Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, this isn't even Okay. Welcome to the April 29th, 2026 digital planning committee meeting on the climate action plan, CAP, and the special general land use planup study report. We will be holding a hybrid public meeting which enables remote electronic participation as legally authorized by the code of Virginia per the planning commission's electronic meeting policy adopted July 7, 2022. Do we have any planning commission I don't see anyone yet.

Okay. All members of the LRC are meeting here in person. This meeting is being recorded for our public records and will be posted on the Arlington County Commission meeting YouTube page. Avoid sharing any personal information that you would not like to be made public. At this time, I'd like to orient everyone to our hybrid environment and cover a few specifics about how tonight's meeting will run. 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 events calendar, and the email notification sent to LRPC email subscribers. Additionally, there is a dialin phone option for those who wish to use it. Uh for our virtual attendees using Microsoft Teams, please turn off your video feed. I will address when it's appropriate to turn it on in a moment. You sign up for public comment. The Microsoft Teams meeting chat is active to serve two purposes. To assist participants who need technical support and for participants to pose brief clarifying questions to the larger audience. While the clarifying questions will be monitored, they will not be formally acknowledged. Staff may address these comments as appropriate. The team's chat should not be used for discussion or inappropriate statements. Those who are planning to provide public comment may do so at the end of the meeting as the chat may not be used for that purpose. All public comments may be shared must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony period. I would like to remind everyone in the room to speak up, speak slowly and clearly and point to the microphones to allow virtual participants to hear. Uh, additional notes for LRPC members. If commissioners participating, well, we don't have anyone virtually. Um, okay. Um, unlike the planning commission's regular meetings and hearings, the LRPC agenda items are not public hearings. Therefore, public comment is at the LRPC chair's

discretion. I will call for speakers at the end of each agenda item after the committee discussion has concluded. Members of the public attending virtually will speak first, followed by in-person attendees. The speaking time allotted will depend on the number of speakers we have this evening. In-person attendees, please add your name to the speakers list on the table. Virtual attendees, please indicate in the chat that you'd like to provide comment and your name will be added to our list of speakers. Miss Alfonso Ahmed will acknowledge your request in the team's chat. Uh 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. The moderator does not have the ability to unmute you. You will be muted when your time has completed. As an alternative, public comment may also be provided on the public comment forum uh forum posted on the LRPC web page. Lastly, this is a public forum. Tonight's meeting and be recorded and posted to the county website. All information associated with tonight's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act requirements. So, we can get started with our first agenda item. So Alfonso, can you call that please?

Sure. This is the special love study report and we've got uh Jen who just uh popped up offline. She's

Tasha and LRPC members. Uh good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Jennifer Smith with the planning division and I am joined here uh with Matt Lad also from the planning division as well. Um what uh we're hoping to do is to provide a brief overview of our report that we just provided to the county board. We shared that with you uh last week and hopefully uh the LRPC members will have had an opportunity to look over the report. I will just go over some key highlights from that and then we would uh welcome the remaining time that we have to uh see if we can be responsive to any questions that you may have. Matt, thank you for pulling up the slide. You can go to the next slide. So, by way of background, the Arlington County special general land use plan study process was created in 2008. Uh it was uh developed by the county in response to the county board to guide how requested general land use plan changes that are tied to site plan proposals are reviewed and with an emphasis on evaluation and public input ahead of specific site plan application reviews. Over time, stakeholders have raised differing concerns, including requests for stronger community influence. Criticism of studying individual sites is not comprehensive and not the appropriate way to determine a land use vision and some have had frustration with the long timelines. Uh that also increase cost and risk for applicants. Um here you can see our process again is to determine the appropriateness of the requested general land use plan change. staff frequently brings to the forefront

for discussion other land use designations that may be appropriate in the context of a site and with the uh based on what the applicant is also seeking. Um we've been doing that in partnership with LRPC and also involving other community stakeholders to the table for discussion. We are really striving to achieve high level planning analysis focused on land use, transportation, public space, housing, sustainability. Uh building forum is a piece of that as well. And the outcomes uh give us a way to engage the community and partners in future land use discussions um in a way that is ahead of specific site plan applications. Um next slide, please. the the goal of this review um we were responsive to the county board who was seeking more information on the process and uh some of the responses um that the concerns that had been elevated over time. So we're clear in this report that we are objectively uh seeking to assess the benefits and the challenges of the current process and also identify improvements. Uh we want to make sure however that we are maintaining an efficient review through these through these studies with meaningful community engagement and also upholding the county board's policy. So the report contents um approximately 3940 pages. Um we do have some detailed information in tabular format about uh applications. We have different info infographics um and images uh to help uh round out the text. We cover the background and the process by which uh applications are

reviewed and because we've had multiple process shifts uh since 2008. We have uh shared information about what that process evolution um has looked like. We've had 22 applications to date with 16 of those uh coming forward for action to the to the county board either um to recommend advertisement of a general land use plan or to not recommend. Um more details about each study's timelines and our interactions with LRPC are detailed in the report. Um and again sharing different perspectives on the issues. Uh we talk about study benefits. We have also drawn out four near-term refinements to the process that we're proceeding with. Um and then again we touch on conclusions reinforcing the benefits of the study process and um again some details about the 22 applications. In terms of the benefits of the special GLUP study process, um clearly it allows for broad community input to consider the appropriate land use vision. Provides a forum to consider highle planning guidance without the distraction of a sightspecific uh design proposal. Gives us an opportunity to evaluate land use and scale. uh allows for thorough planning analysis to account for basic planning elements that are in a comprehensive in the comprehensive plan to make reason recommendation for potential change to the land use. Uh provides for more streamlined and efficient SPRC process on the back end um for projects that have already undergone a special glove study. Um and we also as mentioned address appropriate building height and form recommendations.

So despite some of the critiques um that we've heard, we uh consider that it's an important planning tool that enables redevelopment of sites that might otherwise would not have had a path for a change without a costly or timeintensive area or sector plan updates. Um so just to touch on some of the near-term improvements here um which uh are really uh key to this report. Um some of these should be familiar with those of you who have been participating for the last two special glove study applications. Um but we are uh formalizing here um to bring forward a hybrid tier one and tier 2 review option. Um we need to establish a new fee for that which we intend to do uh at some point this year. Uh timeline is yet to be determined on that. Um we are intending to continue to move towards a more focused glut study document um which you have seen recently. Um we are establishing a new appeal process that would allow an applicant to seek county board support to move from the tier one review directly to a site plan review without a tier 2 review. Um which would have been staff's recommendation. So that appeal would um if the board were to support that they would be able to move forward to the site plan application phase. Uh and then fourthly the option to uh allow applicants to pursue early development review uh simultaneous or overlapping with the the conclusion of the special glove study uh phase. Um and this may truncate their time frames by a few months. Obviously that would be at

their own risk without the conclusion of the special general land use plan study. So um again just to draw some conclusion about what is included in the report is that um we are uh planning to move forward with these four refinements. Some of them uh still have additional work like the fee I mentioned um introducing this uh new appeal process into our administrative guide. Those are two things that we'll need to complete this year. Um but we're not recommending any major changes to the process at this time and any um restructuring to the process. We would um be doing it in consultation with LRPC as we are here with the board. Um and we may have an opportunity to do that either as part of the ongoing comprehensive plan update process or um as an opportunity soon thereafter. So with that I'm happy to address any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Smith. Um so why don't we quickly um go around the room and introduce ourselves just for the benefit of anybody who's watching virtually and then we can get into um our questions about the report and then a discussion about the four recommendations. Uh, so I'm Tenley Peterson, um, chair of the LRPC and a member of the planning commission. Adriana Torres, planning commission. Here are Shenners, Park and Rec Commission. Uh, David L, Forestry Natural Resources Commission. I'm not actually here. I don't see you. Invisible man. Right.

Modello, Planning Commission. Nia Bagley, Planning Commission. Uh Eric Berkkey with the planning commission. Rich Julie, director of climate policy for the county. Natasha Fo with the planning division. Flores with the planning. Sorry about doing introduction. Great. John Bury already climate policy office. Nick Cummings Walsh Kucci. Thank you. Okay. So, we'll start off with questions about the report and then we'll go into the four recommendations and see if we have questions or comments about that. So, any of my planning commissioners have questions about the report?

Can I super basic? So, forgive me for asking such a basic question. What problem or problems are we trying to solve here? really like in a nutshell by by undertaking this review at all. Miss Smith, can you address the reason this report?

Yes, thank you. Thank you for the question. Again, um the county board asked us to to conduct this review and some of the concerns that we were hearing were is this process fair? Should communities um where an application is occurring have greater influence over the outcomes than um more broadly as we uh work in in partnership with LRPC and with an expanded LRPC. Um certainly bringing uh local neighbors, host neighborhoods into the table. Um but you know, we're we're looking for broad and inclusive engagement, but there were some concerns about that. Um there was also some criticism in terms of should we be doing um studies uh one site at a time? Should we be looking more uh holistically or or more uh for broader geography? And then there was also um concerns over time in terms of how timely we were able to handle and and conduct these studies. Um we've had some um uh evolution in terms of how we have handled them from a staffing perspective. Very early on we did not have uh dedicated staff resources. That's changed a little bit in the way that we have designed our um or sort of fit uh this process into our work plan. While we can't predict what applications are going to come in, um we have tried to reserve staff resources so that we're able to handle these um in a timely manner. Um we have introduced fees over time and we certainly had a swell of applications at uh you know several years. So that led to some backlog and we have moved things through. So we I

think um over time we have definitely increased um or excuse me decreased the review time the wait time for applicants to have their application reviewed and and move to SPRC. So those are some of the issues that we were um hearing over time and the board asked us to look at that. they um and what we wanted to be able to share back with them in terms of while, you know, it may not be fully predictable when an applicant submits uh an application, how quickly we're going to be able to look at it um or how long it takes because every case by case is different. Um then uh you know what that means is that um we're able to process the information um and move along a little bit more quickly. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So if there are no further questions about the report, we can go on to the four recommendations. So, um, questions or comments about the recommendation for a hybrid tier one two review. We've already kind of piloted some of these. So, this is just, um, kind of formalizing the process and introducing a fee and, you know, um, there are lots more details other than what I just said in the report. Um, but so comments or questions about that? Commission is the idea that in tier one then the process would end with the with staff basically they would make a determination. It doesn't go through the whole process. It doesn't go through the planning commission and just go straight does it does it go to the board.

I believe we still review it. It would just be one meeting instead of possibly two. We still review it. Is that correct? Sorry. Just to clarify the question. Are you speaking about the recommendation for a hybrid? Yes. Review? Yeah. The hybrid tier 2 process. Yeah.

Okay. Yes. So, so what we um have done in on two occasions and we would anticipate having the opportunity to do again in the future is when we get an application and we feel like the review um either has some foundation uh in terms of uh it has some relationship. it has some level of consistency with an adopted plan, but it may need the actual land use designation change. Um, and that and that was seen by the most recent study for 2847 where the site was partially within the Clarendon Revitalization District but partially out. And however, we could really draw to the Clarendon sector plan and say we were envisioning redevelopment there, but we wanted to make sure that through the LRPC process, we could validate that and think about uh the designation, the expansion um for the portion of the site outside of the district. Uh think about the the scale of development. In any event, we thought that we could do that through a hybrid review, a more collapse, bring in some of those um more detailed questions of a tier 2, but not necessarily separate that into two review processes. So, that's what we're intending to do through the a hybrid review is be able to collapse those two steps into one. Um certainly, we would engage the community. We've done that through online engagement and we would also meet with LRPC. We would still prepare a study report. Um we're not thinking that we're going to do that in all instances. It's really when we feel like a site one may have some grounding in an adopted plan or uh the issues are just going to be more um straightforward, less complex.

Okay. Thank you. Um, any other questions about the hybrid review? Okay, then we'll move on to the refined appeal process. Um, currently applicants can only appeal if staff decides not to advance from tier one to tier 2. Um, and the proposed update would allow appeals when staff decide to advance to a tier 2. Um, thoughts about that an appeals process? I don't know at what point I can make a comment about some of the dangers that I might see in some of this any okay

like so there is such a thing as application segmentation where you would maybe split the parcel and then say this isn't actually tier one uh and then but you're really meaning to do a tier 2 project and you're just looking to do an easier less complicated path And so is there a kind of a way to protect the process from that or is there a way to look at the like a cumulative impact test um if there's actually a larger ownership pattern assemblage you know what I'm

imagine what you're the hybrid that we're talking about right so right because you know even in my own practice, you know, if you start to break like you can phase things, right? So things look smaller, but they're actually bigger. And so you're and then you're creating a president through tier one that this is just part of that same initial process. And so how are you then protected from going into tier two? Um or or being not being if there's an appeal process, how you know how does that work? Is there scenario?

Yeah. So, I think the way I would answer to that um question is a tier one review is is going to allow staff to do some initial work on the application to really understand the application and really understand the context for the site planning um objectives and to really also understand is this a site that makes sense for a a fuller study tier 2 study. um and we have that conversation with the LRPC. There may be instances where uh and part of the review of tier one is again should this proceed through a tier 2 review um or is there a different kind of study that would be better suited to evaluate an application? I think the the what if scenario that you are bringing attention to is um you know what if an applicant says I want to just study half a site and not a a full site. I think that's something that could be evaluated and really draw uh be drawn out through the the tier one review. um under a hybrid condition um I think staff's analysis we would we would be able to assess some of that information um as to whether at least from our perspective whether a site like that was really eligible for a hybrid review or not

and ultimately the planning commission LRPC chair or if there's a specific project chair would weigh in on like well I don't think that's appropriate. I wanted it to not be a hybrid process and that could be a recommendation for

in case there's an escalation for the second part or the second parcel. Do you retroactively have the ability to evaluate the first part of the pro? I mean I again I'm just trying to understand the scenarios under which all of you know. So are you looking then at two different parcels or are you then going back and saying this is actually one larger parcel we now whatever was there before we can retroactively consider it. I think once we approved a or accepted a special bluff study on one parcel then that is then that could proceed and then if there was a separate parcel next door that would be its own special GL study if the area wasn't planned for or if it needed a change. Um so I don'tractively cancel out the previously approved study. I I would say that we do have a process also and we have conducted two study plus um special glove study plus uh applications. This is the Washington Kirkwood area and Sherlington where we were really dealing with multiple property owners, multiple properties. And in in those instances, you know, the review and the uh the reports prepared really led to, you know, essentially small area plans. So I think that there again there's some adaptability and flexibility that we have in this process um to be able to screen an application and get LRPC feedback in terms of what's the best um and the preferred most reasonable way to to look at um the request um which may be uh you know the majority of those have been for individual sites but there's been

instances is where multiple sites um have been submitted. Mr. Bagley.

Yeah. Hey, Jen. Um as a survivor of the Kirkwood Washington Boulevard uh Blup Study Plus. So, what we're talking about here tonight does not um affect Blup Study Plus things. Is that what I'm hearing? Or how does it affect it? Um and the reason I ask is because even when we started talking glops and then SPR you know LRPC's and SPRC's we were losing the neighbors left and right because it was a lot to comprehend. So the difference so this is not affecting um left study plus stuff.

That's correct. We we have not um focused any specific changes on on those areas. Um it's been a number of years since we've conducted one of those. Um the one thing that I, you know, would um say as a little bit of a caveat there in terms of um again wanting to keep the the review at a high level. Um we may not um feel the need to dive as deep into planning issues. um on on a future special glove study plus um that's to be determined and that could then lead to a more streamline uh study study document.

So I have a followup. So to follow that up then when this is introduced then at a community level assuming this all gets approved and it's introduced to the community there will be a differentiation because some of the community especially in my neighborhood having been gl survivors um will kind of want to know what you know what is this what's the difference that kind of thing will it be clear because I'm just noticing nothing in here mentions or I don't see it studying plus. So I may just make the suggestion we we haven't we haven't um brought forward any recommendations to change to the special glove study plus

and maybe that's we should say that in here somewhere so that somebody knows especially somebody who has been through the process then they understand it's a it's a different thing because even when we some of us more experienced ones get into a meeting usually staff has to break it down for us what blub study plus and blub study means and you know for those of us who see it a lot, it's almost like we need a chart. We need a flowchart or something up for the um Keybridge Marriott that shows like these are the different options and here's what you would get on each option like

yeah and again because if if the board is hearing which I'm sure they are from from the community in part of this and as is also probably from applicants um that uh simplifying it on a communicative level would be very helpful just I just think so. And can I ask another question? Can I I just I I agree with that. Yeah. Like dissociate myself. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, it just I'm just saying. So So let me ask another question, Jen. So if we go back to the um Can I actually interject quickly because you said if this gets accepted, there isn't an accepted or not accepted. This is the report and the plan moving forward. And so we will not be voting on this as a planning.

No, no, no. I know that. I'm saying if the board decides that this is what we're going with, I think they already did. I think that was presented to them and then it's being presented to us and then it's being rolled out. Is that correct? That's correct. That's correct, Tenley. We shared this with the board and we will um Yes. And we're sharing that with you tonight. That's fine. So, as long as when it's communicated to the community who, you know, get affected by this. So, let me ask on a different thing so I understand this better.

Tier ones, tier twos, glove study plus, regular glove. um 11th in Vermont when that came in that was a GLUP study not a plus a gl study then it went to an LRPC then it went to an SPRC um so now it would go through the hybrid tier one tier two instead correct

no um just to be clear we have tier one and if we through the tier one review we are really determining should we proceed to a tier 2 review that's been established since 2019 and we have fees for tier one and tier 2 review. The tier two the full review tier 2 review is really the full planning evaluation and then we develop the recommendation to whether to advertise a glut change or not and we produce the study document. So in hindsight,

what what we're doing now is we're saying to be flexible, to be adaptable, maybe not all studies need two separate tier one, should we study or not, and then tier two. We may be able to collapse that into one process, but we're not saying that's an across the board for all applications. It's really for less complex applications like the 6045 Wilson Boulevard townhouse review that we did late last year and then the 2847 Wilson application that we did and finished at the beginning of this year. Think about those are small sites. Yes.

Less complex. um one of which was already really grounded in a sector plan and we thought that we did not need to break those into two separate steps. That's all we're indicating here is that we want to memorialize a hybrid process and to memorialize it fully. We want to be able to insert that with an appropriate fee into the fee schedule. We don't have a hybrid process under review right now, a hybrid application under review right now, but we know we needed to develop a feed process something like 11th and Vermont that would have been under uh I think that predated the tier one and tier 2 application process. But if we're thinking about an application like that now, presumably that would have been under a tier one that would have led to then a tier 2 application.

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. Yeah.

And so since these are administrative changes, that's why we're not um approving them. We're just listening to the administrative changes um as a as a briefing, but we will be able to review and approve the appeals process once that is proposed. Is that right, Miss Smith? And we will also review and approve uh the fee, and that would be next year. We um certainly would be sharing any proposed fees with the planning commission as part of um our normal course of of work. Um whether those come um in time with the the budget, the full package of fee changes with the next year's budget um or on a different timeline. Yes, I would imagine that those would be brought forward to the planning commission. uh changes to the administrative guide. Um I feel like we've outlined what that will be in this report. So I think it's really just sort of taking that and translating it into the administrative guide. I don't know that we um I think for a courtesy, yes, we would be sharing that with LRPC whether we need a discussion on it. Um but I think as a as a courtesy we can say here's how the administrative guide has has changed to account for this additional appeal um after uh that would be an appeal after a tier one review.

Okay, perfect. I will update my notes because I had appeals process would come to us too. Um okay so the last two things we want to comment on quickly and then we'll move um on would be the um reports recommendation to streamline the study documents and the recommendation for um proposal review overlap. So that is to allow the um applicants to potentially consider some of the earlier steps of their SR SPRC um application um for their 4.1 application um while the uh special blood process is still going on if they are willing to take that risk um in that you know the special might reject or reject the idea but if they are willing to take the risk they could start some of the earlier specifications Mr. Torres.

So my concern with these changes are um I'm wondering if there are enough resources within the staff because that's right and making the process in my opinion a bit more complicated makes it so that you do need more staff to make sure things are scheduled properly and clear for everyone. So, that's one of my concerns. Um, my second concern is it's almost like there's a contradiction between trying to get the community more involved and sort of rushing the projects as much as possible because to get the community more involved, you normally need more time to get them engaged and or even figure out what each section of Arlington needs, how they need to get more engaged. We haven't really even talked about that or figured that out and we're already complicating the process. So those are my two main concerns.

Thank you, Commissioner Buffy.

So um I guess this is for Jen. So with the overlap is the idea essentially if an applicant wants to take advantage of this as a as a time and money saver, they could, but maybe you wouldn't. like it's sort of an assumption of risk because I mean I I do share the concern that like it's it's hard enough kind of keeping things coordinated and that if you've got dual reviews happening concurrently like there could just be even in a simple application there could be complications with that. So is is the idea essentially this would be something maybe the applicant would be uh would be requesting versus staff maybe pushing it? Yes, that's um that's definitely in keeping with some of the feedback that we heard. Uh some of you may be familiar that we have several stages of application submission or for site plans and there's a preliminary phase and it's and it's um typically a tip uh technical review is the application complete and I think that's probably where we would see um this recommendation is removing the barrier such that if an applica an applicant feels like they have a sense of where the special glove study application is headed in terms of um you know is there seeming support for what they're proposing. They may choose to go ahead and submit really for that technical review. we would um not be able to complete a full staff review in terms of consistency with the general land use plan until the conclusion of the general land use plan study. So it's not like that site plan application is

going to move to SPRC ahead of the conclusion of the the general land use plan study. So hopefully that makes sense. it's allowing um probably uh a limited overlap of time for an applicant to uh get their technical drawings and again it's at risk um without the the conclusion the definitive conclusion that makes sense. I mean it's sort of this is another move in the direction uh in my view of sort of uh staff seeking some more flexibility uh as it does its own work but also working with applicants and so if the applicant is sort of willing to take the risk depending upon the project and that makes sense to them then I think it makes sense to have a less sort of regulated environment for staff. we have good staff. Let's let them do let's let you guys do your jobs and then ultimately it's going to depend upon the quality of the the applica. I see the thumbs up the quality of the application, right? You know, the back stop ultimately is always the county board. It's got to pass muster there. So, I I think generally speaking, this goes in the right direction. I think the concerns about community input are always wellounded. Um I don't think that staff can really solve those. I think those are inherently a political question the the board has to always address which is what is the balance of community input in development right uh versus other priorities. Thanks. And I think

yeah I mean I would say you know also too I mean I think we we have those factors under consideration but I think at this moment in time we see where there may be um applications in the past that could have proceeded to submit for that technical application. We had you know probably some barriers in the way. um we're willing to you know try this trial it if you know if there's issues you know we can elevate that and we can change course but at the moment think that there's you know opportunity to continue to have some overlap that you know could be 30 60 days um and some of that timeline is is clearly important for um you know for the county for the community um if a project is headed in a direction that you know we think that um is a good is a good decision

and I think it will be um you know our responsibility as planning commissioners to make sure that we are communicating clearly with applicants if at the special GLUP stage we do not feel like the project is coming together and for staff to really if we're feeling if you're feeling like the project's not coming together to advise the applicant you are taking on a a lot of risk and really um make sure that's clear because in our special bluff studies there often is communi miscommunication or misunderstanding I'd say not miscommunication um about like what are we discussing these are big picture ideas what's in the realm of of possibility but then if we also know well the applicants already submitted their application um then maybe they're the cart's being put for the horse but so I think as long as we take on responsibility to make sure um that the special GLU process is run um with uh you know uh credibility then we can have kind of the occasion where we have both um application and and special club have somewhat overlapped

planning commission long enough you've had a conversation with somebody going I don't know it's your risk right I mean we think we've all been there yeah I I agree with your sentiment yeah okay um so then I think we can move to public comment on this item. I think we just have one speaker signed up. Um, Nick Cummings. So, you have two minutes.

Two minutes. I will try to go quickly um and be respectful of time. Good evening. Nick here. Speaking on behalf of myself and really all my clients and friends in the industry. I want to thank everyone who is working on this and call attention to two of the proposed reforms that I think are very welcome and thoughtful. First, I applaud staff for proposing to condense and simplify the actual glove study documents. is maybe one of the two dozen people alive who regularly read these documents. Please do reduce the amount of narrative explation, background analysis, and visioning um to ease the staff burden and accelerate uh the entire review process. Focus instead on easily digestible maps and exhibits that clearly establish the recommended characteristics of the potential development. Things like height, density, circulation, open space, and massing. studies will vary in complexity, but they're currently sometimes 40 to 200 pages and really should ideally be 10 to 30 of those. Second, I'm thrilled to see the staff is proposing to allow concurrent review of 4.1 application while a glove study is underway would of course beat the applicant's own risk, but it would save a lot of time, which is important if the glove processes become more manageable for everybody involved. Right now, staff typically will not start to review or even accept an invoice 4.1 application until the county board adopts the actual glove study. There are months that go by between the end of LPC when everyone has a pretty good idea of how the glove study is going to come together and the actual adoption of the study by the county board. Um those two to three months are exactly what we need preliminary checklisting review. And that is all that staff is talking about doing is that technical review of the application, not going to SPRC early. Um, this helps address an ongoing and significant problem. Developers on advice of council like me have strategically avoided bluff studies at all possible because they have a reputation of taking way too long. It is the most broken process in the county. Time kills projects. I've seen that with some of the studies I reviewed recently. I had the joy of going back through like SAP every single glove study over the

past few years. We have multiple glove studies that didn't even result in a 4.1 submission, let alone an approval. Um, in other instances, it's been several years between the submission of an application and an applicant being able to receive an approval and begin development of the property. Do you think that plans should be judged in part at least by whether or not they realize whether we see the built environment and the benefits that that brings us um both the efficiency I can email it.

Yeah, email that. Okay. Thank you. And we did receive um other emails as well about the process update. So um thank you very much um for the presentation Miss Smith. Um so then we can move on to our next agenda item the climate action plan where we have Mr. Douly and Miss Clearite.

Excellent.

Thank you Madam Chair. Good evening everybody. Um I'm Rich Julie as I mentioned, director of climate policy for the county in the climate policy office together uh uh with Miss Vioretti who leads the office as the assistant county manager for climate policy uh in that uh in our climate policy office. So thanks to the chair for the opportunity to provide you with an update on the county's ambitious initiative to develop its first comprehensive climate action plan. Um the new plan is going to build uh essentially on the community energy plan also known as the C not to be confused with the climate action plan will be which will be the CAP. Um the C is currently an element of the island comprehensive plan by updating it uh with this process and replacing it uh it'll be a broader more integrated approach to addressing climate change. While the C currently has focused on climate mitigation and some resilience measures, the CAP will expand its scope to include additional sectors critical to achieving a sustainable and resilient future such as the circular economy and healthy ecosystems. Our overall project and process to develop the climate action plan is synthesized by the acronym in our project logo shown on this slide act which stands for Arlington climate together. That acronym highlights the fact that everyone in our community has a role to play to address the impacts of climate change. So, we're providing this project information item uh to multiple county advisory groups to let you and others know that the project is underway. During the course of this presentation tonight, we'll cover the process and overall project timeline toward developing the CAP. We'll highlight our engagement efforts to ensure the project deliverables are relevant to everyone in our community.

Then, we want to hear from you. Uh we've created some questions to help us frame the climate action plan in a way that's meaningful and um relatable to all that is happening in the county per our comprehensive plan. And then uh lastly, we'll also describe the short-term next steps to get this task underway with our preferred consultant. So before I proceed, just want to thank the numerous people in the county uh departments and our consulting team who have gotten us to this stage of project development. We've uh uh all I'd be here all day if we listed everyone, but up on screen here are some of the uh the key players that have been tracking this project from the start and do so essentially on a daily basis. Uh Miss Fiorretti as noted here as project director. We also have Reena Lara in our uh climate policy office. She's leading the communications and engagement uh arm of this project. Also in DPR we have Jennifer Souls and in Department of Environmental Services. On the air team is Drew Stilson. And then also we do have representatives from our consulting team which is AECOM for this project helping us through this 18 to 24month uh project. And you see the representatives there who we work with uh essentially on a daily basis. In addition to the staff core team, we also have an interdep departmental working group comprised of staff from multiple county departments. We're all in this together and it's important that all county departments are involved in the plan's creation as well as its implementation. Our project's advisory group's representatives come from 18 different advisory and community groups and businesses in the county. Cindy Leuen, our C2E2 chair, is that group's co-chair. And uh we appreciate Mr. Powell representing FNRC and being part of the group as well. We greatly appreciate that uh as well as all the representatives on that group. Now, climate change impacts uh each location

in the world differently. In the next few slides, we're going to highlight the main hazards we'll focus on with this project that are most relevant to Arlington County. So, a lot of uh information going on in this slide. Essentially, the DC area's average temperature since the late 1800s. on the left hand side of this slide has followed a general yet alarming trend. As you move from the left to the right, that red plot line shows an overall trend indicating that back in the 1870s, the temperature was around 54 degrees for the entire year. But since then, the average annual temperature denoted by that red line has risen to close to 60 degrees. Uh compare that to 1970 here in DC. We've been having uh 17 more days in the summer that are hotter than normal. All that spells trouble when it comes to managing the stress related to that additional heat, especially for our vulnerable populations, uh for children who are using our parks and our ball fields and for county staff and contractors who need to work outside in those increasingly hot elements. Here's another way to look at it. While climate reports may not uh necessarily highlight Arlington County by name, Northern Virginia is right in its crosshairs. So, we expect to see up to 43 extremely hot days each year by the year 2050. You can see from the chart on this page that the number of days above 90 degrees will only increase each year over time. This slide goes on to highlight that such extreme heat causes impacts to our roads, our infrastructure, creates public health challenges, and also challenges to our emergency services. So, extreme precipitation is also of concern to us here in Arlington. Uh, this map shows projected increases in days with heavy rainfall, more than two inches of rain in in a storm by the year 2100 with the eastern regions particularly affected. It's important to note here with climate change, we've

seen greater fluctuations in our rainfall patterns as well as well as our rainfall events. So, our more intense rainfall events have become more extreme and damaging. On the other end of the spectrum, August of uh last year set a new record for the driest August in DC in the area in over 150 years. So what's happening here is we're having great fluctuations, higher highs, lower lows, uh, and more extreme impacts due to the impacts of climate change. Um, the storm drain system in Arlington was built out many years ago and is generally designed for a 10-year storm and even without climate change, if you don't have sufficient overland relief, which we don't in some areas for larger storms that exceed the system capacity uh and the properties and people are put in harm's way. Climate change just makes this dynamic and specifically the frequency of risk even greater. So, we recently developed the county's storm water risk assessment and management plan, also known as the RAMP. Um, it is model where flooding is forecasted to occur if significant storms come our way and where we need to focus our efforts when it comes to adapting to this new reality brought in part to us by climate change. Climate action plan is not aiming to recreate the wheel. For example, a lot of work went into recre or into creating the ramp. So what the CAP is going to do is point to that study and that plan as well as numerous other substantial plans we have in the county that have been created and are being implemented to ensure that the climate action plan becomes sort of a one-stop shop for climate change and a reference tool on the multiple ways in which we are currently addressing and we need to expand on our climate action. So unfortunately there's no silver bullet when it comes to addressing climate change. It takes many different actions to reduce emissions causing

climate change, also known as mitigation. And then also through the use of adaptation and resilience measures, we will work to manage the risks associated with climate change impacts. And and numerous actions are noted here on this vend diagram. On this slide, uh it shows the wedge chart from the current community energy plan which was last updated in 2019. It shows the many ways we've modeled how we plan to get to carbon neutrality as a community by the year 2050. Part of the climate action plan project will be to revisit the modeling effort and to work with the community to establish what we all think is going to be the best plan uh moving forward. So, uh coming up next a few slides to describe the project in a little bit greater detail. Again, it is an 18 to 24month project. Um and uh you know here kind of describes the scope of the project. Um making our way through the entire uh 18 to 24 months. We are going to be doing a uh a vulnerability assessment looking at uh our various vulnerabilities that have already been touched on during this presentation. Um and also when we're doing our priority setting, we are going to be working with our consultant. There's a uh a tool called the C40 C's climate action selection and prioritization tool, also known as ASAP, and that's going to help us uh inform our decision-m when it comes to prioritization, but also we're looking from the community for a lot of input when it comes to prioritizing uh what are the most important things that we should do to take action. Here's our our highle project timeline showing the steps toward what uh we aim to be an eventual county board adoption of the climate action plan. In essence, we're developing our baseline to know where we're starting from since we know we already are underway when it comes to addressing climate change. Then we'll conduct a gap analysis to see what's missing in terms of goals, policies, and

actions. We'll prioritize those actions recognizing we have limited time and money, so we can't do everything all at once. Um, that's all going to be wrapped up into a draft climate action plan which will go through rounds of edits to make sure the plan accurately portrays the interest from not only county staff but our community before we send that draft final plan to the county board for consideration. Throughout this process, we'll be reaching out to you and other community members as well as county staff to review and comment on the draft content um before we move forward on the next phase of our project. In terms of phases, we are listing them here. We've developed um an overall project and stakeholder engagement and communications plan. And this kind of spells out uh numerous ways which we plan on doing engagement. Suffice it to say, we plan for enhanced coordination across not only county departments but also with our community stakeholders for a robust and comprehensive engagement effort using multiple means to reach uh and gather uh feedback from our county departments, our residents and our businesses. We'll run the project in phases beginning with the visioning process as noted on the lefth hand side there and then developing our goals, our policies, the actions that we want to take, prioritize those actions and then wrap it all together into that climate action plan for county board consideration. We're going to be using in-person as well as virtual events including focus groups and other engagement tools to gather comments from our community. The slide lists the various means by which we plan to engage the community. As we obtain comments, we'll uh also ensure we respond to those comments through a dynamic resource that captures the comments, the questions, the concerns, and at the same time provides our team's replies to that input. That way, people have a chance to be heard. They understand how their input is being considered in the creation of our final climate action plan.

So we held our first uh public launch event in uh February 25th at central library. It was in partnership with our library staff. It was called climate and cuisine. Uh very well attended. We had standing room only. Uh about 200 people in the library uh auditorium and then another 160 people join us online. So we are very grateful for the participation rate on that. Uh provided here is a synopsis of the information we want to spread to educate about the community uh the climate action plan project as well as questions we plan to ask as part of our uh visioning effort which leads me to the questions we'd like to hear from each of you on in regards to the suggested framework design of the climate action plan. So, we have a list of uh seven questions we'd like to walk through with you tonight and to get your perspectives on a variety of climate action plan related items. So, here's our first question for you. So, a strong climate action plan works best when it uh ties to other community needs. How can Arlington better connect its climate goals with other community priorities, knowing that climate change is one of many priorities? So we open it up to everyone here for your thoughts. So often there is in a small portion of the 30,000 foot view

but often in the SPRC process there's uh frustration I think on all parts when forestry and natural resources comes in and says you know we're not meeting the tree canopy and despite many people talking about it gets all the way through and it's approved under that anyway and then you start to wonder how long can this go as we go under under under. Same thing is true with C2E2. Um you know they come in with the scorecard and some are some we admire when they're part of the way there but the others and somehow it just gets passed. So, it just seems to me at some point somebody really needs to say we really need to bite the bullet here. And um we've got all these other things going on in the same vein, but we're not really filling what we're trying to do with them. My opinion.

Thank you.

Yeah. Um it's funny. I've been I've been actually been thinking about this for a while and trying to like synthesize that. I think like I've been thinking about climate for a long time because it's an existential issue, but also like it needs to tie to the here and now. And what is deeply frustrating about a lot of the conversation about climate is that it often fails to connect with our shared humanity. Meaning what I mean is of course like in my view we need to do things for those who will be here long after we're gone, right? But we can't get there without acknowledging our shared humanity of right now and in Arlington a shared the shared humanity largely um is how deeply unaffordable it is to live here. uh from a housing perspective, uh from a jobs perspective, we're having challenges. And um to me, a a a conversation about climate that does not fit within the frame of the fact that people need to afford to live here um is one that just is is going to go nowhere. And what I mean by that is we'll you know we look at projects for example with housing it's always like like I I get the sense sometimes some folks maybe this is not fair would prefer people did not live here. It would be easier to achieve other goals if they simply live elsewhere. I do not share that view. There must be a way for us to be an affordable community but also pursue our climate goals. And so that's going to, you know, require some some policy differences or or challenges or whatever, but um I don't think that we can ask the community to buy into things if we're also not doing so in a way where they can afford to live here and it's practical. And I this is again

unfair, but like forever Arlington has preached a car-free diet. I think it is very very out of touch with the the experiences of a lot of people who live here. They cannot afford to have a car-free diet. It's not it's not financially feasible. It's not practically feasible. So, we need to like meet people where they are in their lives because if everybody's going to be part of this, then like it's great to have um buses that are carbon neutral, but if you can't depend upon them to come, people aren't going to take them. And what's the point of this whole exercise and getting to to carbon neutral? You know what I mean? So like sometimes it feels like our actions are divorced from the reality of people's lived experiences. And to me that shows that we're not connecting with the humanity of here and now. And to me any climate plan it has to do that as a baseline. And that's such an existential problem to solve, but also one that I think like you have to in order to do something that's meaningful. All right, I will yield my soap box.

Excellent point. I think part of the solution is that when we are reviewing a comp plan element, it can't be in a vacuum. Like they need to refer to and reference each other. And so um I'm sure you are already doing this, but sometimes it seems like the elements compete and contradict with with each other. Um, so if there's a way for each comp plan element that it gets updated to be referential to the other elements to say, you know, um, well, we have our affordable housing um, element and, you know, like here's how our plan specifically addresses the goals that have been laid out in that document and the master transportation plan. here's how we can achieve both the master transportation plan and um and the goals related to um climate response. So I think once the elements start considering that others exist that can help us make progress in connecting everything and having intersectionality of our goals.

Great comments.

Yeah. Also, I mean, even on a and I noticed in the slides previous individuals contributing their thing. I mean, somewhere along the line, we're not getting it right with even trash collection and recycling sorting and the organics bin. I mean, it is shocking to me even on my teeny tiny little street with me probably being the oldest one there with folks who you would think being younger that they're better schooled on these things. Stuff is not properly disposed of stuff. And I don't know the answer to it. I mean, it's not that hard, but maybe the cans have to be better. You know, something on the can that you know, maybe somebody don't put this in there. And like I I was dropping stuff off at a walk near Quincy Park. So I walk over sometimes to just put my stuff in the I mean the um the the uh mix recyclables thing was stuffed with styrofoam. Like I mean I'm like should I take it apart? And I mean it was hours of taking it apart. So I had to finally say no you can't see the world go home. Um, but even those, you know, they have a little sign with pictures, but maybe since this thing was stuffed, no styrofoam or you I don't know. And then even there you see people dumping trash and stuff like that. So, while we're sitting here at a 30,000 foot view and we really want to get ourselves, you know, here's me and you and, you know, Sue at home and like not being part of the solution at all,

right? which I think there is a a certain if if you because this as he pointed out is such an expensive county and one that is incredibly rich in resources for the citizens here. Um living having a home someplace else which used to be an affluent county and seeing the differences here. No way. This is like you got everything here. I think there's a certain responsibility in the in citizenry to sort of half come come along the way in something and I'm not sure how that happens but just just seeing in that little moment in the neighborhood that we're not getting it. Yeah, it's not happening.

Yes. Um so I have studied this for a really long time and I had the privilege of going to um Europe when I first started studying this where they're way ahead of us and they would do they were managed this was like 20 years ago 25 years hospital um buildings that they designed is if they're really lose 20% of what I believe and this was back then the very simple things like making operable windows so that you don't have to use air conditioning all the time. We have no nothing in our anything that says that that's a benefit like the way we design is just not towards climate change. And the reason why I think this is is and the reason why I was visibly angry for the previous thing we just discussed, the way our system is built right now in Arlington, it's built for developers, not for people. Because if it's built for people, people will tell you what they need. But it seems like from my short time in planning commission that people with money and that have a lot of control and power are driving how things should be built in this community. And speed is more a concern than actually making spaces and buildings that are equitable, sustainable for all Arlingtonians, which is a big So, we have seven questions. I'm going to do about eight minutes for each one um just so we make sure we get out um on time or sooner after. So, let's move on to question two.

Okay. Um so, when setting our communities climate goals, how should we balance what is realistic with what is necessary? Should we focus only mostly on practical near-term actions based on current technology? Or should we set highly ambitious goals that push us to innovate even if the exact path to reach them is not yet clear? I think we should both

because I think we already know what to do. We're already doing a lot of the shortterm things. We just need to doing them. But if we just do that, eventually we'll just be complacent. And we need to have more aggressive goals for further down the line and especially set up triggers. Like if we reach reach a goal, then automatically it should be form where okay now we should do this.

Yeah, I agree. The number of times we've seen a project that we acknowledge does not help us get to our community energy plan goals, but then we say, well, you know, we're not we're not able to we can't push the developer because of the Dylan rule. I mean, that's frustrating to me. So in one sense I want to be realistic about what we have the authority to require of developers currently but then possibly the report has a section about like what kind of lobbying do we need to do or what what do we need to pursue legislatively so that we can set higher standards. So I agree I think we want to have aspirational goals but we don't want to have every single project be failing. I mean, a half of C2E2's reports are like 60%. And that's frustrating. Um, but but we can't currently do more in this um political climate though maybe now we can in this

um there's you know something about bringing things up to speed that is very difficult. So, if you are, we have a lot of existing stuff and I, you know, I'm in the business of upgrading homes for people and trying to convince them not to tear them down. Uh, and I can tell you that the process of getting a normal client to go through uh a simple upgrade to their home is very costly, very difficult. The technology is all over the place. Um and also you know now there's this you know the water management the flooding you know issues that happen in most lots are so difficult to manage right now. So, I wish there was a way to streamline some of the stuff that we do know so that we can make those upgrades that we need to make to the buildings to the houses so that people are not encouraged to demolish but they're encouraged to improve and make better from adaptive reuse to anything that happens to a lot. I know there's a lot of controversy about the flooding, the water management stuff, the footprint, the all these things that actually some of it is controlled through zoning DS, you know, these are this is stuff that I do. I think there has to be a study there on streamlining things for people. We were talking about that for bigger projects. I think the the single uh resident who manages to live here, who doesn't want to move, cannot afford to move, cannot afford to do much, should be able to afford to do an upgrade that is echofriendly, that is water friendly, that is, you know, that takes all of that into consideration, better information to them. It is really

difficult to do that right now. and um and very expensive. So just for the So are we thinking like it needs to be more realistic? The it needs to be more realistic. Be more realistic.

Yeah. I I had a whatever however many thousands of gallons of detention tank on a 6,000 square foot lot that is 6 feet high and 9 ft wide that still has to comply with setbacks. There has to be a way to, you know, to to help people manage all of that in a more um budget friendly way. It costs $100,000 right now to do water management for a simple project.

$20,000 alone goes to the civil engineer just for them to do calculations. There should be an easier way for the county to help people that want to comply with that that don't want to throw water into the neighbor or into the Chesapeake Bay. So for me, I don't know if this is answering this question at this point, but I I definitely see a need. People want to do better and they are stuck with all the steps that they have to go through and the lack of knowledge. Even in the you know I I say to clients every time I say I'm going to look stupid until I don't because at the beginning all the things that I have to tell them to get through a project it's like you're not going to believe it and then you know they believe it because they see it they implement it. I had to have um actually water management came and we're like we we have to redo the planters. So there's stuff like that that happens all the time which makes it impossible for people to keep up. And if there's a way to help them just at granular level and of course at development level is so important I can tell you that it's it keeps people from doing things. So potentially um uh recommendations that impact the individual homeowner could be on more on the more realistic side for example but maybe for bigger projects with wealthier applicants we maybe air on a little more aspirational sure but you know the elephant in the room for some of these conversations is the footprint and I know nobody wants to talk about it but the footprint is an issue And so until we recognize the footprint, the way we build the roof, the way we build uh impermeable surfaces, the way, you know, we understand all of that and then the system, the integrated systems, you

know, I grew up in Italy and I think I said it before, I couldn't turn on my my uh um uh dishwasher with and I couldn't dry my hair at the same time because the amperage was limited. And then, you know, I'm building houses that have 400 amps. So, I'm like, are you running a hair salon in here? So, I'm just like I'm just dumbfounded with some of the but that but because they have to because the code wants each kitchen appliance to have 20 amp circuits and and up. So, is that really necessary? I'm wondering. So, some of it is code, some of it is I know we're trying to work with safety. when we put all of these things together, I can tell you from the bottom that you know where I am with my clients, very difficult to implement all of these things. So, I would love to come up with something with you guys.

Yeah, I'd be glad to. Fantastic on that. I'm here. Thank you. Well, and that kind of gets to the question one about um other community priorities. So, like looking at zoning um and Oh, absolutely. looking at that relevant building code. I mean again, what if you know if you're tripping the circuit, maybe you don't need to have five things running at the same time that suck up so much juice, right? Anybody else on question two? And I'm getting off my screen. Well been there.

Okay, we'll go to question three. Um, recognizing that Arlington climate and environmental policy is bound by Commonwealth law and implemented through local ordinances, are there other planning, zoning, and policy tools Arlington might use to achieve its goals? So, started speaking to that already a little bit. I

mean, Arlington has always been a leader in Virginia, I believe. So, I think we have a lot more lenient space than we think. And maybe it's also a time to start um lobbying to the state and trying to explain to them, okay, we're doing this. We're a small county. We can make a bigger impact if you do XYZ.

We we I just thank you for the comment. Um we do there's so much more that needs to be done which is why regionalism is a really important I I well it should be a re important sort of topic of discussion as part of the climate action to influence change. Yeah,

I mean this is this is a uns unsatisfying answer, but I think um I think it's I think it's bigger than planning, zoning, and policy tools. Obviously, not to the extent of general assembly action. That's really where the rubber hits the road sometimes. But like it there needs to be enough sentiment in the community. I don't know if you call that a movement or or whatever the conversation, you know, we saw in this recent general assembly session a bunch of housing bills go through. I mean that happened because it was years and years and years and years and years of movement over various iterations of the general assembly and local stuff and everything and even some of what passed is very modest to begin with. And so I think, you know, we can do things, but um I I don't get the sense yet that there's necessarily like a broadspased movement in Arlington to do stuff that maybe dep prioritizes other stuff. I think everybody generally agrees that these are this is important. Is it important enough to maybe make sacrifices on like things like building envelope, building higher or like making other changes that some folks may not be as comfortable with? Right? like because at some point you've got to figure out like where are you going to trade, right? Um I don't think that the county can do that top down. I think that needs to come bottom up. So it's not satisfying for your report because that's really a community effort that sort of needs to exist. I think for this to really be durable because the county can do a lot but unless the community really wants it, it's just it's limited right in what the county can do. think it would be helpful for us to understand where we have the potential to get the most bang for our buck because maybe there are some zoning changes that we could make and ask single family homeowners to do things that might be difficult but if the benefit from it is

not politically acceptable um whereas you know big highrises that can all be lead platinum I does that make a bigger contribution like are we getting the most you know uh towards achieving our goals if we look at um the commercial properties versus single family or is single or I think we have 30,000 single family homes if we ask them and encourage them and incentivize them to do something is that actually like a big jump where are we going to see the most progress

I also think that it's also a mentality thing I recently went back to Bolivia 3 weeks ago and I didn't know this, but they have one day where there's no cars in the entirety of the city. And people just walk and use their bikes. And I kept thinking in my head, how could a country that's supposed to be the smallest and poorest country in South America be so engaged in something like this? And we don't have something like that. And really that kind of thing. Yes, it is better. It's not really just about that one day. It's just being aware

that we need to make a change. That's good. Good perspective.

Other tools that we can use to achieve our goals. Moving on to question four. Which of the following are the most important climate related areas? What is missing on this list? We have cleaner energy, more efficient energy use, waste reduction and recycling, sustainable food supply, improving affordable housing stock, safe and available water, reducing risk from extreme weather and natural hazards, conserving and expanding trees and natural resources, environmental and health impacts from pollution, and investing in multimodal transportation infrastructure and active mobility. I have a question. Why did we stop recycling glass? I mean, we we collect it separately and we go to the

Yeah. Is Is that a stupid question right now? We don't have to talk about it. Just a quick answer. I mean, I know. Yeah. Do you want to It's okay. I don't I don't The cost of recycling gas are glass was very very cost prohibitive. And so they cut it out of the recycling program completely. And then Arlington freaked out and then they said, "Okay, fine. We'll do it again, but you have to bring it to the recycling glass." But it was when we first started the program, I think we used to get paid to recycle glass. And then at this point for now, we paid to recycle glass. Separating glass from the the rest of the waste is this biggest challenge.

And cleaning it too, right? People aren't rinsing the glass and you have to Well, people aren't rinsing cans either, right? There's all the tomato cans that I know Italians. Yeah. All your fault. So, if they react to the markets, but I I am encouraged and and thankful that the glass that is collected through the uh recycling centers here in Arlington is then crushed and used in road bases, for example, uh as filler. And and so that is heartening to me.

I live I live near Quincy Park and they they are it's one of the busier things people you know constant which I think is great now and from what I can see most of those people that do come they rinse their stuff because it's not real stinky but it's um I think that was one of the best things we did. Uh, Commissioner Amado, did you want to make sure recycling then was one of the top?

Not necessarily because the recycling business is very controversial in terms of, you know, are you uh throwing a lot of energy into uh this one thing and then you're overlooking another thing and that thing is more expensive than the thing you're, you know, so there's I don't know understand it enough to promote it. I'm just saying why are we recycling cans and not it's just weird because I know in Italy when every time I throw anything away I have to like there's like five different bins and you know they call it differentiated collection and it's literally the some of the the bins even for a whole building they're this small because people are going there like doing this and you get fined for recycling the wrong thing in the wrong bin

which is kind of nuts. So, you know, so but I don't know if that's good, right? Like I don't Is that a good thing? Is that something that saves the environment when you do that? Yes, very European model. Let's look at it.

Waste in landfills and uh which produces methane which is a potent greenhouse gas and all. Is that right? So the our zero waste management plan is very much it's an important component. It is not um Commissioner Peterson mentioned um you know what what's the most impactful buildings are 56% of our greenhouse gas emissions followed by transportation at you know 24 25% don't hold me to the exact number uh and then uh refrigerants interestingly enough and then you get solid waste but those are sort of the the big rocks are the buildings um so and we keep approving them

I mean and then if we don't approve approve them. We got no place to put people, you know. So, it's a it's a vicious cycle. Although the buildings that we are proving, like I said before, it's like how many trees you get taken out, you know, what's the canopy? The C2E2 SC scorecard. So, okay.

How much glass does, again, I keep going back to this the glazing we were talking about the birds, the just have less glass. It's that simple. Uh, you know, if the glass costs too much to make it bird friendly, then use a spandrel. You don't need to have glass everywhere. You know, I I I it just some some things are to me more about common sense sometimes than uh achieving the best thing you can achieve all the time. I think for me in Arlington um investing in multimodal transportation infrastructure is one of the top two simply because the buildings that we are approving don't have any not enough parking to begin with and corridors like Columbia Pike have just been finished without thinking about bikes which is kind of sad in my opinion. So, I think we're going to have to go back and not just look at transportation eventually with some um but also figure out how to not just make corridors that are recreational for bikes, but literally have have the whole county be able to be accessible through bikes and

yeah, I I I strongly agree with that point. I mean, trans like um transportation being, you know, a quarter of the emissions. I mean it's not just investing in a multi mode transportation infrastructure active mobility but one that works for people in all different aspects of their lives. Like I very fortunate for the last year I be able to bike to work every day but that's only because I was able to afford the bike that I have. I was able to afford the equipment that I have and I'm fortunate to be like near a bike path and most of my trip is on bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike paths. So like four things all line up. It was like perfect. Like that is not common, right? And if I live if I worked somewhere else, I probably wouldn't do it. If I didn't have the bike, I wouldn't do it, you know? So, it's sort of like how do we make this more practical for people? And it just feels like in the site plans, we're fighting tooth and nail for yes, bike infrastructure, but um you know, it's not Yeah, it's not just for recreation, it's for like getting around. Like the number of times I've wanted to use my bike to get somewhere because it was a doctor's appointment, but there's nowhere safe to lock it up and I don't want it getting ripped off. Like I took a car, right? Um, so I think that's it. I think what's also missing here, yes, impro improving affordable housing, but I think it's like making it more feasible for people to live in decreased um, you know, to to live in housing that has less of a carbon footprint. So maybe that's multif family at some point. Maybe, you know, and that's it goes towards towards the housing conversation, which is if there were more options for people to move to make from a more carbon heavy uh footprint to a less carbon heavy footprint, maybe they would take them up on it, especially if they were like more affordable, right? Um, and so we need to do that too because if they do that, oh well maybe they actually live near some more of the stuff they have and they're less likely to use cars, right, to do everything. And so I think that's that's

such a 30,000 foot thing, but like it's so integral because for a lot of people not driving a car like literally everywhere is just simply not an option, right? And so how do we like make this as easy as possible in like everything we do from a planning uh perspective? And then at that point they have to make the choice. But hopefully they make those choices.

And also in our community there are so many cars here that do not belong in Arlington. They're passing through and they really don't care as they're passing through. They don't care about speed. They don't care about a whole lot of stuff. And I'm not sure how you we can try and I think we've made strides in the community being more sensitive to that, but because you have this larger thing that we're just a whistle stop to get over to there and they come through here and there's a lot of people that do that. So, and they're polluting along the way,

right? So, and I would say being somebody who's a little bit on more on the natural side, most people are not really aware of becoming even more grave consequences of the environment and the impacts on our health, especially in this area.

It's a type A area anyway. The stress here is off the charts. And I don't know what the cancer studies are like, but the chemicals and things that are out there, ozone levels that are hitting, you know, they're cancer producers. And I don't think there's ever enough, you know, nobody wants to freak everybody out, but you know, it's a huge thing. All of these things at the end of the day, I mean, and when we get a project in and we're so happy the trees are there and we're so happy E2, C2, C2, E2 has more stuff, whatever, you know, at the end of the day, all of this is as as he said, you know, here and now. But this is for my grand niece. This is for his children and grandchildren. I won't probably be here in 2050. I don't think so. So, you know, it it at some point, like I said, some at some point we we have to um be very much more realistic and maybe, you know, maybe even with the recycling, you know, and I can't rely on the trash people to do this, but you know, the ambassadors who do it right, they get a little sticker or they're recognized, you know, maybe the grass level coming up.

The ambassadors, the green ambassadors for Arlington, be creative with this. we don't have the money, so we got to start someplace else. Sure. And you c you can't really guilt people, but maybe you can guilt people by recognizing some of the things. And maybe then all those other things at the higher level when we get these projects, people will like, you know what, we're going to have to ask for a few more trees. And guess what? They'll be able to put them someplace. They would. So, you know, I think we have to be very creative with this.

I would love to see a list like this. um possibly broken down into like how important is this item from like the existential importance of the the item and then how much um potential does Arlington have to actually impact that item and what is the cost to Arlington County because maybe some of the things requiring bird friendly glass on every inch of a building I mean that is three times the price I think no it's not actually so that I I think we should have a session honestly becoming much more adept and bird friendly

in challenging budget years because then it's harder for a policy maker to follow through with one of our goals if it is you know something that's ex really really expensive um and then how much alignment is there with our other goals. So, so if we have maybe these ones are too general to be able to do that assessment, but if we come up with some strategies for um improving affordable housing stock and we say, you know, here's 10 strategies and, you know, one of them is only going to impact a small amount of the community. Um, but we have a large ability to actually make a difference and it wouldn't cost that much and it aligns with some of our affordable housing goals, then yes, let's do that. Um, but there's something else where it would be great to do it, but we have no tools in our toolbox to be able to achieve that. And if we did, it would cost, you know, $40 million. Then then maybe we say that's nice, but let's wait until the costs come down on that with some new technology. Um

can I just add um so the the ASAP tool

it's not it's not perfect but it does very much what you're asking which is which is one of the challenges that we had when we set out to find what sort of tools we wanted to bring into this process and it looks at cost it looks at polic access our ability to implement and it looks at co- benefits um and crossch checkcks those now co- you know triple benefits what have you but the idea is still very similar again not perfect but we recognize that because of our limited resources we're going to have to make some tradeoffs and to the extent that we can achieve multiple goals that's where we want to that's the sweet spot

so yeah become a real this is what I mean by the way that our system is right now I live in a building that is 18 stories. We have a lot of glass and the difference is this it was built in 1980. So the balconies are actually recessed in. So even though there's a lot of glass there's shade and we have a lot of like on the 13th floor. I'm on 13th floor there's a lot of birds. We never see any dead birds and the glass is definitely not bird friendly. I can attest to that. But the reason why now we don't design that way is because developers want to get as much square footage as possible into every unit into every floor, as many units as possible into every store. I've been in those meetings where you design, they tell you, "Oh, okay. We just want four four units in this store." And then they go, "Oh, wait, but can you fit two more in?" You know, so there are small changes that have been done already with throughout history that work that are environmentally friendly, but now the way things are, they've changed not to benefit of us in general, but because of how much money can I get out. So would that be um code zoning changes that we would need or like or

I mean you could make a something that says if you have a balcony it can be recess but I don't I mean that's a really the percentage on glass like some kind of percentage of the facade that is immediately like the the building that we were just looking at a few weeks ago that is basically you know facing Wilson facing the west exposure adaptive right no it's not adaptive you this does that too. The one on Wilson for the spire spire and fair Tony's project. Thank you. Yeah.

Say things like you have to have if you're going to have all glass it has to be all bird friend. No indep. And if it's not going to be bird friend then it has to be designed in a way I mean I had geese by Yeah. at my Yeah.

So I know it's possible. So we can check what um we would have the authority to do and what we would need to do lobbying to Richmond because I think right now a lot of the sustainability requirements they have to be um incentives to earn extra we can't require it but we can find out what we can and can't require and maybe do some lobbying. incentives is a an initial path because then you have people that are willing and they can test it and they can build it and then you could start using it as president and you know well and also I've just started at all the SPRC's now and they say we're going to have bird friendly up till this point I would you please and I put it on the record will you please reach out to David how

it's true she she did say that the other And I've started saying at all of them now and some of them I can see even writing it down I'm like oh my god thank you. Um, if nothing else, there's so many there's, you know, the the industry is evolving unfortunately super expensive right now, but there are so many alternatives and best I can see in my where I come from, he seems to be our area expert on it. And you know, sometimes maybe it isn't something that is the most expensive bird friendly glass needs to be there. Maybe there can be alternatives so it can even go higher. I don't know. But, you know, we need to if we're going to have all these commissions and all these plans that are supposedly guiding us to these this perfect place, he's a free call for a developer who, you know, is spending a whole lot of money. So, I think the more that we can throw these things out there in a in a hopefully uh you know meaningful and accommodating way that we have these resources for folks,

I think the better it becomes. And by golly, I I said it a few months ago and I knew nothing ever happened, but by golly, the last two that I've said in front of everybody, they've come to him, which is amazing. Now, what happens, I don't know, but it's a step forward. So yeah, going to move us to our next question so we end on time. So how can the climate action plan improve the quality of life for communities that have been historically underserved or most affected by climate impacts? Um I'll take a Are you pointing over over there?

Take a stab at it. you know, and I said this during um what was it? Lucky Gardens that uh which was all affordable that and here, you know, there's some apprehension. It's a nonprofit. We shouldn't ask for the same standards on trees and this and that. Why not? You know, the standards should be higher there. Um, you know, the idea is that, you know, why shouldn't those folks who, um, are in a situation where they don't have the financial means and finally were able to build something, why shouldn't it be as grand, if not grander, than the other buildings that were, you know, putting out there at, you know, market rate? It just makes no sense to me. So, um you know that I just

we start looking at incentives for older buildings in Arlington where um land owners are encouraged to make the modifications needed, you know, changing lead pipes, changing lead paint, changing windows, um getting some sort of credit or making it easier for that because usually um that's where um the most challenged you know communities live and they don't really have a voice and or or any control over what is in the

they are also the highest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector just just what I'm It's too expensive to upgrade buildings right now and it has to it has to be streamlined.

I think also looking at um connections that deal with health is really important whether it's physical health or mental health. So having more um trees or greenery or bofilia in the area is proven to have great impacts on physical and mental health. um as well as heat island impact um pollution. I think these are like the minimum that we should be doing, but the incentives have to be strong because you know when I was working with uh Helen Ry on the um green choice program for uh single family homes, the program, the pilot was uh only rewarding new construction And so that you know so we went to her and we said look we are keeping more than 50% of the house there has to be a reward for that. So she changed the point system to accommodate that. Um also you know people that are like oh bamboo is renewable so I'll tear up all the floors in my house that are perfectly fine and I'll put bamboo everywhere. I'm like no this is not what renewable what it mean to conserve. So also that kind of incentive inside the uh you know the having somebody that can come in and guide you through the process which doesn't necessarily have to be an architect like you could just go up to the county and say this is a pamphlet that tells you lead pipes are bad but here's a guy that can help you uh you know your whatever formaldahhide something your bestesto something else and so I know too many contractors by the Okay. That just scrape up floors with asbestous as it arms because it's too expensive.

Yes. To abate. Yep. And so too many. They're like, "Oh, we'll just pour water on it." And so I'm like, "So many,

another thing for new buildings, please. For example, adaptive reuse doesn't require an af affordable housing, which I think is a big mistake because if you're already making it easier for them to develop into a building that exists, it should be they every every new project should require affordable housing because I see people sometimes they design a whole building that's affordable housing all these other buildings that is that are just really expensive. So you're already designing a community that's divided, you know, as it is. And you're already putting people,

but I mean, I don't know if the county can do that. I think they should.

And I don't think they should be flexible on a percentage of affordable housing in every new construction and or adapted. I'll also add to what Commissioner Brookie was saying earlier about affordability. Um, if we become so expensive that all of our underserved communities are forced to leave, then they will never benefit from all of the wonderful things that we do with this climate action plan. So, I think making sure that we have affordable housing, making sure that we have attainable housing, making sure that there are different housing options for all different people of all different income levels. Um, but in particular, um, affordable housing options for underserved folks. Um I think that is making sure that we will all benefit from the hard work of um addressing climate change

and aging in place being able to age in place which is a really big deal in this area. What ends up happening is a lot of people end up leaving places they can't afford, okay? And then you end up losing valuable worksmanship and or teachers getting to go fire them because they once they find a new community that's like an hour away and they find a job, there's no need for them to come here. So, it hurts us on multiple levels as well.

Let's go on to question six. County Board's February 2025 climate action resolution identifies the buildings and transportation sectors as the two most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, fuel use, and electricity. From your perspective, what role should the government, residents, businesses, NOS's play in helping our community reach our climate, our climate goals? I think we've kind of I think we've addressed a lot of this to do our part.

I have to say that if the the the it seems like the American dream has always been to own land and maybe in this area this that dream is to shift. I mean I I was in a 10,000 square foot lot. I decided that I wanted to walk to the metro. So, I don't have a yard. I just give up the yard. And I think maybe, you know, if you just own a little bit less land, I don't know. That's just a thought that might, you know, and you get closer to transportation or um anyway, this is a personal choice that I make.

I'm nearly right now. Huh?

So when I did my research a while back, I was doing my master's degree. Um I realized that businesses have so much control over one states. One example I found was China and Mexico. They were really green. And I noticed there was a lot of information about companies like Ford and Honda and you know doing the research but they weren't ready. And so as a result, they were putting in like um road bumps for pe people that had already figured it out to come into our market and to give us cheaper, better options. And those are still there. Some Chinese cars are actually more technologically advanced and better than some of the American cars. And we make sure they

in Europe. Yeah. Sorry to interrupt, but they're all better. They're all better, I think. Right. In Europe, you you won't like you will find a ton of Chinese cars. My point is now that figured it out five years, 10 years later, you're starting to see this uptick. That's not enough. We've lost at least a decade. So, for me, people that do that have a little bit more responsibility.

Real quick, because I we want to get out of here. I I think um you know in uh site plan I'm going to keep going back to transportation. In sight plans there's always the question about uh is it EV ready? Is it adaptable? We talked about that a bit. Um you know I do think you know with I don't think we're going to be seeing tons of folks buying EVs over the next few years. Although that could change. They're still prohibitively expensive for most folks to be honest. But at some point I think we I hope that they're not and they come down and they're more feasible. Um if we have a lot of you know garden apartment buildings and places that are you know 30 40 years old, what are like easier ways for um owners to make th those uh that technology more accessible for residents other than just redeveloping completely you know through infrastructure right uh I'm a single family homeowner so for us it's not that difficult of you know rewiring right and going through the box so that's one thing I know the county did that ebike um uh uh raff you know lottery it was very cool like is not a big program but you all see this you could like enter a lottery to qualify for I think there's a subsidy for ebike a voucher right uh it's not a huge program but I was like that's very cool that is like a great pilot to start to see if folks are interested and how it works well for them and that sort of thing um those are not going to solve things overnight I think those are those are like the hearing now solutions we've talked environment because some technical assistance.

Yeah, technical assistance, but also like literally I mean the county likely couldn't afford it, but like subsidies or like easier ways if it's permitting things like that to be able to build out some local infrastructure. Like yes, it's nice to have a charger at the grocery store, but I don't want to drive to the grocery store to charge the car. Like that's not feasible, right? So like how could it be where you live if you don't live in a single family home? This is like not something we're going to need tomorrow, but maybe in the next 10 years we're gonna need it.

I think people do need it today because I live there. I live in a condo highrise that was built in the 90s and our my building cannot figure out how to offer EV charging in our building. We have um and I've shared this before I think so you all have heard my story but um we have I guess a a power place and I think there's a limited number of plugs that you can put into it and it was first come first serve for residents who wanted to pay for the copper wiring from that device to their parking spot and then we're like well what do we do when the the spots fill up and we've got hundreds of people maybe in the future who want an EV charging in at their parking spot. So, like our building hasn't figured out how to solve this problem and I think there's a lot of other highrises and it would be great if the county had some expert that could come talk to us and be like this is what you got to do. Here's the people that you can talk to like here's how much it's going to cost. Put it in your, you know, capital improvement plan for your building.

But the technology is changing and so the problem with building a lot of infrastructure for the early techn this is early. It's so early in EV technology right now. If you look at what EV was a few years ago and where it's going to go, it's just hard to invest that much money because the transformers where do you put like the amount of power that you need to juice up all those cars might change. The requirements might change 10 years from now. It might be that you know you got solar panels on the car and it renews itself or whatever. Um, so I I'm a little worried about that and I've said that at uh at the commission hearings. Yeah. Um, right now there are pilot programs where they're putting them on the ground. So when you go over them, the car recharges. So, I think there are things that the county is going to have to look into scientifically

um to make sure that we are not left behind on how we address the technology of of charging cars because it might not even be electricity. It might even be something else. Well, and that we don't make it worse on one side to try to offer the technology to the other,

right? And you're going to have all those in those electrical things, you know, things blow like, you know, right now some of these cars blow up. The lithium batteries are still really dangerous and weird. So, you know, I'm just say technology is still at the very beginning. Should we go to the next question then and then can wrap up? Okay. If Arlington becomes a carbon neutral climate resistance community in 20 to 30 years, what specific changes do you hope to see in the county? geothermal energy. Is that something that the county is doing at any level? Well, yeah. Uh the schools um yeah, Cardinal has it. Um church.

Yeah. Yeah. There we do have some. I think the challenge for single family homes for example or smaller lots is could be shared. It could be there. Right. Exactly. But uh so we did the um energy committee had invited um uh someone to talk about geothermal. It's like it's just not it's not as prevalent here in Virginia and so and there there's just some access problems and then just uh that right the site site related issues as well. So unique. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I I mean there's there's there are some certainly some challenges, but one that we're not we're certain we're keeping our eye on that as a potential solution.

Would like to see more trees. I'll bring the temperatures down. Sure.

I would like to see u you know and then we get maybe to an environment where applicants understand that we come in and I think they do now and and they're willing to play the game. Um, and many times I'd like to believe that, you know, a project comes in better than it um or ends up being better than it started in the beginning, but that it's not such a fight for things like affordable housing and trees, which is the county goal and the C2E and things like that where it's it's understood that it is a necessity for us to be able to live

period. Right. uh and live a quality life. I mean, all the services set us up to live quality lives, but if the environment part of it isn't there, it's not going to make a bit of difference.

Think that we're not doing enough. It's obvious in the future we have to start thinking about in terms of resilient how to be how to become a resilient community if there is flooding having a game plan where to go. Right now we have, for example, if there's a fire, there's the fire department. What happens if all of a sudden there's a flooding? We right now don't do. Oh, hi. And that's it.

Okay. Just you can just raise your hands when I get to that one. Um, so I would love to see um more people embracing um multimodal and micromobility transportation options, both using them themselves and then also um people culturally supporting um others using that. the number of times I've seen a post um on an RL now article about somebody getting hit by a car and most of the comments are like those bikers are awful. What was that? How fast were they going on their scooter? What? And it's so I'd love to see people um embracing the the all three cars, but then also being grateful that others are embracing it because then it frees up the road so that the people that do need to use cars can use them. Um and it, you know, they're contributing to like cleaner air for us all. Um, I'd love for all of the options that we're striving for to be affordable. Um, for the average person to be able to, um, embrace and contribute. Um, I'd love for all people to be doing their part. Um, and for when we do have climate impacts that, um, they're not there are not some people that are disproportionately impacted by those. So, oh well, there's a lot of heat down in certain neighborhoods, but you know, I'm comfortable with my uh verdant oasis, so I'm not so worried. I hope we are all um benefiting from the um improvements and that no uh community is disproportionately impacted by the ones that haven't been mitigated yet.

Thank you.

What I heard is Tenley wants traffic jams on the trail with all the bikes. I if I could make a comment about water. I would like to understand water better and the role it play like water is not being used. We're getting a lot of like this area gets as we just said so much water. Uh that was true even before I remember when coming here from California because I lived there for nine years and I was like this is so green everything is lush. Um and uh but water really you know between collecting the the idea of collecting gray water uh filtering water and you know using it for as it's great way to insulate things it's a great way to separate things it creates a sound barrier so more studies about water I mean this is something that you know like when I when I'm I I now see that these uh lots have to have a network of pipes and things to collect the water. I would like it to go somewhere and do something. Maybe, you know, not just maybe you could water your garden. That would be a good start. People don't even do that. Um,

some people they do the little dinky rain barrels. Like I'm talking about sis. No, I understand that. I'm just saying if there's more of a collective understanding about what water can do, maybe we can harness it. It's energy. Water is Yeah. Just saying. Yeah. Great. Okay. So, I think we are at the end. Um, do you want to go over the next step and then we'll do public comments and then we'll I'll go home. That

that sounds great. And on behalf of the team, the project team, this has been a wonderful conversation. Thank you so much for opening up, giving your different perspectives, your input, your feedback on that been fantastic and and I Jen's fingers are tapping away there. So, I look forward to reviewing those. Um, one of the next steps uh for the spring of this year, uh, what we're, uh, going to be doing is, uh, we're going to have a a public engagement, uh, session in June, beginning May of June, uh, throughout the those months, we're doing the canvasing, the pop-up events. We encourage you to go ahead and go to our climate action plan website on the county uh, you know, web page. Just type in climate action plan. Scroll down. You can enter your email address and we'll keep you apprised of any and all opportunities to be involved, to be engaged, to come to these pop-up events, come to the public open houses and and so forth. And so, um, we greatly appreciate the time tonight, but this is just part of a much bigger conversation that we definitely want to have. And once again, whether it's a vulnerability assessment and the outcome of that or it's other elements, uh we we need your input. At the end of the day, people need to see themselves in this climate action plan. They have to understand their role uh that 97% of the greenhouse gas emissions doesn't come from county activities. It's from me as a resident, all of us here at the table and so forth. And we have a role to play in addressing these issues. So, thank you again. And again on behalf of the entire project team, thank you for the time. Um and to be continued.

Have you or are you thinking of going to civic associations at all? Uh we have civic federation included in our engagement plan to be part of that whole process and and uh we do have a civic federation uh representative as part of the group as well uh to liazison our advisory group. Thank you. Thank you so much. And we'll do public comment. I think we have two speakers. I guess so. You get to go first. Have fun. Sure. Okay. Okay. All right. So, two minutes each and then so knowing that we're standing in between you and going home, but since we sat through this meeting when we weren't invited actually. So,

always you were here. Might as well do this. Um really quick and I hope my time didn't

Okay, we have three public speakers. Um uh three three real quick points uh just to take forward. One is dark sky international dark sky standards. It's an energy issue. It's a health issue. It's a wildlife issue. It's a safety issue and a security issue. More is not better. And light going where it's not needed or not desired can be more of a problem than a help. So, every project now, the new GBIP has some of the international standards in there. I'm not quite sure. I'm not as quite as up to speed on that one as I am on Earth Glass, but but I I think that some of the key provisions are in there. But again, that's only those who go through that process and not everything else. Um, I'm going to try to find out whether the new beautifully redone Columbia Pike corridor, which has those globe lights, whether they are in compliance or not because upward lighting is a problem and and shouldn't be I I don't know, but but this applies to everybody, including the county, including individual residents. Um, second thing is a lot of these great ideas that we've heard tonight and I'm sure we'll be hearing through the next two years um have I think have some staff implications both in terms of technical capability and experience but also just numbers. There are a lot of things on the plate here potentially. Um, and I know that Arlington tries to be lean and mean, but this is an area where I it's not the only area, but I because I've already said this kind of thing about the whole natural resources part of DPR, but the things we

care about, things we want to make better, we have to invest in with staff capability. Um third thing is um again on on a lot of these topics take a look at the behavioral feedback loop is are you getting if if you have bad weather are the circumstances for doing you know bikes and other things going to allow that to happen. Um, but people people need to be looked at as choice making individuals on all these kinds of things and the policies go along with that.

Thank you. And feel free to email us and restrict the um additional thoughts, but you had the meeting last week so you provided. Yeah, we're I'm in it for the long haul. Okay. Thank you for your service forcing the thoughts. Um, and um, Mr. Shiners. Yeah.

Okay. So, I'm going to start first with an observation. Even though I wasn't required to come to this meeting, apparently, I I'm so glad that I did because the the two discussions I got to witness were incredible. um the county board and uh the citizens of Arlington County uh are incredible in incredible hands, but the people in this room um you know the the thoughtfulness that I I saw behind all the everyone's comments was uh I just wish um more people viewed these discussions and had better appreciation of the incredible talent that is is making Arlington a better So, there's that. And one quick comment on trees. Um, there is great untapped potential for adding trees to Arlington County. Um, earlier today, I and a couple of other master naturalists uh began the process of reviewing where additional trees can be placed on Arlington public school property that is not being used uh for uh recreational purposes or any other purposes. The very first school we went to, we identified uh specific spots where over a hundred trees could be placed. And so we have lots of other schools that we could go to. So do that. So and last, thank you two uh Jennifer and Richard for taking on the monumental task of putting the the EAP uh together. But I feel confident that in the year 2050, we'll be very proud of what you guys do. That's it.

Thank you very much. And we have one uh online speaker. Jamie Karn, if you would like to unmute, Miss Mr. K. Hi. Uh good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes.

Wonderful. Uh thank you very much all of you for the deliberations. My name is Jamie Kern, Arlington resident since uh 2015. Uh I'm on the volunteer energy committee. I appreciate all the discussions there. Uh Rich, excellent presentation on the climate action plan. I just have three quick points. Uh one is yes, we are uh bit styied being a Dylan rule state. However, that doesn't prevent us or the county board or anyone involved from asking, not requiring, but asking. And I've seen this in other jurisdictions. We don't have the authority to mandate. However, we have an ambition and would we would like to request from you the developer as being part of our community if you would consider these priorities of ours in your design at any stage of the process. It's acceptable to say that in whatever way you think is appropriate but I think that's important for and I will raise every meeting it's important to recognize that Dylan rule doesn't mean cannot say it just means cannot mandate. Um second point is uh uh in any any development of any long-term plans relating to the energy sector or where companies are involved in large investments including housing, it's important to give them a step-wise trajectory. You know, we've seen this globally and successfully where you say, look, this is where we are now and our requirements now. in five years for example we're going to ratchet up in in next five and next five and next five so that nothing's sudden nothing's dramatic everything's anticipated and the industry can prepare for it whatever industry it happens to be uh and and that is also the way the Paris agreement has been developed all the countries who agreed to it to reach their climate neutrality by 2050 just like Arlington have said you know we're going to start with this ratchet and then continue to ratchet up every 5 years it was an acceptable solution for 190 countries and And I think it's a great opportunity

for Arlington to be a participant. Lastly, to the member uh who is speaking about uh the European uh actions, I appreciate that working for the European Union and um I'm happy to provide further testimony, but while there are a lot of great things coming from the EU, there's a lot more that we have the capability to do. So, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Please um email us your comments and we can circulate them to the commission. Thank you. about the European Union, Jake. He said he works for for European Union or something. He mentioned the European Union. Yes. I I cover energy policy for the EU here in the US.

Great. Okay. Well, thank you all very much for being here tonight. I really appreciate um having you here as well as all of your comments for the discussion tonight. So, thank you. See you Monday. Sorry.