Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, great. Hi, welcome to the March 11th, 2026 joint meeting of the planning commission zoning ordinance committee and the long range planning committee. We will hold a hybrid public meeting which assem which enables to promote electronic participation as authorized by Virginia where the planning commission's electronic meeting policy adopted on July 7th 2022. Members of the LRPC are participating and so are participating both here in person and virtually electronic meets. At this time, I'd like to orient everyone to our hybrid environment. Members of the public may attend the meeting here in person or electronically by using the Microsoft Teams link provided on the LRPC web pages, the county's event calendar, and the email notification sent to the LRPCO email email subscribers. Uh, additionally, there is a dialin phone option for those who wish to use it. For our planning commissioners joining virtually, if anyone loses internet connectivity during tonight's meeting, please reconnect with us via phone. Please keep your phones and devices muted until you are called upon. Turn off sound to any other devices around you to minimize appearance. For our virtual attendees using Microsoft Teams, please turn off your video feed and keep your microphone muted as you enter the meeting and during the meeting. The Microsoft Teams chat is active to serve two purposes and two purposes only. To assist participants who need technical support and for participants who pose brief clarifying questions to the larger audiences. Uh while the clarifying questions will be monitored, they will not be formally acknowledged. Staff may address these comments as appropriate. Those who are planning to provide public comment may do so only when called upon by the chairs. All public comments must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony periods. As a reminder, speak up slowly and clearly toward the microphone above you. This people in the room uh so virtual participants can hear you. If particip uh if commissioners participating virtually wish to be recognized to speak on an item during the course of the meeting, please turn

your video feed on and raise the virtual hand in teams. I as well as staff and commissioner Peterson will be monitoring the video feeds. Uh do we have any commissioners uh or commission members who will be joining uh via phone without the video up? I don't think so. Um no. Okay. Um, unlike planning commission's regular meetings, the LRPC ZOKO agenda items are not public hearings. Therefore, public comment is at the chair's discretion. For the EV charging item, I will call for speakers momentarily. And for the work program item, chairman chairwoman Peterson uh will chair or will call for speakers at the end of the meeting after the committee discussion has concluded. Members of the public uh attending virtually will speak first followed by inerson attendees. The speaking time allotted will depend on the number of speakers we have this evening. I think for the Zoko purposes, we'll stick to two minutes. Inperson attendees, please add your name to the speaker list on the table. Virtual attendees, please indicate in the team's chat if you'd like to provide comment, and your name will be added to our list of speakers. Miss Flores will acknowledge your request in Teams chat. When virtual attendees are called upon to speak, you must unmute yourself by clicking on the microphone icon that is located on your meeting command bar. Moderator does not have the ability to unmute. You will be you will be muted when your time has concluded. As an alternative, public comments may also be provided on the public comment forms posted on the LRPC and Zoko web pages. Lastly, this is a public forum. Today's meeting will be recorded and posted to the county website. All information associated with today's meeting, both written or spoken, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act requirements. Please avoid sharing any personal information not like to be made public. All right. Uh so with that out of the way um as I alluded to this is a joint this is a double header two-parter meeting. The first portion uh will be the Zofo uh meeting where we'll be discussing EV charging zoning ordinance

changes and the second will be uh the 2026 2027 uh uh planning division work program. And so to begin Nick I don't know if you have any public comments but oh introductions. That's right. So we'll do introductions first. My name is Tony Striner and I'm the Zo co-chair and I'm chairing the first portion of this meeting. Tanley Peterson. I'm chairing the LRPC portion of this meeting. Natasha Alonso with the planning division. Flores with the planning division. Anthony Fuserelli with the planning division. Nick Rogers uh planning division and Zoko liaison. Uh Chris Crider, planning division and urban design. Jennifer Smith, comprehensive planning planning division.

Peter Robertson, planning commission. Jim Lantel, planning commission. Leia Bagley, Planning Commission. All right. And then virtually

Hey there, Kyrie Garcia, Planning Commission. All right. Uh Paola Newman, Planning Commission. I don't know why I said Newman. And then I think I saw you as well, Commissioner Torres. So I had a double muted. Oh, hi. I'm Adriana Torres, planning commission. Hey, good to see everyone. And we have one staff person. Okay. Yes, please go ahead and go ahead, Emily. Sorry. Hi, I'm Emily Knockbar with Department of Environmental Services

and Jason Papacosma with Emily and Department of Environmental Services, Office of Sustainability, Environmental Management. All right, that everybody from different commissions, committees, etc. Staff. Okay, great. Okay, so now that we're all acquainted with each other, um I don't think we have any public comment in the room. Do we have any public comment for the EV item? Nothing in the chat. Let me just check. A second ago, there wasn't. Nope. Okay, great. So, after the staff presentation, I'll check it again if we have any. If if not, we'll just reason on through. So, um that with that out of the way, we can go ahead and go right to the staff presentation.

Uh Commissioner Striner, Mr. Chair, it'll be uh Miss Nbar who's delivering the presentation today. Great. Hi, everyone. Please let me know when you can see the slides. Yep.

Great. Well, thanks so much for having us tonight. I'm really excited to share the work that we've done on EV charging. Uh, and we'll just go ahead and dive right in. I have about a 10-minute presentation planned, and then we'll make sure there's time for questions after that. So, um, specifically in in these 10 minutes, we'll talk about the policy drivers and key data, um, that are motivating this study. We'll focus on current limitations for EV charging and the proposed changes and intended outcomes for them and then we'll talk about next steps. So to start off um the community energy plan which was written in 2019 is one of the elements of the comprehensive plan. Uh overall this um plan has a goal of carbon neutrality across the whole community by 2050 and outlines a number of goals to achieve that. Goal number four is focused on transportation. So move more people with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Part of that is mode shifting um and focusing on on um sort of transit and pedestrian and bike friendly uh options. But then we also know that cars are part of the picture and so uh electrification of vehicles is the way to achieve uh a reduced greenhouse gas emissions from that part of the transportation sector. So specifically um the plan has us focusing on um promoting and encourage EVs throughout the county by supporting convenient charging stations. And then the county also created the carbon neutral transportation master plan which has more of an implementation lens of the community energy plan. And again this focused on EV charging in the county by supporting clear processes uh for deploying these chargers. Um, and then you might ask, okay, this was plan was written in 2019. Why are we focusing on this now? And we've been receiving in the last 6 to 12 months an increasing amount of resident feedback uh about ways there are barriers in our

community to EV charging. Um, a few examples are shown on the screen here of what we've heard directly from residents. on the left hand side. We've received quite a number of complaints about um vehicles that are not plugged in but occupying the spaces at the central library EV chargers and other um EV chargers across the county as well. Um some might be in compliance with that EV parking only signage that we have there while others are not. And then on the right side, we've heard from residents where setbacks or other parts of the zoning ordinance are too restrictive on where they can put EV charging today, preventing them from adding EV charging where cars are perking. In addition, EV adoption is growing really rapidly, both nationwide and in our community. So on the left hand side, you can see a graph of the annual EV sales in the United States with each column representing a subsequent year. And from 2019 to 2024, uh, EV sales, both 100% electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, increased by 400%. In the last two years, specifically in Arlington County, the graph on the right so shows the number of vehicles that are registered in Arlington County that are either electric or plug-in hybrid. And this amount has almost doubled uh just in the past 2 years. However, um not all the data is as enthusiastically positive as we were just showing. Um when we cross reference the um EV ownership data in the county with um housing types on the left hand side when we're just looking at population by housing type, 73% of residents in Arlington live in multif family type housing. However, when we look at EV registrations, 81% of EVs are registered to residents of single family homes. Now, there are multiple drivers of this sort of stark contrast. Um, but getting access to EV charging in

apartments, condos, or in the community can be more challenging than installing EV charging at a single family residence, which is one of the barriers um that has driven this disparity. And um just before we start to get into really the barriers and solutions, I want to make sure we're level set on some of the terminology we'll use. So there's three different um categories of EV chargers and charging speeds that we would use in different circumstances. So on the left side is called level one. This is the same as plugging a vehicle into an outlet where you plug your phone or your computer. Um this is pretty slow charging. It adds about 5 miles of range to a vehicle per hour. predominantly just used at the home where vehicles reside for a long time and can afford to sort of charge slowly. In the middle column is level two charging. This would be charging out of something like a drier outlet. It's a little bit faster than level one. This represents can or can be used for both home and public charging. And in fact, it represents about 95% of public charging in Arlington. It really I would say balances the cost of the upfront infrastructure with the speed to charge. And then on the right side is level three or sometimes colloquially referred to as DC fast charging. Instead of the alternating current charging like level one and level two like we have in our homes, direct current fast charging can reach much faster speeds. This is really high upfront cost. So it's really just used for um sort of high turnover public charging locations. And we'll sort of make distinguish it distinguish between these as we go through some of our solutions. So when we're looking at the zoning ordinance, we've identified a couple um barriers to adding EV charging today in Arlington. The first is that uh EV

parking, it doesn't reduce the total number of parking spaces required, but spaces that are labeled EV charging only today are interpreted to not count as a parking space. uh which can be limiting when people want to add EV charging and save reserve that EV charging for charging purposes. Um the next is that EV chargers are considered structures and structures are not allowed in required setbacks which sort of as I already pointed out initially that can be limiting because parking can still be located in required setbacks and we want to make sure people have access to charging where they park. And then parking requirements and sort of existing lot constraints limit the available space that's needed to add EV charging. Um while it doesn't take up that much space, it does need a footprint, especially as you're looking at the higher speed um DC fast charging. Uh and we have sort of constrained lots today that uh make it challenging to add EV charging. And so as we think about um conceptual changes to these solutions, I'll talk about them briefly here and then we'll dive into some more details on the following slides. So on the first topic, the solution um would be that spaces labeled labeled EV charging only or reserved for charging something along those lines would count as a parking space and count towards the parking minimum. Pretty sort of simple and straightforward solution there. Uh on the second point about setbacks, um we would consider allowing level one and really level two chargers anywhere on a property up to the property line. Um whereas the level three charging, we still want to sort of add more um availability to add the charging where it's necessary, but it is still sort of large mechanical infrastructure. And so

we've considered an 8ft setback. Um, basically those can be allowed up to eight feet from the property line uh under this proposal. And then finally, we're looking to allow flexibility in parking requirements in order to accommodate EVSC in sort of existing constrained lots. So, diving in first, starting with the um EV charging only spaces. I've pulled in a few pictures here from the county's lot uh the county's parking lots because the county has 51 public EV chargers on our property. The zoning ordinance obviously applies more broadly to all property owners, but using our own infrastructure is a really good example of sort of setting the stage for what other property owners can do. So on the left side of the screen you can see um courthouse plaza and central library have those signs that are kind of at the max requirement or the max sort of limitation of what's allowed under the zoning ordinance today where they can say EV only or EV parking only. And then some of our other sites just have the paint markings on the ground but not physical signs. And across these sites, we've seen um vehicles blocking charging. Either it's electric vehicles that are just parked there for convenient parking um or other vehicles that just sort of snagged a spot. And um I think it it's really a best practice in the industry to say spaces are reserved for EV charging only. And that basically saves the spots for people who actually needs to charge and also keeps the spots available so that people who are considering purchasing an EV see that spots are available um and factor that into their decision about purchasing a vehicle. It allows um property owners who installed the chargers to sort of more quickly recoup all of the upfront costs that it takes

to install a charger. uh and it's a good signal to the community as well um to to buy more EVs. And so the proposal would be these spots could now be labeled EV charging only, which also has a side benefit for our parking spaces from an enforcement perspective. Today, there's sort of many vehicles under many trims of f and different fuel types. And it can be really difficult for parking enforcement if a vehicle is plugged in to identify if that is an electric vehicle or not. But if the requirement is that you have to be plugged in, that's a lot easier to enforce and has a um sort of a positive outcome for the county's property in particular. Moving on to the setback considerations. So, um this is a photo I showed a minute ago. Basically the requirement for this sort of multif family um property is that the setback requirement for structures is the larger of either 50 ft from the center line or 25 ft from the right of way. So you can see that demonstrated on the image. The sort of green somewhat horizontal line is the property line and then the 50 and 25 ft setbacks are measured from their respective spaces and really that entire parking area is located within the setback. And so today, um, residents of this property are not able to add EV charging and sort of more easily electrify their vehicles. Um, and, uh, you know, kind of like I said, that's the only convenient location to add charging. And actually, the zoning ordinance already has precedents for, um, structure placement within setbacks, kind of where there's a good rationale for necessitating the structures there. Um, so some examples are benches, shelters, and bike share stations, flood walls. I won't read through all of these, but basically critical infrastructure that we need for our community is allowed in setbacks um where it's reasonable. And we think the

same should be the same sort of allowance should be made for EV charging. And then on the last point about allowing flexibility in requirements to accommodate EB charging, just want to dive into a little more detail about what those sort of limitations are today. So I've identified three of them on the screen here. On the top left is an excerpt from the zoning ordinance of the required parking and standing spaces for each use type. It's just meant to be illustrative. There's actually like a much longer table in the zoning ordinance, but basically there's a required number of spaces that you have to have at each property. Um, and there's really not flexibility on going below those requirements. On the bottom left side of the screen is an excerpt from the section of the zoning ordinance on dimensional requirements and that just outlines what is the minimum size of the parking spaces that you can have to meet those required parking standards. 15% of up to 15% of spaces and most lots are allowed to be compact spaces and the rest need to be that standard or full-size uh parking space. And then on the right hand is a very representative or simplistic drawing of a parking lot sort of even ignoring the accessibility requirements. This is a 100 space parking lot. There are 15 compact spots on the top left of the diagram. And and just to walk you through this diagram, the the thick black lines are the boundary of the parking lot. The white spaces are the parking space and the the gray area is the drive aisle. And so as you're looking at this parking space which at this parking lot which might be bounded by a property line, a wall, a pedestrian pathway, a building, many things above the parking area, there's there's not obvious places to um add EV chargering because you can't go in the dimensions of the spots. You can't reduce the number of spaces and there's existing

things that are blocking the boundaries of the parking lot. I would say in in addition to that there's nonzoning related requirements for EV charging too specifically um within the last two years the Virginia building code was updated to basically say that on certain types of properties basically non-residential properties when EV charging is added uh 5% of those EV chargers or at least one of those EV chargers has to serve a van accessible space and um you can see the diagram diagram for that van accessible space on the right. Um it's an 11 ft width with a 5ft access aisle and that in total 16 ft width is just smaller than the size of two standard size parking spaces. And so essentially um properties that want to add EV charging might have to take two parking spaces and convert them to the one van accessible EV charging space. In particular, the sort of ISD interpretation which is is common across the industry is that EV chargers can't serve the ADA required accessible spaces. And so this really needs to be an additional accessible space outside of sort of the already existing um ADA requirements. And so we're looking at a couple different ways for how we can provide the flexibility for EV charging. In the memo that we provided ahead of time, we include one of those examples, but I just wanted to take this time to point out a couple different ways that we've seen different jurisdictions be able to provide the flexibility that's needed. So, in Fairfax County, just uh across the border from here, uh their zoning ordinance allows a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, either administratively approved by the director or even parking tabulations aren't needed when uh they need to when

a parking lot's updated just to add EV charging. In PaloAlto, California, they allow property owners to reduce the dimensions of required spaces by a small amount. Basically making room for that level one or level two charging to be added in spaces. Um and then finally in Charlotte, North Carolina, and I would say all of these are sort of representative of other jurisdictions as well, their um zoning ordinance basically counts EV charging spaces as more than one space. And so by doing that, you're essentially reducing the number of required parking spaces, but framing it um in a different lens. And so we're still sort of working through exactly kind of which of these scenarios or um variations of each of these scenarios would work best for the community ultimately all sort of supporting the same goal. And so to wrap up the sort of spoken part of this presentation or prepared part, um so we're finalizing those updates. We're presenting to a couple other commissions and groups in the coming weeks. We're looking to seek board approval for these zoning updates in the late spring and early summer time period. And after that approval, we'll focus on sort of education both amongst the staff and the public about these updates and continue to advance other EV charging programs. In particular, I think curbside EV charging is definitely a next step. Um, and while outside the scope of the zoning ordinance, definitely important for the community. So, that wraps up um my presentation. Happy to to take any questions that you have at this time.

All right. Thank you very much. Um we'll go right into it. Um if there are any questions, comments, concerns. I have a question about the signs, uh you know, the EV only. Are those type of signs covered by the sign ordinance and which would limit the number of signs on a site or are those not really counted when you're under the sign ordinance? Do we know? Nick, I'll I'll uh let you field that question.

Uh yeah, you can imagine Commissioner Lane tell me that we've been working extensively with the zoning administrator and and her team. Uh so if it counts as a sign, it's a sign and uh it would need to meet the requirements for those incidental uh ancillary signs. Forgive me for not having the exact term off the top side of my head. Right. I know this.

Yeah. Um we've been reassured that uh because we started there as as okay where are the areas where we may need to make adjustments or recom or recommended edits and the we were reassured that the sign ordinance that article 13 um does not present a barrier for the installation of signs to identify the EV space or to um provide the instructions on hey this is this is for EVs So, so thus you're not seeing any recommended edits in article 13. Okay, great. So, we don't have to worry about that. Yes, sir.

Okay, good. Um, for the setbacks now, that's for any zoning any um any any particular zone or is it because mo, you know, mainly we're looking at commercial or we're looking at residential. Um, most gas stations that I've seen where they have charging stations are usually up against the property line. Mhm. Um, does it affect our gas stations that they would have to have a they they can't do it there currently with the setback rules?

Yeah. So, the these um setback requirements apply to all property types. Um, in Arlington, gas station charging is less common. It's easier for people to charge sort of where they work or where they shop or really where they live. Um, and the these zoning updates focus exclusively on accessory use EV charging. Um whereas perhaps a gas station, I'm just thinking out loud here, a gas station use might be more of like a primary UCV charging, which could um you know, is outside the scope of this study because I would like our gas station to be able to do that because if you get outside of Arlington, go to a Wawa or a Royal Farm, they have a bank, they often will have a bank of EV charging spots and they're right up against the property line because that's the most logical place to put them when you park for a while. Um, so I would like us to think about that. Um, again, it's part maybe as part of our commercial resiliency because it give the gas stations another another line of business and it encourages using use of um of EVs.

So if you know if they want to do it, they should be able to do it fairly easily. So keep that in mind. Uh, so that's I a couple other questions I'll pass on to. Um uh so I was wondering what about is the difference the structural difference between the L2 and the L3 uh chargers are they like twice as big or there's more electricity running through them so they are a little bit more dangerous if they were to be crashed into or you know what is the reason to um require the 8oot setback but not for the L3s but not for the L2s.

Yeah. So, Commissioner Peterson, just why why a a more um a further distance on the setback recommendation, the the encroachment flexibility for the DC fast charging as opposed to the level two charging? Yeah, Miss Nvar can take take care of that one.

Absolutely. So, um we tried to use the zoning ordinance um existing regulations as somewhat of precedent for these structures. Um, and maybe before I get into that, just taking a look at the images here. Um, the level two charging typically three, four, five, 6 ft tall, fairly narrow, maybe like less than a 1x one ft footprint. Whereas um DC fast charging has both sort of the charger um which is pictured here usually a much larger structure as well as um sort of transformers and other um electrical boxes to support the faster charging speeds. Um and we thought that these DC fast chargers were more aligned with other um mechanical equipment, air conditioning equipment that has an existing sort of around 8ft setback precedent. Uh both for sort of visual purposes, for aesthetic purposes, um and for safety purposes as well.

Um and then I had a question about um what happens if people ignore the charging only sign? Did they get a fine like you would if you parked in a handicap spot? And would there be like a transition plan for spots that used to be anybody in an EV can park here, but now it's charging only. You know, maybe we put notes on people's windshield for the first six months to warn them like in the future you'll get a fine or how do we enforce this? So, so I'll start and it's it's really going to be up to the uh the property owner to police their own uh police their own uh parking area uh to ensure that the benefit that they're providing uh to allow that access for EV drivers uh uh is it's really it's it's going to be really on them to make sure that those remain clear. certainly on the the county-owned uh uh sites that Emily shared on slide 11 that you know we own that property. It's up to us to provide that enforcement. But uh I I it is a clear point and a fair distinction to make that when Emily was mentioning uh parking enforcement. That's that's not if um in a lot uh in at a at a restaurant, let's say along Columbia Pike or on Langston Boulevard that someone's blocking that that that they're going to be calling one of our zoning inspectors in order to enforce that. the zoning ordinance and the recommendations before you don't um allow it and and facilitate it, but don't mandate it. You can imagine the the first amendment implications of mandating certain copy on signs and and and such for for for this sort of thing. So, uh, from an enforcement perspective, it's going to be really on the property owners who have made that investment, that considerable investment in their in their development in their parking area to make sure that that benefit can be

provided to to motorists. So, and and if I if I may, if I may, Commissioner Peterson, I want to make sure that there may be uh other elements of that that Miss Nakbar can fill in that I may have missed.

Yeah, Emily, was there anything I missed on that? Yeah, I can just touch a little bit more on the county's property component. So, in parallel with um the zoning amendment, we're also looking at an amendment to chapter 14.2 of the county code. Um there's enabling legislation from the code of Virginia that um allows us to um provide a citation for parking at a space labeled exclusively for charging. Today, these spots are um enforced just under a restricted parking um requirement that's fairly generic as to what the signs say. But since I guess there's an interpretation that charging is slightly different than parking and so um we're basically looking to adopt that code of Virginia language into the county code so that then county enforcement staff could enforce the charging only on county property. I I don't want to take up questions too. Piggybacking on that. So I'm glad to hear that. So I live near Central Library and I walk there once or twice a day. So I've seen um from the time the spaces were constructed and all the undergrounding to do the electrical and things like that. Um, and I've actually seen over time that now there are many, many more people actually charging there than there were before. Um, but again with the signage there, um, whatever we can do to come closer to saying that, you know, towing enforced something enforced. um just to make it a little bit more, you know, think about it twice because there are people that just plow into the library, not even to go into the library, to use the fields, to play tennis, to walk their dogs, whatever. Um and there are still some of those that

are hogging those spaces. Um I'm also curious, um because if I'm not mistaken, I think the tax credit for the EVs has gone away, at least for now. So, are we factoring that in? And I mean, I'm assuming when the administration changes that probably maybe return, but um I would think that maybe the up uh numbers of EVs reflected people really trying to race to get the tax credits while they could. Um so, that's one thing that I'm thinking about. And then lastly, uh, in one of our PC meetings, um, I think it was Commissioner Amado who talked about new technology that is available for, uh, EV charging that wouldn't necessarily require that. So, is the county forward thinking on that and how would that affect these machines that we currently see?

A bunch of different questions there. So, so we'll we'll do our best. Emily, Emily, do you want to take a a first shot and then I'll fill in where where needed?

Yeah, I I'll start with the tax credit question. So, the federal tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles expired on September 30th, 2025. Um, sort of as expected, the industry did see a drop off in sales in those immediate months. Um, but has seen somewhat of a rebound, like a rebound that was above what was expected. Um, and so we're continuing to track that data. EV ownership in Arlington represents almost 5% of vehicles registered in Arlington. Uh, and so sort of we are steadfast in our goals to decarbonize transportation sort of independent of what's happening um, from a federal policy perspective.

Can you remind me what the last question was? Technology. Oh, changing technology. technology, right? Yeah. So, we we tried to write this in like as technology neutral a way as possible. Um there are some sort of very new technologies for EV charging that are different from what we see today. Most vehicles that are available today aren't compatible with those other charging methods. But we tried to be sort of technology neutral in writing this so that we could accommodate um future iterations TV charging. Oh, we're gonna go Commissioner Torres next, then Rob. Yeah, Commissioner Torres.

Commissioner Torres, the floor is yours.

Yeah. Hi. Um, so I've actually studied this a long time and I know that we've been trying to get electrical electric vehicles for since the 1950s and I don't see that stopping even without the tax um incentives. Um, however, I see an issue with um maybe not focusing enough attention on um the infrastructure commercially because the way cars work now um parking a parking spot is a parking spot. Obviously, it would be better if a park every parking spot had a charger down the line. We're talking about 25 50 years. But for example, my building has two EV stations, but there's 500 units, and there's so much investment going into every brand of car now into EVs. There's really no way to go backwards because they're investing not just on the cars, but also um the materials that you need for the batteries. Like, it's a big it's a snowball effect. So, I'm wondering if there's any way to add the commercial aspect so that we're ahead of it instead of trying to catch up. So I I I'll be honest, I'm not sure I fully follow your question, but I do know that there are additional challenges that commercial properties, especially I would say multif family residential properties face in adding EV charging that are um you know, not things that we could solve with the zoning ordinance. And I think the county's focus on curbside charging as our next um sort of big chunk of work in this space is a solution that we hope will really solve charging needs in places where there are issues on a certain property with adding EV charging. Um and so the I would say we're still very open in in figuring out what curbside charging will

look like in Arlington. Um, it's growing in popularity across the US and we're involved in a number of sort of peer working groups to learn from other jurisdictions on sort of lessons learned, things that went well or things that haven't to try to develop a really good curbside charging program in Arlington.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, I think, uh, to add on to what Miss Dwar was saying, uh, you know, one of the three main focuses of this text amendment would be to make sure that spaces designated and reserved for uh, EV charging can count towards that minimum parking requirement. And so for a building like yours that that may only have two but there's 500 spaces and and there's market demand to add more well then those can just be integrated the the you know barring that they can that there's space for it and the conduit and and the cost uh can be justified that those spaces can be electrified and so this ordinance amendment would allow that. And then secondly, as Emily had had outlined and and as Commissioner Lantel had outlined, the flexibility to place the charging equipment, however big or small it is, as as technology changes, where it needs to be and where it makes the most economical sense for the property owner, commercial, residential, otherwise, so they don't have to run that that charging cord, that conduit, uh, to an area that would make it uh, infeasible. So, so I think I think by broadening and and uh providing some breathing room and getting the zoning ordinance out of the way of some of these basic uh uh stumbling blocks, I think it's I think we're setting Arlington up uh to to capture and and increase that ED capability that you're describing.

Thank you,

Robertson Garcia. Thank you, Doug. Um, let me preface my question by saying there there is no more ardent supporter of furthering adoption of electric vehicles than me. But the president has been successful not just in uh incentives for purchasing vehicles but in uh incentives for uh charging infrastructure uh in battery manufacturing incentives uh in lowered fuel efficiency standards. Um and so I'm just wondering if we're taking that into account. And I I'm afraid that the, you know, slight rebound that we've seen in electric vehicle purchases may be only temporary. Are we taking that into account as we think through this? Is there a belief that even if nobody else buys an electric vehicle in Arlington County, we need to consider these changes, too. I'm just curious how much that enters the calculation.

I'll let Emily start and then if I may need to layer in. So, Emily, thoughts on on Commissioner Robertson's question? Yeah, you know, I think if no one else bought a new electric vehicle today, there would still be electric vehicles around um in the market for a long time um available sort of increasingly at lower price points as those vehicles got older, which might allow EV chargers to start to proliferate in other neighborhoods where they're not today. Um, and so, you know, even in that worst case scenario, and a new EV is never sold again in the United States, which is is not really what we think will happen, that the user experience of EVs is um too good for that to be true. Um, we still need to make sure sort of everyone can get access to EV charging um in sort of clearer, more straightforward ways. I I just encourage all of us to keep the you know worstc case scenario in view uh so that we're thinking about it appropriately.

Thank you. Yeah. And I and I'll add just on that, you know, the whole point of this is to allow EV infra charging infrastructure. We're not we're not forcing it down, right?

So if property owners want to and this just opens the door. Um so Commissioner Garcia, uh your next Thank you. Uh so you know I definitely I I really appreciate this this study um that you all did and I thought found it really informative and you know as noted we actually had a conversation about this in one of the developments a multi-family development that came before the planning commission a couple months ago. So I would love to hear a little bit more Emily about kind of your th those statistics you talked about where you described right single family home ownership is increasing but obviously there are barriers to um multi- family um you know EV ownership and I'd like to just have you describe in your words kind of how this um would change that and enable I I know you talked a little bit about right um more charging in public places but talk if you could talk a a little bit about how this would influence changes in the multi-family dwellings. That would be great.

Yeah. Um uh let's see. There's definitely a few different types of multif family housing. I might just switch over to um talk a little bit more about this example. So this example is from the Fairlington community and this is like a fairly common type of parking setup in that community and sort of elsewhere in Arlington. And so when we're thinking about this sort of low-rise maybe like garden apartment style or just really low-rise multif family housing that's primarily served by surface parking lot. It's very clear that the setback solution um or sort of alleviating those setback requirements solves a an issue that a lot of residents face. Um, when we're thinking more about garagebased parking, I think even just figuring out how we allow more flexibility, uh, to add EV charging in spaces where lots are constrained today and sort of restricted by the parameters of the zoning ordinance, um, is really important for really any type of property. And so I think these solutions, especially for multif family properties, tried to help solve some of the issues that um those property owners face in adding EV charging.

Here is your reminder. Awesome. Thanks. I I really appreciate that. I think, you know, one of the things we talked about in the planning commission meeting was just how important it is to give access to, you know, create equity across our all of our residents so that everyone has the opportunity to to own an EV car. And so I I appreciate that this I think is trying to tackle some of those challenges. Thank you, Commissioner Amado. Am I on? Yep.

Okay. So I have two questions. I'm actually the proud owner of a uh electric vehicle and for the life of me I cannot park and charge and stay parked and stay charged almost anywhere. And so the question is a if I'm parking somewhere and then I need to remove the car once it's done charging that spot doesn't count as a parking spot. I think that's cuz that that happens all the time where they say, "Okay, your time is up. You're going to get penalized for overstaying by the minute." Um, so that then if I essentially have to go then find parking after that, then that spot is not parking for me. It's it's a placeholder. Um the other thing is um can we even look into having um kind of like they have those um uh mailboxes that are all together in one you know like in an apartment building you get them all in the same can you get like uh maybe a set of outlets cuz some people have their own cables you don't even have to have that much infrastructure to make that work so they can people can start carrying I mean I have a cable that is basically like you said, it's like a coffee machine type of I plug it into a regular outlet and it starts charging. So, I don't know if that helps anything to look at it more as a um as something that is available for people that have uh cables, but you don't need to have the whole, you know, wall basically of chargers.

Yeah, I I can take both of those questions. So on the first point of the sort of starting to receive penalties when you're parked in a space, I guess um you can make the argument that it is still a parking space. It's just a parking space at a more premium cost, which is is not too dissimilar from parking we have in the community. There's park there places to park that's more expensive and other places to park that it's less expensive. Um and and it's still a parking space, just you're sort of having to pay for occupying that space because someone else might be able to pay if if you weren't occupying the space. Um in fact, the county on the county's own property, we have sort of that similar, it's called a dwell fee sometimes. Um so that when you're finished charging, you're no longer paying for charging, but you're still taking up that space. So then you would pay um that dwell fee in addition. Uh on the outlets point, that's a great point. Definitely we support um EV charging via just having outlets installed. I think that is allowed under the zoning ordinance today um fairly in a fairly straightforward manner. Um and I think it's a good point though and we can definitely include sort of that in education we have for the public as we're talking about the zoning ordinance changes.

Thank you.

Okay. Um, couple questions. So, when we talked about the performance parking pilot, one of the goals was that when you're driving down one of these busy streets, there's always going to be one spot available. Um, and they set the pricing to try to aim for like at least one spot available. So, do we have in mind like, you know, you mentioned that you always want to have some spots available so that people see that they could buy an EV car and then always be able to find a parking spot. Um, and yet we're also trying to encourage more people. So, do you have a formula in mind like for every um X cars in the county, we need Y parking spots and as you see more people registering, okay, in order to keep that one spot always open across the county, we need to have, you know, a certain number of additional spots that we're always looking for. So um we don't have a formula quite to the way that you've described it but I do think this is a place where like economics and market forces should drive the correct number of EV chargers. So, um, as EV charger utilization increases, which utilization is basically like the percentage of time that someone's charging at a charger, a business owner will make more money um, from selling electricity at that charger. And sort of as they're making more money and seeing increased utilization, then there's an incentive to add more EV charging. Um, and I'd say also as um you can see those economic demands and you can also just see like as people want to get EVs or have EVs bringing up those questions where they live or where they work and and forcing sort of EV adoption in that way. Um there's actually I'll just I'll just end my answer there. Um, and then is there any way for um towing companies to interpret this

ordinance that they would now be allowed to tow from parking spots without having the county or the business owner call and say there's somebody who has overstayed their welcome in this charging spot. And I know there's a lot of predatory towing that tends to be of concern in the county. So is this you mentioned that there was some distinction in the ordinance between like parking versus this isn't parking this is electrical infrastructure. So there wouldn't be like people tow trucks just showing up and pulling people one minute over their charging time.

If the board were to adopt this recommended language, it would neither incentivize or discourage predatory towing that you describe. And so that's that's a separate um that I mean it sound again not a lawyer but we're talking about criminal implications, predatory practices and and I I don't see I don't foresee anything that's uh been proposed with this that would influence that one way or the other.

Yeah. and specifically for the um on county property with the ordinance that we're hoping to adopt um to allow the enforcement of EV charging only that language from the code of Virginia doesn't authorize towing as a penalty for this citation.

And then in just one final clarifying question, so you me you were talking about the parking requirement minimums. Um in the SPRC process, we often change those. So, is part of the purpose of doing this is so that people wouldn't have to go back and ask for minor site plan modifications like because theoretically they could ask for a minor site plan modification, get a lower parking, but that's like a lot of paperwork. So, this makes that easier so that we don't have to take county board or county action to get the lower um parking requirement. Yes, that is the objective. Great. less process.

Um, I've seen a number of houses where people have installed their charger, I guess level two charger so they can charge their car when it's outside of a garage or if they don't have a garage. Yeah. Okay. And I'm wondering whether we have this is going to go to HOAs. Sure. Because we have a lot of town houses where you own your house your unit pretty simple, but there's an HOA that gives rules as to what can be what you can do. Will this in any way override those HOAs if they have a restriction on you can't you can't have one of these things sitting in front of your unit or next to your unit so you can charge your car outside.

Your your covenants are your covenants your bylaws are your bylaws. And so if that's a barrier in your your HOA documents then that that's going to continue to be a a barrier in those documents. A number of states do override HOAs. Okay. often it's piece of landscaping and the like. Sure. Is a number of them have been attacking HOAs for the restrictedness, especially on environmental grounds. Yeah. You know, you can now hang your laundry outside. You sure don't have to have a lawn in the front. Sure.

Um, you know, this may be something only Richmond can do, but we might want to think about that also. So, um, oh, there is a language in the Code of Virginia that basically says an HOA can't prohibit adding EV charging in your own spot up to some like reasonleness standards. Um, so, so Virginia does have that precedent. Um, the law still says you're that the HOA could prohibit on like the common area EV charging, but not for like your owned or deed space. Oh, great. you know that that's that's the answer. If the Commonwealth already allows it, then we don't have to. So, thank you. That's good to know.

Yeah. One. Yes. Um and then just jump. Okay. So, you had given the example of North Carolina allowing EV parking to count as more minimum space. So, in our SPRC process, we often see um applicants requesting lower parking minimums and then we also hear the commission saying do more EV parking, do more EV parking. So, it seems like this would be a way to get both things accomplished, the lower parking minimums and more EV parking. So, is that something that you all are considering as one of the options to pursue for this project? Which one to be specific? Um counting EV parking as more than one space.

Charlotte one. Yes. I support that. Any other questions, comments, concern from the group? None. I'll make one final round. Do you have any public comments on this EV item? Great. Um I believe that's kind of where we sit with this. I think Thank you, Mr. Chair. a robust conversation.

Yeah. And so I'll add my my little closing remarks on this. Um I just think this is this is an interesting and I think a very good uh set of changes. You know, we're removing the barriers. We're not we're not forcing EVs down people's throats, but we're just opening the door if people want to use it. Um a lot of these uh zoning changes are level agnostic, so sort of future proof technology changes and they're not too procriptive in how we're trying to do this across the county. Um, and it's one of the rare cases where it was spurred on by comments of us of of the community wanting us to do more of this rather than less of something. And it was not an angry comment, uh, which is rare for us to hear. So, so, uh, with that, I think that's basically all we have for the ZOK portion of tonight's hearing. So, I will hand it off to Commissioner Peterson.

Great. Thank you very much. So, uh, now we are starting the LRPCP portion and we have, um, Mr. Lucarelli here, uh, planning director to talk us through, um, the work plan for the upcoming year. Um, this is, uh, going to be a great discussion right now because we're also in the middle of budget conversations um, with the county. So, that kind of has the ability to impact the work that the um, department is able to do. But as always, we're very grateful for all of the hard work you do. And um it seems every year when we have these difficult budget decisions, you guys still perform above and beyond. Um so I know you can uh do a lot with um less money, but we also want to make sure that that we can achieve all of goals that you have as a as a department um even during difficult budget years. So turn it over to you, Mr. Fuserelli. Great.

Well, thank you and thank you for that. and um really just appreciate the commission's partnership in I think all of the accomplishments um and hard work by staff, hard work uh by the commission and the community. Um, and certainly I think a lot of that will be reflected um as we go through tonight's presentation which I will um endeavor to get through efficiently so that we've got significant um balance of time for just open discussion and certainly dive deeper uh from there. Uh but again, good evening. Uh thank you. Um tonight I'll be walking through the preliminary uh draft 2026 into 2027. uh planning division work program updates uh highlighting recent accomplishments uh current capacity and major priorities for the next two years. Uh this is a draft uh that we're reviewing this evening really for discussion purposes with the committee uh as we consider uh potential refinements uh moving forward. Uh so here's the road map uh for tonight. We'll begin with uh organizational context and staffing uh followed by 2025 accomplishments uh key considerations uh shaping uh this year's work program. Uh we will then get into the current planning arena really looking at development review snapshots and activities uh shifting to comprehensive planning priorities and as well as urban design um before finally uh getting into ongoing support and good governance uh work of the team. And so uh moving through uh each section at a high level and diving into more details and discussion. Uh but I would like to begin with uh our people and the structure and personnel comprising the planning division.

Um the division is one of six within the department of community planning, housing and development and we are organized into three core teams. Uh first we have current planning managed by Aaron Shriber who um I think snuck in after introductions but he is he is present with us here. Um and uh the team has additional support uh for the for the site plan team from section supervisor Matt Feifer. Uh second with comprehensive planning uh led by Jennifer Smith and supported by section supervisor Matt Lad. And third urban design team supervised by Chris Krider. Um all three teams and my own work uh certainly are kept on track uh thanks to the outstanding support uh that we receive from our administrative staff uh both Joanne Harrison and Jazelle Johnson um who are both very familiar to the commission in supporting the work uh that you all you all do. So at full strength our division currently includes uh 28 full-time positions. Uh we have been carrying one vacancy a principal planner position uh in comprehensive planning uh which is included it's called out here um and it is included as a proposed reduction of one FTE uh per the county manager's uh proposed fiscal 2027 budget. Um and of course uh final decisions on that budget will not be made until uh the board meeting in April. Uh but before moving on, I do want to just recognize my entire um team and appreciate the the opening uh remarks in that regard for the outstanding work that they do um day in and day out. Um it's really a privilege to work with uh such a dedicated and talented group of people um the uh the division's work really would not be

possible without it. Um and uh it's just amazing to see the the outcomes and ways in which Arlington improves uh as a result. Uh so just a little bit more on the staffing. Uh this chart actually shows uh staffing level trend lines over the past six fiscal years including the proposal for fiscal 2027 and that one FTE reduction mentioned earlier. So as we see uh the most significant change in recent years has been in the capacity of the comprehensive planning team uh reflecting a decrease from 12 FTEES uh with the fiscal 2022 budget um and if approved as proposed uh would have nine FTEEs um in fiscal 27 on the comprehensive planning section. And while current planning and urban design have remained stable um over that time frame um overall capacity certainly is is tighter. And so this gradual yet impactful reduction um in the size of the team in recent years directly informs how we uh prioritize and pace the work of our program. Uh 2025 was uh looking back a productive year. Uh despite uh these changes in resources, um we completed 11 uh major site plan and use permit approvals uh four adaptive reuse amendments and 12 uh 12 extensions. You may recall midyear um because the code of Virginia did not uh carry forward uh extensions um legislatively for quite some time. Um there was an additional body of work uh renewing many uh many previously approved site lanes. Uh these actions um altogether reflect strong development

activity and ongoing demand um for timely review. And on the long range side we see it um we advanced several major studies. Uh we continue to support Barcraftoft departments um improvements and implementation uh tools. uh special glove studies at 6045 Wilson Boulevard and 1320 North Courthouse Road um at the tier one level. Additionally, five uh General Andy's plan amendments mostly associated with uh site plan uh developments um as well. Um zoning work uh included amendments supporting child care uh additional flexibility on child care uh barcraftoft um apartments implementation and uh the Clarendon revitalization district uh urban design among other things delivered uh this year or last year's edition of design Arlington 2025. I'll put a plug in for a a celebratory event uh coming up next Monday night uh down in Panagon City. Uh and uh section also um among other things supported uh some urban design uh work in placemaking and public realm improvements in Sherlington tied with um an incentives agreement with Weta. Uh this next slide uh summarizes uh a bit more of the scale of our work and just a few additional examples not already mentioned uh previously. Um so some of those statistics uh should be familiar with the uh the last slide. Uh but additionally 142 uh minor site plan amendments and use permits were brought before the county board uh for their consideration and action. uh most of them uh passing on the consent agenda. I

would note uh 27 uh site inspections uh related to urban designs work and uh in total close to 140 administrative changes um uh processed over the course of the year. These non-discretionary tasks uh represent a significant portion of our workload. Uh but additionally uh much of the team's work has led to a significant level of new development approved and entitled by the county board. So I think just looking at some of the the raw numbers here um nearly 6,800 uh new residential units approved through special exception site plan. Um use permit developments uh close to 350 hotel rooms and nearly 100,000 square feet of of new retail. um among other space. And so transitioning a bit into uh key work program uh considerations each year um several factors uh we we rely on several factors to shape our approach and our priorities. And for this year, um, we see here five, uh, key considerations, uh, reflecting more, uh, with overall having a work program that reflects more limited services from reduced staffing. Um, but also expecting a sustained high volume of non-discretionary development review um, and a need as well to focus range planning on a few key uh, priorities. Uh we also want to continue to be strategic in selecting um the work uh we're carrying forward on zoning studies uh in terms of projects we uh choose to advance or um recommend uh advancing. And then finally the need really to remain nimble and flexible. We don't know what's around the corner. We don't know what will come forward next

month. Um and so you know how do we how do we pivot when needed and uh sort of recalibrate where we are uh accordingly. Uh at the same time equity remains a core lens um across all of our programs. Um this certainly includes uh through our work you'll see uh equity analyses um integrated as part of our policy and zoning changes. Um you will see equity forward uh community benefits um approaches in site plan negotiations for projects that come before the commission and the board. Um you will see that through more inclusive uh public engagement that we um undertake with the community uh focusing on our work and as well as expanding the array of data tools uh we have available um to to utilize and to uh have available for the community uh to use as well. examples like the community vulnerability index um or the race and ethnicity dashboard. So as we now turn to uh development review and much of the upcoming focus uh for current planning, our our pipeline certainly remains active. Um as of February, we had 13 active site plan site plan applications in some state of active review. Uh won't read the whole list here uh but some of the examples include 3030 uh 30130 Langston Boulevard um W uh Waverly Ridge along Langston Boulevard uh the Alex Courthouse just a few blocks east of here um but other projects across our growth areas including the Spire at Fairmont, Dominion Arms, 1401 Wilson in Rosland and others. Uh looking ahead, uh we also anticipate seven new uh site plan

applications over the course of the year or or soon thereafter. Uh one um unified commercial mixeduse uh development uh as an outgrowth of the 2847 uh Wilson Boulevard special club study and potentially several uh a couple of form-based code applications along Columbia Pike. Um and that's not to mention uh some uh any adaptive reuse uh conversions that we may see come forward as well. Um to the left um you know so essentially to and then to the far left um really just a itemized list of the various uh site plans, use permits and um adaptive reuse uh projects approved by the county board uh last year. Uh this chart here uh shows five years of pipeline activity uh really depicting a snapshot in time taken in February of of each year. Um and as you can see here in uh green um I'm sorry in uh blue projects in active re review uh remain steady. um 13 right now is about the highest uh that we've seen at this point uh of any of the past five years. Um and uh the number of anticipated uh applications also remains high. So, uh, roughly 13 in each category. And when we, uh, factor in the preliminaries as well as, uh, several projects that have been on hold, uh, we're closing in on, you know, 35 projects that are in some way, shape, or form, um, being actively worked or on our on our radar to uh, be worked moving forward. Uh in addition to specific development

projects, uh the team manages an array of other uh ongoing activity supporting development and entitlements. Uh this includes ongoing uh support towards uh application acceptance, customer service center, collaboration on permit Arlington. Um I spoke earlier the minor site plan amendments, um use permits, but the admin changes and landscape plan updates. Um and then also as well along Columbia Pike, steady work uh continues to be focused on updates um to the admin rags uh specific to the formbbased code uh for that corridor. And then looking ahead at 26, uh a few key procedural priorities for us include um uh completing our work on establishing administrative regul regulations spec specific to adaptive reuse projects. um the um uh review the uh this year's administrative review of the Clarendon Live Entertainment Group um uh collective and then also updating uh standard site plan conditions uh in particular or including updates to the green building conditions for those projects not participating in the green building incentive program. and then continuing our work um each year as is the case with this year's budget um proposed there are proposed um updates to the fee schedule for uh planning applications. Um this year we want to prioritize getting to a select um array of application types and um some some thoughtful but and and necessary updates to uh some of the applications which um uh which need some further attention. So as we turn to comprehensive planning uh we have several ongoing uh studies

and initiatives those listed on this slide. Um within the past few months, we've uh completed uh zoning ordinance amendment for Port Meer Heights North. Um and the special glove study for 2847 Wilson that were both before the the commission as well. Uh looking at the remainder of uh Q1 and so this this is all in calendar years. Um but in Q1, we're looking to complete uh the next or the second edition of the uh expanded housing option annual report. Um as well as the review of the special glove study process. And then further in Q2, we anticipate completing uh the tier one review for the 1401 Langston Boulevard special glove study as well as uh the item you heard uh earlier this evening in the ZOKO uh segment. um on EV parking and charging as two of our top priorities. Uh our team is currently progressing work towards board consideration of the comprehensive plan update phase one uh and and the low residential study uh towards the end of 2026. And as an item formerly referred to as the U definition of family zoning study in previous uh iterations of our our work program, um our work on the household occupancy zoning study is uh right now targeted uh for uh completion towards uh Q1 of of 2027. And then as we look ahead uh to likely upcoming initiatives um these include uh essentially uh continued uh implementation uh towards supporting Barcraftoft apartments through additional land using land use but also permitting support um activities uh by our team. Uh looking at a FA initiating work on a phase one of uh zoning study

for landscape standards. whatever uh phase two or the next steps look like for uh the 1401 Langston Boulevard um special GUP study uh as to be determined through the end of that process. Uh we have that on our uh tracker as is something that we will be um continuing to advance um in the near future. And then we do have uh we are looking at um it is that time again for the five-year review of the comprehensive plan update. So looking forward to working with the commission um on that as well. Um we have a number of uh in um working with our colleagues in parks and recreation. uh we anticipate uh perhaps as a package uh but a number of property parks properties coming in for GLUP amendments to um better support their ability to implement uh park improvements or create new parks um or or expansions. Um and then a number of things we're tracking that could involve uh zoning amendments related to building heights maps uh either in Clarendon or Crystal City or elsewhere. Um, and then we'll talk more about, you know, next steps on the comp plan updates in terms of what might happen after phase one. And then something that we've been tracking and I'm sure many of you have um been reading or hearing or perhaps tracking yourself um the past couple months of the um general assembly's um deliberations in Richmond. um a lot of land use, a lot of housing uh bills um and some of them are um have been progressing. Some of them perhaps have been tabled for future years. Um and so we are closely monitoring that to see, you know, if there's implications coming out of Richmond for work we might need

to take on um in response uh to that and to to ensure we're compliant with um state code. And then finally, this uh last slide for comprehensive planning just kind of listings um really looks ahead at things we're unlikely to get to, you know, at any point in 26. Um we would hope to um get to or advance in some way in 27. But as I said earlier, we're really going to have to um sort of pace and prioritize appropriately. But we did um we wanted to share with you with you all you know what we are identifying in this in this class or category. So um that includes classes and instructions in uh uses in our districts uh the multifamily reinvestment study which had been tabled um some time ago but that hasn't it hasn't been forgotten um and so uh we continue to carry that forward as as something that is on our list. uh Planet Langston Boulevard implementation, further implementation especially related to um smaller sites um between the nodes. Um and then a few other items listed here um that were related to the commercial market resiliency in terms of looking at the major minor uh and admin change uh thresholds for um site plans. um an a more comprehensive zoning study related to the county's three public districts and the zoning code. Um a future phase we're identifying related to or a second phase of the landscape standards updates and um and more. And so um hopefully um knowing through LRPC discussions and elsewhere uh the commission has um certainly been continued and will continue to be

engaged on the uh phase one of the work of comp plan update. Um we uh this work is really being done um among other things to deliver a new uh to a new proposed introductory chapter uh to the comprehensive plan that doesn't currently exist um supporting the uh 12 elements that um that comprises um this chapter we anticipate will include guiding principles that align existing elements uh with those principles. Um it's going to emphasize livability for all and uh provide an inclusive and engaging. Um it's important to note that this this introductory chapter itself will not change uh zoning, land use, or any of the 12 elements, but we look forward to continuing to work with the commission uh moving forward this year on this. And just uh quickly at a glance in terms of our current um timeline and some key milestones as the team uh works to draft prepare uh that introductory chapter but also the guiding principles as a foundational uh part of that. Um we look forward to convening with LRPC in the May time frame. Um and then beyond that, working towards a request to advertise um continuing to move forward uh with engagement with commission uh engagement with commissions um as we uh bring forward a recommendation uh to the board. Do want to emphasize too at on this particular um initiative the level of effort that's gone into it particularly on equitable engagement. Um I think just wanted to put a special call out for that. Um due to some great work by some of our team members, we

were able to get outside um support and bring in consultants to really help um just uh ensure that we were doing equitable engagement in a way that we felt was uh appropriate and necessary for for this effort. Sorry. Um another key priority uh which um the commission has been engaged on and will continue to be so is the low residential study. And so um with this in partnership with environmental services and parks and recreation um you know this is an ongoing effort really focused on supporting better storm water and tree canopy outcomes in Arlington's low residential neighborhoods uh through the addition of an imperous area limit into our zoning ordinance uh which doesn't currently exist. So at a glance you can see where we are um in terms of the uh timeline really making turning the corner from phase one into phase two and we'll have more details to share and look forward to more engagement um soon. And then um finally also wanted to note some of the highlights of the urban design uh team and their efforts to lead and support variety of initiatives uh mentioned the landscape standards um within the zoning ordinance uh earlier and tackling those through a phased approach but also remaining active in biophilic city's implementation. Um architectural lighting is um a emerging uh topic for us as we have several uh site plan applications that are under review um without perhaps established guidelines uh to guide those reviews. And so this is an area that uh we will be um looking more at in terms of um what type of guidance can we establish

as we um potentially see more of these applications moving forward. Um and then beyond the design Arlington um awards program also looking at where we can uh chew um biting off some of the um items that fall within that major minor admin change umbrella and looking at um let's say some lowhanging fruit but some perhaps additional early or near-term wins related to um some of the details of admin changes and the facade um facade updates to those that uh perhaps can require less process or less ownorous process um for property. And then um we could certainly come back to any of these in more detail, but not to belabor um do want to just call out the team's additional efforts and um consistency and supporting u many countywide planning efforts that we're not leading um but that we partner and coordinate with in large part to ensure that when things come to implementation, uh we're hopefully trying to um ensure that any um limiting sort of any unintended consequences is and um extending our support where we can. And um I think the last slide is also just rounding out I think a number of other work areas um that are sort of nested within a good governance uh philosophy or mindset. But uh the support the lies liazing and support for a variety of commissions and committees. Um and then spoke earlier in terms of ensuring compliance with um not just Dakota Virginia uh from a zoning perspective but also um addressing what

seems to be a growing number of foyer requests um associated with our work and the work of others and staying uh connected at the regional level through council of governments and and other um forums. So, and then finally, I do want to just continue to note the um uh continued focus on staff training and development. Really hoping to in the future to be able to provide additional resources, support uh for that growth and development. So, with that, I will conclude there. Thank you for the time and attention and look forward to the discussion. Great.

Thank you very much. Um so, I will open it up to the group. Um, I think some of the things that we might be talking about this evening are clarifying um the 2026 priorities and projects. Um, what the budget impacts might be to the work plan that we're discussing. Um, work that we have discussed as being priorities for the commission but we may not see on the work plan. Um, future work that we would maybe think could be moved up sooner. Um, and then just more generally externalities. um things that are happening in the region or things that are happening in the Virginia General Assembly. So would anyone like to start Commissioner?

Yeah, I just be on say it that way. Um I won't remember like maybe three or four years ago when this was also an issue and and we wondered if if it's given up what we would need to do to sort of say that we understand now but not to let it go away permanently. I think we we did some so is this part of a conversation that we should do again this time um if you're recalling because I remember you were adamant about that as well. So, uh, you know, you started with that, so I thought I would start.

Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I just want to make sure I'm understanding the question correctly, but, um, and I do recall a few years ago in terms of I think, uh, while this year's format's going to be different, I think, from years past. I know that the commission chair, vice chair has always taken the opportunity to, you know, provide a few um, remarks in the context of the their bud the board's budget considerations in our work session. Um, so yeah, I think while not to to try to speak to back to those specific conversations, I mean, with this year, I will say um there's from a staffing or budget perspective in terms of reductions, there's there's a a I would say a true reduction, which is what this is being proposed to be, versus like a position that's frozen, which is another alternative. And I think if you were to look across I think if you were to look at the proposed budget book and it's thousand plus pages I recalling that there may be some p some positions AC elsewhere in the organization that would are proposed to be frozen for fiscal 27. Um this is not the case here. So this would be a reduction that in order to if it were approved in order to gain it back, it would need to be proposed as sort of an ad in a future budget year. So I'm not sure if that addresses your question. Yeah, I guess what I want to get to is if it is going to be something that you think is going to show away. Um have I guess framing it as all the work that still needs to be done and everything else so that the options for having it come back could be the road could be laid a little bit better in the future should economics change and things like that. That would be my only concern because I know how busy you all are. So,

this is the second year in a row we're we're actually losing. Exactly. That That's correct. We had um this time last year we had one vacant we had two vacant uh positions uh principal planner positions and um one of them was uh put forward as part of uh as a reduction. And so you can see from fiscal 25 to fiscal 26 um comprehensive planning was uh went from 11 to 10 and with this proposed budget it it would go from 10 to 9.

It that just frustrates me terrible because I view planning when I look at the county what it wants to cut is is that going to save money or is it going to cost money? cutting planning staff sees I see that as being pennywise palp foolish because down the road the slower the slower we approve projects and that's not just through site plan it's through administrative through all the various ones that every every project that walks in your door you have to get it out the door for that to move ahead by having fewer people that just to me seems it's going to be extending those timelines almost inevitably The longer it takes for a project to get get online, that's tax dollars. That's real estate taxes. I mean, part of the reason we want the development is that it goes straight to the county's bottom line. The slower it takes for those to happen, that means money's not coming in. If any one of these site project site plan projects gets delayed, let's say six months, that an enormous amount of property taxes that are not being collected for six months. if it's delayed by that that could be an FTE. I mean in some of these really huge projects. So it just strikes me as this is I continue to and I said this when you know a few years ago when it came it's pennywise and pound foolish for this county. You know there are certain things yeah you cut it it's a true it's a great thing to do but if we don't do it that's the end of it. This stuff goes to our bottom line. So I mean that's the vision position I would I would and will advocate to Ken board. Um, so I get off the so

well I know that you know we're preaching to the choir here in a way but um I just want to make sure that we here in our advisory roles are doing the proper thing to make sure that we're stating that this is important you know and and even if we lose especially with the numbers that it's not like it's going down you've got still people that want to come through here. So the amount of work that you have I mean it's it's been climbing. Yeah.

The long range things for example you know Natasha and I worked for years on plan Langster Boulevard. Yet the outstanding item is the implementation. There are many many sites along Langster Boulevard that could redevelop. If they redevelop they will be worth more money. they will be generating more property taxes and more probably sales taxes because a lot of those will be retail or so and yeah it's it's money goes right to the bottom line if not having that implementation guidance that a lot of those sites are just going to languish they're just sitting there and so you know that's a frustration to me because we've been working on planet Boulevard since when I first started involving this in like 2011 maybe and it's 15 years later and the conditions are still waiting to redevelop and we can't because we you know the big site plans are and we have a bunch of those and that's another one of my hobby here I'll let other people speak on that before I get to that one but the implementation work that's significant amount of work that now we're delaying yet again um and plan languard passed two years ago and we had hoped to have the implementation stuff maybe done this year, but obviously it's not happening and now it's not going to happen next year. So, we're talking about fiscal 28.

Is there a way to um show delays in when we thought projects would be able to be addressed and the decrease in staff or or is there on the reverse like we could get this project done faster if we had this FTE? Um, I know the comp plan update, we at one point had a vision that it could be done in January of this year. Um, and we'd be voting on it and so now it's delayed until, you know, maybe next year. So that's a principal planner position, comprehensive plan. Um, can we give examples like this? Like we would we had wanted to get this done by this date and now we can't and we lost those people and maybe that would have been achievable otherwise.

Yeah. And I appreciate the question and I'll address it in the comments as well. And um Jen and Aaron may want to, you know, and none of this is a complaint about staff. Absolutely not. You know, you guys are working working hard, really hard. I'm concerned about that, too. I don't know what your turnover is because of that, and I'm concerned about that. So, anyway, we I appreciate that as well, and I know we do. Um, so on the I'll jump in and just add something to this same conversation. I'm sorry, I don't know if you guys could see me. Do you mind? Uh, sure.

Uh, no. I was just going to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Orlando's position and it seems and and um Commissioner Peterson, it would be great to be able to see the alignment of of kind of yeah, what projects would slow what potentially that would result what the resulting I guess delayed tax revenue would be. Um, and then I also just think it's the other shocking part is in addition to losing out on tax revenue by not having the appropriate staffing, you also are we're we're failing the county and in that we're not able to deliver on other goals, right? So, we're not able to deliver on affordable housing. We're not able to deliver um on on all these different projects that I think the county really believes are are critical. And so to me it seems like a really great argument for kind of not cutting this position and I I would hope that we would be able to kind of push that forward as a as a recommendation. Thank you for letting me interrupt.

Absolutely. Thank thank you Katie. Um yeah, so a couple things. one is and just to be clear um this this position in the compre the principal planner position in comprehensive planning isn't nec they're not spending a lot of their time on the site plan review process. So um you know I think where where that site plan activity continues to remain high. I think you know we've um it's been helpful to have a constant number of site planners of planners in the current planning team. That said, um this reduction would continue to limit the comprehensive plan team support for because they um correct me if I'm wrong, review each and every site plan from a comp planning perspective. And so there is there is you know something that would not be able to be sustained at that same level with the reduction. But I just wanted to clarify that nuance. Um and then the other thing I wanted to say before inviting um others is that to your question it's I'd love to point to to say like yeah we could you know we could start this project or we could take that project. Um it the answer I think is it's a bit more complicated because um a lot of our work the majority of our work is really team work. um it's often interdep departmental team. So it's you know we're having to rely on team uh time from our partners in transportation or parks or economic development. So um what I would say is you know the presentation you're seeing of our work program tonight has been calibrated to you know to assume that FTE is taken as a reduction. Um, if it turns out that the final actions on the budget land somewhere else, then that would provide

us the opportunity. It would require us to go back and revisit and make some adjustments. But, um, Jen and Aaron, I don't know if you'd have or Chris anything to add there.

Yeah, I I'll just add um, and thanks for the the comments. I'd say the reduction does obviously put pressure on remaining staff because we still do have a number of projects in four or five categories of work and uh part of that responsibility is contributing to the site plan review that has certainly increased tremendously. So that is taking a good amount of our time and that is time away from from really those other four sort of core things that the comp planning team does. Long range planning, policy work, zoning ordinance amendments, maintaining and um working with other staff on the comprehensive plan. So all that being said, I think slide 14 that in your set Anthony is showcasing a number of the projects that we have shown on past work plans that we have initiated work but for a number of reasons um you know they are waiting to sort of resume and move towards completion. and then other things on that list that again we've been tracking for some number of years. Uh we still very much uh certainly want to complete our work on the introductory chapter of the comprehensive plan and think that that is really um as an outgrowth of work with the planning commission and through through its uh through our five-year review of the comprehensive plan will really be um important work for this team and all of our interdep departmental partners and interdivision partners. you know, moving ahead and um having also a constructive conversation with the the county board on what comes next with regards to the comprehensive plan is something that we are aspiring

to do and that that's on another slide, but um I think we've sort of um adjusted the work plan to address uh the staffing needs. And one thing that's, you know, not on this slide too, but um, you know, just looking at the resources that we can also deliver to the 22202 neighborhood um because the physician um was filled with a planner who really had targeted work there. And while the market is shifting and the demand may not be as high as it was a few years ago, um they're still centrally looking to implement both sector plans, Pentagon City and Crystal City. And um you know, resources are just limited in terms of fully supporting that neighborhood, those neighborhoods in the same way. Um, so I have a question about um both for short-term and long term. Are there things that you're considering that would make the department more efficient? And that could be like things that are listed in future work like major amendment, minor amendment, administrative changes like that has the potential to make the work um more efficient. I understand from talking to Mr. Feifer um a while ago when he he talked about that um are there things that we could do as a county it wouldn't be an immediate fix like more formbbased codes or UKMUDs that make like a review process theoretically more straightforward and easier and faster or even the use of AI. I mean we're hearing about people firing all their workers and relying on AI. Do you guys have the ability to use AI? Is it approved? How can you use it? So it's a big question about doing more with less.

Yeah. No, and I think part of the answer is all the above. Um I'll just just to say a little bit more about AI. Um I think the question is timely. We are we've had I mean as an as a county and organization um we have access um and rights for using Microsoft Copilot. That's that's sort of the approved um uh app uh for us to use. And um we as a department are uh I think as of a couple weeks ago um just began a several month pilot uh where we and staff from other divisions in CPHD are working with our department of technology services to really explore um how to how to um how we can best leverage the I would say power version of of Microsoft Copilot in a way to support our work. So just in the broader context of AI um you know I think personally I think that is it's something we're already doing right um I know our team uh members of our team are using it in various ways um I think and to be more efficient where we can I don't necessarily believe it's going to replace um the need need for planners um and a lot of what I've read and have come across in the planning field about the use of AI is how do you how do we leverage that technology and that resource to you know limit and reduce the amount of time we're spending on like not meaningful work so to speak to free up more time that we could spend on meaningful work and perhaps you know ultimately be able to start making um more timely progress on these other items. So ju just a few thoughts. I don't know if anyone else would have anything to add. Hopefully this time next year we'll be

able to report back on some of the, you know, interesting and and effective ways we are using um AI to to support our work. Uh, Commissioner Torres.

Uh, you need to unmute. I think

I just am always Okay. I'm sorry about that. Um, on my end, I've noticed that every single county after the pandemic has slowed down in the response time for any questions or basically things have changed completely. Whereas before, you could go in and maybe ask a question in person or have a one-on-one discussion with an actual person and sometimes resolve something within a day. Now things spread out two weeks. Um Arlington County is actually pretty good in my experience better than other counties but and and cities but um I have trouble I don't think AI is there yet where you could replace people to answer very difficult questions for projects. one and two um I I mean I understand that um budget and money and that's an issue but if anything I've noticed that we need more people because what happens is clients sometimes don't aren't patient enough for what's going on and we're losing projects that potentially could be coming to the table um because of those kinds of things. So, I don't know if that helps, but it's just my comment.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to support that because I think AI has a place, but it will not replace community outreach, being able to sit down with a neighborhood. Um, the type of stuff that Natasha and I and we would do for Clax Boulevard, we we'd meet like once every couple weeks, have an open house. Hey, I can't do that. and we got amazing feedback from the community from just talking to individuals that was affirmatively folded into Plan Heistster Boulevard. So that's the personal stuff that we really do need. You need a warm body to be able to do that. Um and I don't think we do that as much as we should be doing. Um I think there's a real need by a lot of neighborhoods would love to have a planner come and talk to them at a community meeting. um you know just to know how things work because it's so much inside baseball to what we do here. Uh that that is that's something that it's a it's a fuzzy thing and you can't put an FTE on it, but it's very real and it's I I see that as really part of collectively what we really should we need to be doing. So that's again throwing that out there. It's it's hard to quantify but it really requires a person to be able to do those things. Well, well, if I could, I mean, that that's helpful feedback and I I would say, you know, a little bit in terms of how we're doing our work. We continue to operate in a hybrid format. So, most of our team members are perhaps in the office two or three times a week. Um, but I think whether the whether a an individual um in the community has a question about like a sector plan or a development proposal. Um, you know, I think we prioritize ensuring that we are we remain accessible. um via whatever you know mode of communication. Um so there are cases where we would schedule you know to connect with folks who may have questions about how do they pursue this

project you know either via phone via teams via in person. Um, I know and and Erin, if you want to speak more to this, the um the uh customer care center down on the f on the ground floor within the past uh couple years has expanded its operating hours. Um, so that's not just planning and actually planning is um a limited portion of that. Um but yeah, I mean I think any examples or additional um instances of where that's been a challenge. I think that's just back for us so we can carry that forward and um see, you know, where there might be areas for improvement. I go to Commissioner Garcia and option.

Yeah, thank you. No, I I I also was going to add, you know, I think it's great to use AI, right? I think we're all trying to learn how to use it. And I I wholeheartedly agree that you can't have someone Yeah. You can't have AI go out and talk to community members. And you also are going to need people to make sure that what the AI delivers to you is accurate. I mean, for those of you who've used it, there's a ton of hallucinations. And that's not something that you want to happen when you're taking community input and you're planning something, you know, for their neighborhood, for their community. So, I think it's a a a risk. I think it's important to look into it, but I I don't think it would replace someone who's out there, right? And I know we mentioned the 2220 area. This is an area that's going to continue to have a massive amount of development. Um, and having, you know, that planner engaging with the community, uh, as much as, you know, Matt Matusk was was really, I think, important. And I I think it helps make the process um, more seamless and it makes it go quick uh, more quickly. Do we ever um do regional partnerships or like uh coordinate with neighboring communities on work kind of like have some economies of scale and thinking about like definition of work with Alexandria and Fairfax and Montgomery County or maybe just the Virginia ones um and say like hey you guys do this part of the report, you guys do this part of the report. We'll each do our own local analysis, but like would you save time and money by partnering with them or would that just be like extra layers of work that would actually not save us time and not really be that helpful?

We all have common Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's a great question. I don't know that we've I can't think of a recent example where we've done perhaps exactly what you've described, but Jen, I don't know if you um might want to speak to I mean, we certainly um on a regular basis are connecting and connecting connected with our peers in Alexandria, in Fairfax, across the region, etc. Um, and so, you know, I don't know, Jen, if you want to speak to some of the just general conversations that you have with, you know, our partners in the city and elsewhere, um, on either specific projects or initiatives. Um, and then I I'll see if I have anything to add beyond that.

Yeah, I would say, you know, it's more of a open exchange of ideas rather than a targeted uh, work program solution. Um maybe there are things that could be, you know, explored in the future, but um we certainly want to be responsive to our zoning regulations or policy driven um by our board and certainly influenced by our community. So to some degree, what may be right for the adjacent jurisdiction may not you know fully fit the needs here. So um how much efficiency could be gained? I think until you sort of test it, you know, it's hard to it's hard to know. And then you know certainly I think the exchange of ideas at the planning director level or through conferences and web base I think certainly is always pushing us out on the best practices and trying to be progressive. So, uh, bringing, you know, what we hear about new ideas, but I think, you know, that's always influenced too by people in the community who are also doing their own reconnaissance.

Thank you. Um, Commissioner Amado,

I'm doing it. I'm coming on. Okay. So, I'm wondering if um it this is might already be happening. Do you use consultants on a more of a project based like if you need a particular type of person for a particular type of project um so that you don't have somebody on staff full-time you want to

sure I can um jump in and say at least from a comprehensive planning perspective we we have used consultants but on a very limited basis and um you know really needing to request budget dollars for that. Um where we feel like we need that third party extension to really help with either engagement or um you know just some of that best practice research of of what they are seeing or um you know in other jurisdictions to sort of bring some of those new ideas. You know we've done that really for our larger our larger sector plan efforts. um it's not part of our daytoday work um by and large. However, and what we have seen is while yes, that may give us some additional sort of uh basi staff, you know, to do that work um by extension and and resources with the community. It certainly needs to be uh influenced by staff so that because they're coming from the outside and they're not as knowledgeable about the community and what the board needs, what the community needs. So, it's really important to have staff and that's usually still an interdep departmental team and more people from my team and um so that's not necessarily reducing staff resources I would say.

Yeah. And I would I would just add to that too. I think the um historically where where we have brought in consultants most often has been for those really large robust intensive um sector planning or area planning efforts that are covering a wide geography. They're engaging a lot of people um and um you know in many cases uh delivering you know very detailed planning guidance and recommendations. Um and so in in those cases having the outside consultant support has helped us uh be able to complete those projects um you know in a defined time frame. Uh but as Jen said, it's you know that that does take uh some amount of budget and resources uh to be able to support that.

But the complement of staff um over time and not just this staff that we have today brings a lot um of many valuable resources. We have uh Chris's team. Um we have designers. We have um more policybased people. We have zoning experts. So there's a lot of people not only in the planning division that we can draw but resources elsewhere in the county I think to really um make a a the right team complement. That's not to say that we don't uh you know to some degree try to move we may not be looking to fund that you know just as an ongoing basis. questions. Well, we are a little bit early, but I think that's okay. Um, any final comments before we go to Well, let's before we go to public comment, can we just talk about what the next steps are? Like, we've got a budget. um work session coming up and potentially there would be an opportunity for our chair to speak to the commission's um thoughts on the work plan and the budget or you mentioned there's a different process this year.

Yeah. So, interestingly, I was reminded just a few weeks ago that this year the board is taking a different um approach whereby um instead of having commission representatives at each of the department's work sessions um on April 8th, uh there's going to be two windows of time uh in the afternoon and in the evening. Um we can get those details uh to you if you don't have them already. Um, but those windows of time are essentially the opportunity for commission chairs or their design to be heard by the county board and provide their testimony that they otherwise would have provided at the department's work session. So, they're essentially just kind of like centralizing and um condensing all of the commission input into April 8th. And I think the two windows are being provided recognizing that one may work better uh than the other um especially for this commission because uh the recessed date of the or the date of the April recessed planning commission meeting is April 8th. Um so that so yeah I mean that would be an opportunity for the planning commission and all the other advisory commissions to be able to um share their perspectives on the proposed budget and potential implications for um you know the the county groups that they work with.

Okay. So then I guess our uh commission chair will likely be going to that meeting and putting together her thoughts um that have she's collected from tonight's meeting. So if anybody has any final comments or thoughts, uh, please feel free to say them now or to email them so you don't miss them badly. So, okay. Um, before we go to public comment, is there anything else that we want to discuss or address, Natasha? I don't think we have anything any other items or anything. Okay, we're ready to move. Yeah. Okay. So, we have is it two people in person to speak um for public comment? Is that right? Do we have anybody on they have somebody on?

Yeah, there is a Susan Bland. I'm not sure if she's still on the call. I did see her earlier. She did ask to speak as on this. Okay, great. So, why don't we um do online first since there's one person. We'll do two minutes. Um, and oh, it was land. Land. Miss Land. Miss Land, uh, you're welcome to come off of mute and we'll set a timer for two minutes. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay.

Um, my name is uh, Susan Land and I'm a volunteer with a tag, the Arlington Tree Action Group. ATG's mission is to support the county's goal of achieving a 40% tree canopy across all of Arlington. We believe that trees planted or preserved on private residential property are the key to achieving this 40% goal. I would like to express a tag's dissatisfaction with the scope of the low residential study that is currently being conducted by the planning division. The stated goal of the study is to quote support better storm water and tree canopy outcomes in lowdensity residential areas through new impervious area limits. However, it is also clearly stated that the biggest imperous area on the residential lot is not being included in the study, namely the lot coverage of the house itself. According to the county's own forestry and natural resources plan, section 1.2.3, two key recommendations to help preserve and plant more trees are that the county evaluate building lot coverage specifically. It has been over 2 years since the FNRP has been published with these clearly stated priorities and yet the low residential study being conducted right now ignores these recommendations. We urge the long range planning commission to work with the county board to include lot coverage as part of this low residential study for the sake of our trees. Thank you.

I can't basically a few questions. One was uh in reference to the multif family reinvestment study. It's my understanding from what you were saying that we don't have to concerned about seeing it in 2026. That's something that would be after that. That's correct. Secondly, when you talk about building height maps related to ordinance amendments, uh that's not a comprehensive countywide sort of study, is it? This is I know about Crystal City and Pentagon. Is there something else that's comprehensive or

No, it's it's it's not countywide. It would be there have been recent examples in the past especially in Clarendon um and in one case I think Crystal City where a specific development project in order to be approved and supported um or allowed needed an amendment to the map that's the heights map for those areas that are nested within um the zoning district. And so, you know, those districts are somewhat uh distinct and that there are other areas of the county that don't have the heights map from the sector plan or area plan that

we have several, but this it's specific to things that have come up as

and I take it the bianual updates is standard thing that you do in the background. And uh and if you have any examples of what specifically we're looking at with uh coming from the legislative session. And the last thing I just wanted to tell you is that addressing increasing volume of foyer requests is something that I can tell you just from personal experience. A lot of that probably has to do with a different filtering system compared to where you go in on the seventh floor, get a folder and have access to a lot of things automatically prompting a response that to get something more specific, you need a foyer request. So there's been a a distinct change over the years but more so when it shifted after the pandemic seventh floor to thank you very much but thank you for your public comments and Mr. Richards.

Hi thanks Bill Richardson president Civic Association. Uh I'd like to also speak uh about SCO residential study and uh many thanks to Nick and others worked very closely with us answered a lot of our questions. Um as he knows uh we think the scope is truncated. Uh the board has reversed course. It is no longer ordering up a comprehensive study of our lot coverage rules that it required in what was it responding to then? Clear cutting mature trees for increasingly large redevelopments driven by market incentives. Depleting our stock of smaller, more affordable at the very time we are most concerned about affordability and the obvious impacts of neighbors. Instead, staff has now been redirected to focus only on storm water runoff issues of impervious services of all kinds including but not limited to regarding consultants. There was a question about that. I would urge you to ask what the Jacob's engineering study will be doing study. Will they be looking at any impacts of new impervious surface limits on building size? What impervious surface limits have they been asked to study? Were they selected based on how much improvement focus we now have today which is increasing dramatic? What about the 35% limit in Falls Church, 25% limit in the 25 to 40% limit in Virginia Beach? Are staff considering impervious service limits even greater than the average already existing in the two watersheds under? Finally, don't wait till the end of this year to review proposals that can only peripherally address these concerns. Rather, as I urged in October, create an

LRPC subgroup, including a tag and civic associations to look at how best to expedite action that will actually deal effectively with any irreparable damage to our 27 neighborhoods. Thanks very much. Thank you to all of our public speakers. Uh, that concludes our meeting, but feel free to always email Natasha or myself if you have um follow-up questions or Commissioner Bagley about our um upcoming budget work session. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay.