The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), led by President Donald Trump’s hand-picked appointees, voted Thursday to approve a list of concerns about the president’s proposed 250-foot “triumphal arch” raised by staff and to ask the administration to address them before final approval.

While the commission is led by Trump allies, the staff is not, and raised a number of issues about the project.

“I think the project team has some homework to do,” Will Scharf, Trump’s White House staff secretary who serves as the commission’s chair, said after a nearly three-hour-long hearing. Scharf added he wanted the administration to provide more illustrations on how the arch would look like from different observer points — one of the staff’s recommendations.

After the hearing, Trump posted on his social media platform thanks to the commission for approving the arch, but that wasn’t what the commission voted on.

But Scharf said during the hearing, “I’ll note, for those present, that this is not our final review of the project. That will come at a later meeting.”

Scharf addressed what he called “heckling” from the audience.

“I think it’s very important that this commission be allowed to do the work that it does,” he said. “And for those of you who are opposed to this project, I don’t think you help your case by heckling commissioners when they make their reasoned comments in response to the proposal that’s before us.”

Later in the hearing, he addressed the audience again.

“I really don’t appreciate the heckling, but I’ll continue,” he said.

The commission, which oversees central planning for any federal government projects in D.C. and parts of Virginia and Maryland, received 1,696 public comments on the proposed arch before then meeting, nearly all of them negative.

One submission called the project “a glorified, unnecessary and frankly gross vanity project,” while another argued “a triumphal arch is totally inconsistent with the American character.”

Several commenters called the arch “ugly.”

Some 30 people signed up to register their comments during the meeting, both in person and virtually. One of them was Gary Langston, a veteran who said his parents, a Vietnam veteran and an Army nurse, were both buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

The project “must respect those interred there, their descendants, current and future generations,” Langston told the panel. “I think, ‘What does this arch look like in another 250 years?’”

Langston, who largely expressed concerns about the proposed arch obstructing views of the cemetery, later added: “I think the most important piece of this is whatever is done there should be a unifying factor for the country, and at present there are elements of the design of the arch that I fear won’t stand the test of time.”

Jimi Shaughnessy, a Marine veteran, said his great grandparents were also buried at Arlington and also panned the proposed arch.

“Now, potentially, a gigantic arch will cast a shadow on my resting family, friends, and leathernecks, as vanity is rewarded with a momentous symbol of selfishness,” Shaughnessy said. “A 250-foot arch is a profound disruption and insult at the entrance to sacred ground.”

Ahead of the hearing, the commission’s staff raised a list of issues it recommended that the panel ask the administration to address before it gives final approval for the structure. Among the staff’s concerns were safety for pedestrians, potential negative impacts on flight paths through the nearby Reagan National Airport and the obstruction of views of Arlington National Cemetery.

Jamie Herr, an urban planner for the commission, presented the staff’s recommendations and said the administration should offer necessary details that the commission needs to be able to give its final stamp of approval.

“The submission does not yet include information on any proposed lighting, stormwater management approach, and most of the site and building materials,” Herr said. “These are necessary elements for the commission to review as the design advances.”

Before the comment period, Scharf offered a prebuttal to what he said were the “odd” arguments that the arch’s height violated the law.

“The Height of Buildings Act is codified as part of D.C. local zoning code,” Scharf said, adding that “traditionally, federal projects are not subject to local zoning requirements in that way.”

That law largely limits structures in D.C. to 160 feet and tasks the NCPC with reviewing proposed developments on federal property. Herr said staff wants the administration to provide “an analysis and justification for the project’s height in light of the Height of Buildings Act.”

Jessica Bowron, the National Park Service’s controller and acting director, who was representing Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, said she backed the staff’s recommendations.

“The recommendations outlined in the staff report will help inform the next phase of planning and ensure that important technical and design considerations are appropriately addressed as the proposal moves forward,” Bowron said. “I support the NCPC staff recommendations and appreciate the continued coordination. I look forward to the review of the additional information that was requested in the report.”

NCPC Vice Chair Stuart Levenbach said he was “certainly interested” in “all the important issues that were raised in the NCPC staff,” adding that he wanted to see the proposal “further developed.”

Nine of the commission’s members voted in favor of approving the comments and recommendations. Evan Cash, a representative of D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, voted no. Cash said his concerns go beyond the staff recommendations, adding the administration can’t “answer the more fundamental question about why this project belongs in this place, and that’s a threshold issue.”