money that is being considered for this memorial could be better allocated to support veterans in need.

The administration is remembered by veterans for what they have done to them or for

them, not piles of gilded marble. Actions, not objects. I think that the statement is lost when folks who are not veterans are trying to develop ways to commemorate our nation. They often forget that if you want to commemorate veterans, take care of the veterans. This does not do that.

As others have stated much more eloquently than I can, no matter how you twist your words, this proposed monument is illegal under the Commemorative Works Act, which requires congressional approval for memorials on federal land in and near D.C. Commemorative Works Act both requires express authorization from Congress before any monument or structure is built on federal reservations, parks, public grounds, and the nation's capital. The arch slated for Memorial Circle and Lady Bird Johnson Park has received no such congressional authorization.

For anyone that feels the need for a commemorative arch or an avenue of heroes, I'd

like to point out that there are 430,000 such commemorative stones in Arlington National Cemetery. All of those stones would be blocked from view of the city. They deserve something better than some poorly planned and hastily constructed memorial that has been conceived by the same administration that has brought you a horribly executed renovation of the reflecting pool and an ill-conceived and executed national fair that is the laughing stock of the world.

In conclusion, my Common Defense compatriots and I urge you to reject this proposal. It is not appropriated or authorized by Congress, and it will mar the natural serenity of Arlington National Cemetery. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Gottschalk. Next up, we have Darrel Stamper, who I believe is joining us virtually today. Mr. Stamper, are you with us?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Unless Mr. Stamper is here in person, we don't have him. So, we can

move on to Lawrence MacDonald.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Lawrence MacDonald, I believe is with us here in person.

Mr. MacDonald, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. MACDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a privilege to speak to members of the Commission. I spoke with you at the previous meeting. Some of what I have to say will be familiar, but I hope that this time, my words might be more effective in reaching you.

I'm Lawrence MacDonald, a volunteer with Third Act, a movement of older Americans working to protect democracy and a livable planet. As elders, we care deeply about the legacy we will leave to those who come after us.

I urge you to consider your own legacy and vote against this arch. The arch cannot be separated from Donald Trump. He has said it is an arch to honor himself. This is a man who as President in 2018, refused to visit a World War II

American cemetery near Paris, saying, why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers.

This is the man who called the 1,800 Americans who died at Belleau Woods in World War I suckers, and ridiculed Senator John McCain for having been captured in Vietnam.

His projects in our nation's capital have been steeped in corruption and plagued with failure. This is a man who can't even repair the reflecting pool. How is he going to oversee the construction of a massive arch? Are we going to see billions of dollars in corrupt no-bid contracts go to Trump cronies who are unable to perform the work? The arch is fascist in intent and design. Not surprisingly, it has a striking resemblance to a sketch that Hitler himself made for an arch that he wanted to be built in Berlin. Photographs of Hitler admiring a scale model of his arch are creepily similar to the photos of Trump showing off the model of his arch. That resemblance is not a coincidence. Trump and his ex-wife Ivana both

said that he once kept a notebook of Hitler's speeches at his bedside.

There is another striking similarity between these two arches. Neither of them will ever be built. Plans for Hitler's arch were scrapped when the Nazis were defeated in '45. The end of Trump's reign will be less dramatic and less bloody, but one way or another, his time as our nation's leader will end well before this monstrous arch can be completed. Whoever succeeds him will be very unlikely to pursue this project, given the massive cost and massive public opposition.

The question before you today concerns your legacy. Your vote will determine how you will be remembered. If you vote in favor of this arch, you'll cast your lot on the wrong side of history. Your friends and relatives, your children, and your children's children will forever be ashamed of you. There's good news. It's not too late to change your mind.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Your time has

expired, sir.

MR. MACDONALD: You can avoid this fate by voting against the arch. It might be hard.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: You're done, sir.

MR. MACDONALD: Most of you sit on the Commission because Trump appointed you. Be brave. Vote against the arch.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I'm just going to say something. As a Jew, as an American Jew who had family fight against Hitler in World War II, and who lost family in the Shoah, in the Holocaust, the idea that because of some picture you've dragged out of the archives that the President of the United States, the duly elected President of the United States, is somehow comparable to the most evil man who's probably ever lived in history, is just deeply, deeply offensive to me.

We can disagree about this project without that sort of invective being leveled against members of this Commission, and I just don't know what you think you're accomplishing, sir.

But we'll move on to our next witnesses

now, unless anybody has questions for the last four who have spoken. The next people to speak are Teresa Szewczyk, Kathy Linneweber, Karen E. Santiano Francis, Jim Horton, Melissa Millhorn, and Tom Moore. Miss -- I know I'm butchering this pronunciation and I apologize for that, but Ms. Szewczyk is supposed to be with us virtually.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the first four individuals that you listed all were scheduled to join virtually, and unless any of them are here in person, we don't have them. So, we can move on to Melissa Millhorn and Tom Moore as our final two witnesses.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Melissa Millhorn, I believe is with us here in person. Ma'am, you can proceed whenever you're ready, and you'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. Thank you.

MS. MILLHORN: Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Melissa

Millhorn. I'm here as an individual citizen. I oppose this arch, not because of its scale or cost, those objections are already on the record. The Applicant calls it a monumental arch, not a triumphal one. Like a previous speaker previously noted, whatever it's called, it adopts the architectural language of empire foreign to the American founding. A new label doesn't change the symbolism.

A roman triumph was an honor granted by the senate. When Augustus reserved the triumph for the imperial family, one of the republic's defining civic honors became an imperial prerogative. The triumphal arch became one of history's clearest symbols of imperial power. The early American republic chose a different path. Triumphal arches in the founding era were intentionally temporary. The defining image of our founding is not a conqueror passing beneath an arch, it is Washington resigning his commission and returning power to civilian authority.

In nearly two and a half centuries, the

federal government has never built one in the monumental corps. That's not an oversight. It's a consistent republican tradition. I wanted to note that Washington is the only major western capital without such an arch, but every capital in that comparison, Paris, London, Rome, was the seat of an empire or a monarchy. That absence is a distinction to be preserved, not a deficiency to correct. Consider the company this arch would keep. Napoleon's Paris, Pyongyang, where the arch of triumph glorifies Kim Il Sung. In a Roman triumph, the procession displayed captives and spoils. A victory arch at the threshold of Arlington turns more than 400,000 Americans buried there into a backdrop for a presidential vanity project. The long, open approach from the Lincoln Memorial was designed as an act of humility. It needs no gate. In a republic, the honored dead answer to no one who passes above them.

Today, I speak as a retired federal law

enforcement officer, a military spouse, and granddaughter of a soldier killed in Okinawa. In every case, our oath was the same, not to a ruler, but to the Constitution. Our capital reflects that distinction. A triumphal arch has no place in it. I urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, ma'am. Next up, we have our last witness, Mr. Tom Moore, who I believe is with us in person. Mr. Moore, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and you can proceed whenever you are ready.

MR. MOORE: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Moore. I've been a resident of the national capital area continuously since 1976. I was a resident and taxpayer in the District of Columbia from 1976 to 1981, and from 1981 to date I've been a resident and taxpayer in Virginia. I have for five decades regularly traveled over the Memorial Bridge between Virginia and the District, and I am familiar

with the area around the Memorial Bridge.

The proposed new monumental arch is completely out of character for the area. The only structures over five stories visible from Memorial Bridge are the high rises in the areas of Virginia known as Rosslyn, Crystal City, and Pentagon City. I understand that the new monumental arch is proposed to have a height of 250 feet, or about 25 stories. This is out of character with the low-rise architecture of Washington D.C., and would block the current panoramic views available from Memorial Bridge from the west side of the Lincoln Memorial, and from most of Arlington National Cemetery. I encourage you to reject the new monumental arch, as currently planned. Thank you for having a public hearing.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Moore.

At this time, Madam Secretary, are any of the people who originally signed up to testify but who weren't able to join us -- or have any of them now joined us?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: No, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. With that, we're going to conclude public testimony for today. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. It's -- I think it's really great and it's a real testament to each and every one of you that you've sat through a very long commission meeting to make your voice heard. Public testimony at a commission like this can often not be for the faint hearted. This has been a long meeting. I know that you all are busy people with other things to do in your lives, and it's meaningful to me personally that you took time out of your busy lives to come share your opinions with us here today. So, truly, thank you for being here, thank you for making your voice heard, and I would encourage you to continue making your voices heard at other commissions' opportunities for public testimony that I know occur on, you know, not just this issue, but any number of issues particularly here in the D.C. area, which is

such a locus of government, particularly federal government commissions and other public bodies of the sort.

Before we move on to a motion to approve preliminary site plans on this project, Commissioner Dixon mentioned before this meeting started that he wanted to make a motion. Commissioner Dixon, are you still with us, and is that still your intent? Commissioner Dixon?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I'm still with you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: And I'm not going to -- I have -- I want to make a statement, but maybe I'll wait until it's my turn to vote.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Well, we can take that up with the project itself, if that's okay with you, sir. Before we move on to formal consideration of preliminary site and building plans, though, I have a motion myself, and that's relating to the Height of Buildings Act issue, which has come up before on consideration

(Off-microphone comments.)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I think Commissioner Blair was unmuted there for a second. As some of you may recall, at our last meeting, I raised the issue of the Height of Buildings Act applicability to federal buildings, that was when we considered this project for concept review. At that time, I asked the Applicant to provide legal analysis on this issue, which they did in their application materials before us today. Those materials provide what I believe is a compelling argument that the Height of Buildings Act is not binding on the federal government.

Our general counsel additionally provided a memo, which is attached to the Executive Director's Report, that details NCPC's historic position, a long-held historic position, I would add, which as I mentioned last month, is that the Height of Buildings Act is in fact binding on the federal government. Our

Commission had some discussion on this issue this morning, and we obviously need to consider this overall issue, the applicability of the Height of Buildings Act, prior to finally approving this project, or indeed any project that would test the bounds of the Height of Buildings Act.

My view is that today, we are just considering this project for preliminary approval, and that as a result, it's not necessary for us to take up this broader issue of the applicability of the Height of Buildings Act to federal construction, until our next meeting at the earliest, which would be the earliest time that this project could be finally approved. And to that end, because this issue is still under consideration, I'd like to make a motion to amend the Commission actions that are included in the Height of Buildings Act section of the Executive Director's Recommendation on Pages 2 to 3 as follows. This is the section of the EDR that addresses the Height of Buildings

Act specifically.

My recommendation is to keep the first Commission action as drafted by staff, delete the second, third, and fourth Commission actions of the section, add one Commission action in this section reading notes that in light of the Applicant's submission, NCPC is continuing to consider the positions regarding the Height of Buildings Act, and whether it is binding on the federal government, which the Commission will need to decide prior to taking final action on the project, and then revising the final Commission action of this section to read, request the Applicant provide a justification for the project height when the project returns to NCPC for final approval.

This last item, just to explain slightly, if we were to rule that the Height of Buildings Act is inapplicable against federal construction, we still have an independent statutory obligation as the NCPC, based on our authorizing statute, to consider the height of a

project independently. So, this would be an action requesting, regardless of what happens with the Height of Buildings Act issue, that the Applicant provide us with a rationale for the height that we could then take up for consideration along with final approval.

So, to summarize, if my motion passes, the Height of Buildings Act section of the Commission actions relating to this project would read as follows. Notes NCPC's role as the central planning agency for the federal government in the nation's capital has included application of the Height of Buildings Act to preserve the horizontal skyline of the District, notes that in light of the Applicant's submission, NCPC is continuing to consider the positions regarding the Height of Buildings Act and whether it is binding on the federal government, which the Commission will need to decide prior to taking final action on the project, and requests the Applicant provide a justification for the project's height when the

project returns to NCPC for final approval.

If this motion were to pass, I think we could then proceed to a vote on preliminary approval of this project. If that motion were to pass, then at our next meeting or a future meeting, we could take up this project for final approval along with a motion to determine as a commission our view of whether the Height of Buildings Act is applicable against federal construction. That's my motion, and at this time, I'd ask if there's any second.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I second your motion, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. I'll now open it up to the Commission for further discussion on this amendment regarding the Height of Buildings Act section of our agency actions. As a reminder, at this time, the only motion on the floor relates to this amendment, and we'll obviously have full deliberations on the project itself after this motion has been addressed. I'll

start deliberations, I guess, with Commissioner Blair, to my right. James, are you still with us? Hearing nothing from Commissioner Blair, we'll proceed with Commissioner Ingrassia?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: I have no further comments, thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Ingrassia. Commissioner Dixon?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner, but we haven't proceeded quite to a vote yet, so -- but I appreciate your statement of support. Commissioner Cash?

COMMISSIONER CASH: On the amendment, I'll just say that I find the current EDR very specific. It says the Height of Buildings Act applies. I don't see any reason to change that, so I'm -- I'll be voting against this amendment, but thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Given that the

Applicant is arguing that the 1925 law authorizing the Arlington Memorial Bridge construction provides authorization for this project, I wonder should we not seek their opinion when they come back in the next iteration of this, or at least not foreclose the possibility that that statute actually authorizes or acts as a waiver of the Height of Buildings Act in this instance, given its contemplation of at least two structures above the height in the law?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I think that's certainly an argument they could make. Do you want to change to the amendment to reflect that, or does the broader language, request the Applicant provide a justification for the project's height when the project returns to NCPC, that seems pretty broad, are you comfortable with that language?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: If you think that that contemplates the possibility that maybe they already have authorization that they

could rely on, and that would be an argument that they could make in fulfilling that, I think that would be sufficient.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I certainly believe so. If you're comfortable with it, then I think we can proceed on that basis. Anything else?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: That's my only –CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Commissioner Falcone, are you with us? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes, I am. I have no comments. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart?

COMMISSIONER COZART: I'll just associate myself with the comments of Commissioner Cash.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Sir, I have no comments or further insights. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,

Commissioner. Commissioner Bowron?

COMMISSIONER BOWRON: Thank you, Chairman. I'm here today representing the Department of the Interior which in its submission, I think, made very clear its perspective on the Height of Buildings Act. And so, for the probably opposite reason of Commissioners Cash and Cozart, I will, also, vote no.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay, thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

MR. LEVENBACH: I also found the legal arguments compelling, and I think you'd have a reasonable path forward here. So, I appreciate that. I think Commissioner Henderson made an interesting point that I haven't heard, as well.

And so, I look forward to -- I'm going to vote in favor of this, and I look forward to see a justification should it pass.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: All right. Okay. If there are no further questions -

MS. HOTTEL-COX: I believe we skipped

over Commissioner Argo.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Argo. Commissioner Argo? I apologize, ma'am.

COMMISSIONER ARGO: No, no, no. Would you read the motion again, please?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Sure. So, the motion would amend the Commission actions that relate to the Height of Buildings Act in the Executive Director's Recommendation. That's on Pages 2 to

3. And if it passes, the section would read as follows. Notes NCPC's role as the central planning agency for the federal government. I guess it should be notes that the NCPC's role as the central planning agency for the federal government in the nation's capital has included application of the Height of Buildings Act to preserve the horizontal skyline of the District, notes that in light of the Applicant's submission, NCPC is continuing to consider the positions regarding the Height of Buildings Act, and whether it is binding on the federal

government, which the Commission will need to decide prior to taking final action on the project, and request the Applicant provide a justification for the project's height when the project returns to NCPC for final approval.

COMMISSIONER ARGO: I'm going to abstain.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay, Commissioner. Do any other Commissioners have questions or comments at this time? Hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second, and take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Chairman Scharf and seconded by Commissioner Dixon. With that, Commissioner Cozart -

COMMISSIONER COZART: No.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: -- on the amended motion. Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron?

COMMISSIONER BOWRON: No. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: No. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commission Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commission Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: No. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion to amend

passes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Now, at this time, is there a motion to approve preliminary site and building plans for the new monumental arch with the amended Commission actions as just passed by this Commission?

VICE CHAIMAN LEVENBACH: So moved.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Second here.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Ingrassia. With that, we'll proceed to discussion on approving -- or providing preliminary approval on the monumental arch project, and I'll start deliberations with Commissioner Bowron.

COMMISSIONER BOWRON: Thank you. So, first, I want to thank the NCPC staff. As always, an incredible job digesting and then sharing information in a way that was so relevant and accessible.

I, also, want to echo the Chairman's comments to the members of the public that are here today or were online and provided comments.

It is truly inspiring to hear from all of you.

And to the project team from the Park Service and the Department and the design firm, thank you for all your work to be responsive to the comments of the Commission from last June.

On behalf of the Department, I can certainly commit that we will continue to work to be responsive to the comments of the Commission. You know, everything that was called out in the staff report regarding transportation, materials, siting, aviation coordination, we'll continue to do that.

The Department supports continuing to move this project forward.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Argo? I think you're muted, ma'am. I'm sorry.

COMMISSIONER ARGO: I have nothing

more. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Argo.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: I want to thank the project team for looking at one issue in particular, which I think is really important, which is how we're going to deconflict a pretty busy traffic area with what could be a lot of visitors.

And one of the things, I think, that came up as we were going back and forth is thinking about the number of visitors that are going to be there and, just even on a sort of hourly basis, how are people going to access the site.

I appreciate the point about people are going to find the least -- the shortest distance to the circle. So, I think I find that pretty persuasive, but still trying to figure out how you can mitigate interactions and if there's anything else that can be done.

If we do see the type of visitation that we could, then there's just going to be a lot of people. So, trying to model that or looking at, specifically, the number of people might -- if you haven't done that already, or if you have done it. Bring it forward next time, when you come back for the final project approval.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach.

Commissioner Blair?

COMMISSIONER BLAIR: No comments just, other than thank you for the work, as always, staff and team.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Blair.

Commissioner Ingrassia?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yeah. I want to commend again the project team for all the work that's gone into this and all the time and resources and progression that we've seen.

I also appreciate the level of public

engagement surrounding a very important and meaningful project for the District. And for those of you who kept your comments civil, especially the military families, I just really want to acknowledge and appreciate that.

I just want to also say that, you know, a lot of strong positions were raised here today. I do also believe that there is strong support from the public for this project.

In addition to some of the comments that were raised here, many of you were in attendance for the state fair that has been going on in Washington, D.C., over the past couple of weeks or so to celebrate America 250.

I think we were expecting several million people to attend these festivities from now until the end of the celebratory period.

One of the most popular attractions there was a model replica of an arch very similar to what we're considering here. That display was attended by veterans, families, American citizens across the political spectrum,

many of whom were supporting that project and voicing strongly their positive support for a project of this type.

Washington, D.C. is notable in being the only major city, it's my understanding and awareness, in the United States without an arch or an arch-like monument, and I think it's long overdue as something that should be seriously considered in the city.

Also, I just want to say, kind of associating myself with Vice Chair Levenbach's comments, for the project team, any more information that we could get to find ways to sort of mitigate congestion; detail, especially how tourists may be able to be picked up through rideshare services, through bus services and other forms of public transit, that information is always much appreciated.

And also, in reference to a comment I made earlier today, with regard to visual clutter, with regard to traffic displays, signage and other sorts of things that may help

assist with traffic navigation; if there's room for potentially mitigating some of that visual clutter, so the focus and emphasis is on the beauty of the arch and its design, that being a central pillar in that area would be my sort of suggestion here.

Beyond that, I appreciate all the comments made today, and I have nothing further to add.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Ingrassia.

Commissioner Dixon?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I, first of all, have been intrigued and interested in this idea about bringing something that might strengthen Anacostia River East by moving it to an area that would impact our community, which could be positive maybe.

I also want to make it kind of clear that I've served on this Commission for 30 years, representing a lot of mayors and a lot of the city. And it's been a great privilege to me

to do that.

I always have to keep within my focus two things. One, our mission as a Commission, which is the federal interest, but I have to think about how it will affect my community, what the impact is.

And that's why I mentioned something coming to our neighborhood, if possible. But that's not (audio interference). Maybe it will be.

I also want to make it pretty clear that I come in with some other credentials. One, I'm a retired Army colonel and a retired Air Force airman, too. My brother and my uncle are buried in Arlington, and a lot of my classmates from my tenure at the United States Air Force Academy. So, I have some deep concerns about this place.

I don't think that the height for me is the issue. I think that those who have been speaking out believe, and I believe -- and I supported height for some number of years in

office and while out of office on this Commission, but my concern is not about the height.

I'm hoping that the results that you get back, Mr. Chairman, may be helpful in dealing with that issue. And that's why I supported getting more information, giving a chance for this to be dealt with. And hopefully, it will come out favorably for us who want to keep the heights controlled.

I also want to make it pretty clear that I am definitely going to have some problems with the arch because I think that it does affect people I care about in my history, in the military, in my service. I retired in both Air Force and Army.

But it also is important that we have a lot of issues that face our city that are in the hands of many people, and we have to be very cautious and thoughtful about how we move, because the most important thing about all my services in government, in military, and in the

community has been my city and my neighborhood.

So, I want to be sure that we protect the ability for us to maneuver through some delicate waters at this time. So, that's going to be behind my vote on this particular issue.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon.

Commissioner Cash?

COMMISSIONER CASH: Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks again to the staff for the report and the work that's gone into this.

And, more importantly, thanks to everyone who came out here today and testified.

I thank the over 100,000 people that have submitted testimony or submitted comments online already.

I've just got to say that, I talked about this last month, but I still have the basic problems that I discussed at our last meeting.

A lot of the technical information that we asked for was provided, but none of it's

resolved any of the underlying issues about why this project belongs in this place and what the framework is that we should evaluate it in.

I continue to object to a process that did not start with congressional authorization and is proceeding outside of the Commemorative Works process.

This project is described as celebrating 250 years of American independence and honoring America's founding principles.

Whatever label the applicant gives it, a 250-foot triumphal arch topped with a statuary, placed in a memorial landscape on an axis between the Arlington House and Arlington Cemetery, all the way to the Lincoln Memorial, is plainly a commemorative.

Calling it a celebration does not make it less of a monument. And if this is not a commemorative work, I don't know what is.

All this matters because the Commemorative Works process is not just supposed to be paperwork. It's how Congress, NCMAC, the

public, and this Commission are supposed to test the basic questions:

What's being commemorated, why it has long-lasting national significance, and whether this site is appropriate, what alternatives should be considered, and how the work affects the historic and memorial landscape around it.

That should include real site selection, meaningful alternatives analysis, and a Section 106 process that informs the project rather than catches up to it.

A few of those questions are being asked after the site, the scale, and the form have already been chosen.

That's how we end up with an applicant-driven analysis asking us to believe that a 250foot arch that blocks out the Lincoln Memorial from Arlington House is somehow the viewshedsensitive option, while a smaller arch would actually be worse.

And while the applicant has given us a clearer purpose statement, it has still not

supplied the missing public process or authorization.

But now, we also have the more urgent issue of the Height of Buildings Act. Not just whether this arch's design complies with it, but whether this Commission should approve a path that either avoids it in substance or says it does not apply at all.

So far as I can tell, for this 250-foot project to proceed without congressional authorization, we're left with two paths.

First, as laid out in the EDR before we amended it, the applicant could redistribute the proportions of the building, the roof structure and the statuary, which may preserve the Height Act in form, but still signals that we can engineer around it on paper while ending up with the same 250-foot structure.

The other path would be for this Commission to somehow agree or acknowledge that the Height Act does not apply to this or any other federal building.

I have concerns with both. To begin, I think we need to dispel the notion that the Height Act is simply local zoning.

It is an act of Congress legislating for the nation's capital at a time when Congress directly controlled the District's government in 1910. This is not some act of an elected local government or municipal government or of the modern DC Council.

Even today, the DC Home Rule Act, which is a congressional law, precludes the District from legislating above the Height Act limits, reserving that question to Congress itself.

The applicant offers ways to read around that history, but the arguments do not change the basic fact that the Height Act is still an act of Congress, it is still enforced, and it is still the framework that this Commission has applied to federal projects for decades and must apply here.

I also don't want to lose sight of the word Congress used in the Height Act. A

building erected in violation of the act is not treated as a harmless technical defect. It is declared a common nuisance. And here, that word has real meaning.

As I mentioned, this structure would sit in the middle of one of the most important memorial corridors in the country, a structure that, by and large, in that place, does not merely occupy the landscape. It changes the meaning of the landscape around it.

So, if we buy the applicant's argument that this arch is not commemorative, then what we're being asked to approve is a non-commemorative structure inserted into a solemn commemorative landscape, and that is exactly the kind of harm the Height Act's nuisance language should make us take seriously.

So, whatever questions others may raise about litigation and enforcement, this Commission does not have to approve a project that treats the Height Act as an obstacle to maneuver around rather than a law to be applied.

I'm not coming at this as someone who believes every inch of the Height Act is sacred, but one of the most important aspects of the Height Act, especially in federal areas and the monumental core, is that it's part of what makes Washington remarkable. It's why the city skyline remains horizontal, civic, and legible.

The result is that monuments, memorials, civic buildings, and natural topography still read against the sky instead of disappearing into a competition for height.

And if the Height Act in this context is to mean anything, it cannot be ignored whenever a building is federal.

Our skyline didn't happen by accident. It's a congressional choice carried forward for more than a century.

This is not to say that Congress couldn't authorize something taller. Congress has in the past, Congress could now, but Congress is not here.

Instead, the applicant's come to this

Commission with a legal opinion in hand, offering a sweeping theory that the Height of Buildings Act doesn't apply to federal buildings at all, changing the ground rules for every future federal project in the District, whether this arch ever actually gets built or not.

The precedent set here would outlive this project. Going forward, NCPC could be deciding federal building heights on a case-bycase basis, a major institutional change that the staff report acknowledges.

But I'll make the point even more directly. The consequences would not be limited to this arch.

If federal buildings are categorically outside the Height Act, then future federal or federally controlled projects, whether it be leased federal land, redevelopment projects, public-private partnerships, or projects where the federal government keeps any kind of control, could be evaluated under a new discretionary standard.

NCPC would not just be reviewing

buildings in the federal interest. We would be deciding development potential, land value, skyline, and the balance between federal and local planning authority.

This would implicate major aspects of the comprehensive plan that we'll need to grapple with. And this is not a small thing.

So, now before us, we have an executive branch applicant asking this Commission, one way or another, to accept its stated purpose, its preferred location, and now its desire for height, all without congressional authorization and all without a Commemorative Works process, leaving this Commission to contend with a backwards planning process.

I understand Congress may eventually appropriate funds for this project, but for me, that is not sufficient, and it's not resolving any of these broad concerns.

Absent clear authorization, I don't think we should approve these preliminary site

and building plans. And I do not think we should reinterpret the Height Act out of the way or preserve it only in form to make this project work.

The fact that the applicant has come to us with this legal opinion makes it clear that this is no longer theoretical.

The Department of the Interior, one of the largest stewards of federal land in the District, is signaling that the Height Act does not apply to federal buildings. That's really staggering.

So now, our action today will either resist that notion or help normalize it for every future federal project.

I'm not willing to lend my vote to plans that could have the effect of upending decades of NCPC practice and the century-old height framework, all without congressional authorization or a Commemorative Works process, for a project that, as far as I can tell, has only one real advocate, and that advocate is not

Congress.

So, respectfully, I will not be supporting the EDR. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Henderson?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I had not intended to go back to traffic, as we started with earlier, but Vice Chairman Levenbach and Commissioner Ingrassia bringing it back up made me want to go back to at least suggest considering again the idea of a tunnel, a District tunnel to the circle, or some other means other than the proposal that's on the table.

So, I'll just say that. And aside from that, I will be supporting this project forward and look forward to doing that in a few minutes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: I have no

further comments beyond just thanking the NCPC staff and the project team for the excellent presentation and for answering our questions.

I also want to associate my thanks for the members of the public who shared their perspectives in a civil manner.

And Chairman Scharf, I want to thank you for kindly welcoming me to this Commission meeting and for your generous and kind opening remarks.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I appreciate that, Commissioner.

Commissioner Cozart?

COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. I would also like to join my fellow Commissioners in thanking members of the public who have written in and who have also spent time in the chamber testifying at our last hearing and at this hearing. Invaluable insights from you.

And in particular, there was one that I picked up on who encouraged that the Section 106 process should be allowed to run its proper

course. I hope I didn't butcher how that testifier shared that.

That's very important. And thinking about, in particular, other locations that would mitigate the impacts, even considering locations outside of the District of Columbia.

Lastly, I just want to thank the staff for their extensive work on this and providing us with such a good analysis of the materials.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Cozart.

Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Chairman, I'd like to echo the thanks for the professional presentation of the NCPC staff, as well as their management of hosting such a robust public dialogue on this subject. I want to salute that.

I do look forward to the further development as the project team develops the aspects of safety and traffic and pedestrian access. I think that we can never over-plan

that as we look through different models.

And so, I look forward to the finalization of the plans. And thanks for the opportunity to participate in this public debate.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Speaking for myself, first, just to address some of Commissioner Cash's comments, I think the Commemorative Works Act is beyond the scope of this Commission's authority, so I won't address it now.

With respect to the Height Act, I'm guessing that we're going to have a vigorous debate on this subject when this project next comes before the Commission. So, I'll keep my comments on that relatively brief.

I think the common nuisance language you cited is probably the strongest argument in favor of the Height Act being inapplicable to federal construction because of the sovereign immunity issues we've discussed before.

And I would note that, regardless of what happens in terms of the applicability of the Height of Buildings Act to federal buildings, height is still a required consideration for this Commission.

So, the nightmare scenario, the slippery-slope scenario of skyscrapers going up on federal land all across the District, as long as I'm Chairman of this Commission, that's certainly not going to happen. And I hope the rest of my fellow Commissioners would share that basic sentiment.

I continue to support this project. I think commemorating America's 250th anniversary is important. I think that the proposed arch is a fitting commemoration of 250 years, or a fitting celebration of 250 years, or whatever particular word we want to use there.

I do have a couple of items that I'd like the project team to work on before we take this up for final approval, which I'm assuming is going to be in September.

A number of Commissioners have spoken to the traffic issues, which have come up consistently since this project first came before us.

I would echo at least some of those concerns. I think they're real concerns, and we've got to get that right before we finalize this project.

Second, I've asked before, I think we need a view of what it's going to look like from the observation deck. I'm particularly interested in the views both over Arlington National Cemetery and then over the Lincoln Memorial and the rest of the District of Columbia.

Before we proceed, I think that we're effectively replacing one viewshed with a new viewshed, that being a significantly elevated one that's unique in the DC area. And I'd just like to know what that's going to look like before we proceed further.

Lastly, there was an item that came up

during public comment that I hadn't thought of previously. I forget who raised it, but I'm glad that they did. And that's the issue of construction noise during funerals at Arlington.

I'd like the applicant team to have some sort of mitigation plan, because I think the idea that funerals at Arlington would be disrupted by jackhammering and pile driving and the latter aspects of construction noise, if at all feasible, I'd like some sort of plan to ameliorate that particular concern. This is an example of how public testimony can really inform our Commission's deliberative process.

To the extent that's possible, I'd like the applicant team to include something on that. It's not something we would want, given the solemnity of those ceremonies at Arlington. All that having been said, I'd like to thank NCPC staff for their customary diligence.

This is a complex project, and I think we've seen at every stage the expertise that NCPC brings to bear on projects like this. So, I'd

like to thank you all for that.

I'd like to thank the project team for their diligence in responding to comments from the last round, from concept review, and for their continued cooperation with our process going forward.

And with that, are there any further questions or comments from the Commission before we proceed to a vote?

Hearing and seeing none, the motion on the floor is for preliminary approval of the monumental -- sorry, let me be more formal -- to approve preliminary site and building plans for the new monumental arch with the prior amendments relating to the Height of Buildings Act section of the Executive Director's Report that were made by motion previously.

Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second and then take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Vice Chairman Levenbach and seconded by

Commissioner Ingrassia. Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? COMMISSIONER BOWRON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: I vote present.

And I want to make the comment that, as I said

earlier, I'm concerned about the arch itself. And the height limitation will be resolved, hopefully, in our next meeting. So, I vote present on this.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: No. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: On behalf of

Chairman Paul, yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam

Secretary. This motion has indeed carried. AGENDA ITEM 6B: UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 2701 MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD, SE, WASHINGTON, DC – ST. ELIZABETHS WEST CAMPUS GATE 7 GARAGE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CHAIRMAN SCHARF: With that, we will move on to Agenda Item 6B, which is a request to

approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the St. Elizabeth's West Campus Gate 7 Garage and Site Development.

From our team, we have Laura Shipman presenting. And I believe members of the applicant team will also be available virtually to answer any questions.

Laura, do you want to proceed?

MS. SHIPMAN: Yes. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners. The General Services Administration has submitted preliminary and final plans for the Gate 7 Parking Garage at the St. Elizabeth's West Campus.

At the preliminary and final review stage, the Commission is focused on whether the applicant addressed the comments made during concept review, general consistency with the comprehensive plan, and a range of building and site design topics, including viewsheds, building massing, landscape, and circulation.

The St. Elizabeth's West Campus is a

176-acre site located in southeast Washington, DC, that is designated as a National Historic Landmark. The garage site is off of St. Elizabeth's Road Southeast, and is bordered by the Barry Farm housing development and I-295.

The proposed garage is being developed to meet the parking needs of the growing number of employees assigned to the campus. The approved master plan includes 4,448 planned parking spaces at build-out.

Of the total allowable parking spaces, almost 2,000 have been built at the existing Gate 4 garage. The first phase of the Gate 7 garage and surface parking includes 1,250 employee parking spaces, and the remaining will be built in the garage's second phase and other projects.

The proposed plans are generally consistent with the 2020 Master Plan approved by NCPC and do not impact the established parking ratio.

As a reminder, the applicant's concept

plan submission, shown here, was reviewed by the Commission in September 2025. It included modulated vertical fins, horizontal planters, and planted mesh panels cladding the concrete garage structure to create visual screening.

After the Commission's review, the applicant re-evaluated the design to ensure alignment with guidance in Executive Order 14344 on federal architecture.

The revised design largely maintains the previous site design approach, but revises the building's facades to reflect the traditional architectural language of existing historic buildings on the campus.

The historic center building and administration row buildings on the plateau of the campus are built in the Gothic Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival style, and are clad primarily in red brick.

Support buildings throughout the campus, constructed in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century, are similarly clad in brick

and stone, and use large arched windows on the building's expansive facades.

At almost 500 feet in length, the proposed parking garage draws on the language of these campus support buildings, with a symmetrical facade incorporating large arched openings inlaid with metal mesh panels and dark concrete.

For human scale, the building's brick base provides horizontal articulation, and the fifth level includes framed brick screens, with a brick cornice to articulate the building top.

The garage also reflects the context material palette and color tones to ensure compatibility.

This is the proposed site plan for the first phase of the project. It has not changed significantly since the Commission's concept review, which was generally supportive of the siting approach.

The garage will be approximately 394,000 gross square feet, with an interim gravel-surface parking lot. The future second

phase is anticipated to replace the surface lot with a warehouse and 450 additional parking spaces. The five-level garage will be built into the hillside to minimize visual impacts to the campus.

At concept, the Commission recommended continued study of strategies to minimize the potential impacts to the residential area plan for the adjacent Barry Farm development.

In response, the applicants sited the garage 82 feet from the property line, with layered and dense vegetation primarily consisting of evergreen trees to screen views of the parking lot, garage, and lighting year round.

This site circulation diagram shows the proposed new Gate 7, located north of the existing Gate 6 truck entry. The entry gate will include vehicular screening, and there will be a shuttle route to take employees up the hill after parking, shown in blue.

The second phase of the garage

development is expected to include an accessible pedestrian pathway connecting from a screening building on the roof of the garage. Pedestrian paths are not feasible in this phase due to the grade change.

At concept review, the Commission requested additional information on planned tree preservation, removal, and replacement. Nine hundred and three existing trees will remain, and 713 trees comprising 4.3 acres will be removed to construct the garage, parking lot, and other needed site elements.

These trees will be replaced on-site with 4.3 acres of trees at approximately the same level of density as what exists today, in accordance with tree preservation and replacement policies in the federal environment element of the comprehensive plan.

The proposed plant palette includes native trees, shrubs, ground cover, and meadow species, with many that are beneficial to pollinators.

NCPC received public comments regarding the selection of specific milkweed species, native plants, cultivars, grasses, and additional suggested plants. The applicant revised the plant palette to address these comments, and overall, the palette is generally consistent with the Cultural Landscape Report for the St. Elizabeth's Campus, NCPC's Pollinator Best Practices Resource Guide, and other federal resources.

I will now walk through views of the proposed garage, starting from the point at the top of the hill looking west, where the panoramic viewshed is maintained but the garage below is screened; and a view over the shuttle loop looking north towards the garage; a view of the redesigned west facade from I-295 as shown previously; and a view from Barry Farm showing the layers of proposed vegetation.

When looking towards the garage across the Anacostia River, it is partially visible. However, vegetative screening along the edges of

the structure are intended to further minimize visibility from regional vantage points.

As noted in the Commission's last review, the applicant conducted transportation analysis, which indicates the garage project may cause impacts to traffic operations in specific locations in the area.

With mitigation measures including intersection improvements and a program encouraging multiple travel modes, the analysis found these impacts can be minimized.

The project team is coordinating with the District Department of Transportation on additional requested analysis as the project moves closer to construction and permitting.

Additionally, carrying forward the Commission's recommendation at concept review, staff encourages the applicant to continue to coordinate with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to address long-term plans for shuttle access to St. Elizabeth's from nearby Metrorail stations.

Overall, staff supports the project's sensitivity to the historic campus context and efforts to minimize the structure's visual impacts through the integration into the landscape, and recommends that the Commission approve the preliminary and final plans for the St. Elizabeth's West Campus Gate 7 Garage and Site Development, with the comments highlighted throughout my presentation and noted on the slide.

This concludes the presentation. Members of the applicant team from the General Services Administration and ZGF Architects, as well as Olin, are also available virtually to answer any questions from the Commission. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Laura.

Do Commissioners have any questions either for Laura or for the project team?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I do.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Commissioner Dixon.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: One, first, I'm happy to see something over in Anacostia River East. I'm particularly happy to see that this structure in Barry Farm, which is where my house is, is going to be there and be improved.

But I want to know whether or not there is any option here for some solar paneling on the roofs. I constantly want to ask that question. I think it's wise to do it when we can.

MS. SHIPMAN: I defer that question to the project team, if a representative from ZGF or Ms. Tunstall-Williams is on the line.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: It looks like Kristi is raising her hand in the Zoom. No?

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, sorry for the delay. Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: And good to hear from you, former commissioner.

MS. WILLIAMS: I know. I miss you

guys, but you're in good hands with Paul.

Arrington, to answer your question, one of the most sensitive pieces of trying to design this site and this building was to minimize impact on the historic core.

And so, one of the agreements that we got to with our Section 106, Historic Preservation Consulting Parties, is that in the second phase, it's not going to happen in phase 1, but the second phase of the parking will actually be adding a green roof to minimize the visibility from the upper campus.

And so, while we would like to include solar, given the requirements for reducing visibility, a green roof will be put in this location.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Well, you know I'm not happy with that answer because the way we increase visibility is to make sure we have lights on at night. And that's where the energy comes from, not the plants.

But, at any rate, I'm sure you're

constrained. In the future, I will constantly press for solar.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. And on many of the other buildings where you can't see the roof from above, that has been a plan for the campus.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Well, I think visibility is less important than energy, but that's okay. That's my mind right now.

I also want to make a point. The pollination plants, the pollinators -- and this is not for you -- the pollinators, I'm very happy about that. Let me tell you why.

Blue Plains, as some may know, has a beehive operation. And they generate honey right at Blue Plains.

I've gotten a number of the bottles. Believe me, that's good for your allergies if you live in this area because the bees are getting pollinated in our community. So, I just call attention to that.

The pollination is not just an idea, but the bees do -- we know how important they

are, but they also are being -- the honey is being captured at Blue Plains.

At least, it was. I hope it's continually doing it. And I suggest you all get a jar, if you can, because it's good for allergies.

MS. WILLIAMS: We have some beehives on campus. We have some beekeepers. And so, there is a small colony.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I wish the honey was distributed. I don't know how it's being distributed or made available.

I've got a few bottles, but I just think it's very valuable. People who have allergies, this helps them, natural honey.

A little off subject, I guess. That's it for me.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I'm glad that, in Mr. Berne's absence from this month's meeting, we nevertheless had comments on the pollinator policy and the use of local cultivars on the St. Elizabeth's site. So, thank you, Arrington.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, I miss Mr. Berne's too much because I love his input. I'm actually working with him on some things now.

I just want to make sure people know the bee honey is available. I'm not sure how, but it's a valuable resource and a valuable asset. It probably has money value but -- just health value.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Dixon.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I'm voting present. I think I said that, but yes, there we are. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Do we have any other questions or comments either for Laura or for the project team?

Hearing and seeing none, is there a motion to approve comments on the preliminary and final site and building plans for the St. Elizabeth's West Campus Gate 7 garage and site development?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: So moved, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon.

Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER ARGO: Second.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner -

COMMISSIONER ARGO: Argo.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: -- Argo. Sorry, I was looking down at the wrong time.

I'll now open it up to the Commission for discussion. we'll start with Commissioner Ingrassia.

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: No additional comments. I really appreciate the presentation today.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Dixon?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We're still just at

comments. We're not voting quite yet, sir.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I thought I made my comments already, so I'm jumping the gun.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: You absolutely did, sir.

Commissioner Cash?

COMMISSIONER CASH: I don't have another three pages. Thanks, everyone, for the information.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Henderson?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I'll just say, I think this was a project at the first meeting that I attended as a member of this Commission last year. The whole process has opened my eyes, and I appreciate all the work that the staff does.

I know, particularly, the last project we talked about was a complicated one. And everybody is doing a lot of hard work to make this place work and to give serious

consideration to all these projects.

So, I just appreciate what you all have done. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: No comments again. I just want to thank the team for the presentation.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Cozart?

COMMISSIONER COZART: I'll commend the work of the staff as well. No additional questions or comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: No additional comments, but again, I thank the professionalism of Laura and the staff for this presentation.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Bowron?

COMMISSIONER BOWRON: I also appreciate that we take a parking garage as seriously as a monumental arch. It is equally as important to the landscape of our city. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Argo?

COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes, I'll echo Commissioner Bowron. Is that it, Jessica?

COMMISSIONER BOWRON: It's Bowron, but it's okay.

COMMISSIONER ARGO: Bowron. I'll echo her comments. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: I just want to build on Commissioner Dixon's remarks about the pollinators. I was driving from South Dakota to North Dakota over the weekend, and it's a long drive. It's five hours.

And I thought of one of our favorite commenters because there were so many bee boxes everywhere. So, the NCPC is always on my mind, I guess.

In all seriousness, I really like the redesign here. I think to me, one interesting thing about the final project here is that, I think, it speaks to the executive order, and I think that this is -- I'm glad to see that the project proponents have been responsive to the original comments to try to seek a design that's more in line with the President's vision in terms of architecture.

I think this is a significant improvement. So, thanks for the work that went into this.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Blair? We may have lost Commissioner Blair. COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Sorry about that. I was on mute, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Do you have any

comments on the St. Elizabeth's West Campus Gate 7 Parking Garage?

COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Nothing to register. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.

Speaking for myself, first of all, as always, thank you, Laura. Thank you, team. Thank you to the project team.

I stand corrected. When this project came before us last September, I made snarky remarks to the extent of I've never seen a beautiful parking garage before. I wouldn't call this building beautiful, but it's really, really nice.

This is an example where I think the project team, between concept and final, went back and dramatically improved the key facade of this building. I'm proud to vote for it.

And as Stuart said, I think it's a great example of the President's executive order

on federal architecture, perhaps striking in ways that aren't necessarily anticipated.

I think when that order was signed, most people read it as referring to courthouses, grand public buildings.

But I think that even these improvements to the facade of a parking garage that many, many people will see are worthwhile.

And I'm glad that, between concept and now, that this project has come such a long way.

And I'm thankful also, obviously, that the project team has been so responsive to our Commission's comments and to our Commission staff's involvement and suggestions, I guess, during the process.

If there are no further comments or questions, we can proceed to a vote. Does anyone else want to be heard on this item?

With that, hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second and then take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was

made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by

Commissioner Argo. Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? COMMISSIONER BOWRON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIRMAN LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair?

Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?

Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner

Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries

unanimously.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. That concludes our open meeting agenda for today.

Our next meeting, we will not meet in August, as is customary for us. Our next meeting will be in September.

Is that September 2nd? MS. HOTTEL-COX: September 3rd. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: September 3rd, excuse

me. Our next meeting will be at September 3rd, or on September 3rd, at 1:00 p.m.

Do any Commissioners want to be heard on any other items before we adjourn for the day? Hearing and seeing none -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, Commissioner Dixon?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I just want to say that I'm going to spend some time going through the testimony. I'm going to be looking for some of those folks who were on the Mall who were supportive of the arch.

I just want to go through it myself to see what I can discover some. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, sir. Thank you for that. I hope everybody has a great summer.

I look forward to seeing you all again in the fall. And, with that, if there's nothing further, this meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 5:04 p.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that the foregoing transcript was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under my direction; further, that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings; and that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this action in which this matter was taken; and further that I am not a relative nor an employee of any of the parties nor counsel employed by the parties, and I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

Shakil Azizi

· ·_______________________