Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, May 4th, 2026 meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Nia Bagley, chair. Tonight, we will discuss and make motions to the following items. The first item is an overview of the risk assessment and management plan for Arlington County. Next, a site plan amendment to allow temporary conversion of residential units to hotel units. And finally, an adaptive reuse site plan amendment for the conversion of two office buildings to residential. A few pointers before we get started for the participants. Presenters and speakers joining the meeting through Microsoft Teams, please keep your phones and other electronic devices muted until you were called upon by the clerk. Please turn off the sound to any devices around you to minimize interference and keep your cameras off until the clerk announces your name to speak. When called upon, you must unmute yourself by clicking on the microphone icon that is in the meeting command bar at the top of the screen. Neither the moderator nor the clerk have the ability to unmute your mic. Once you have spoken, please mute your mics and turn your cameras off. If you are dialing in by phone to join the meeting, press star six to unmute. Public speakers will be called upon by the clerk at an assigned time. Pre-registration with email confirmation is required to speak at tonight's hearing. We are not able to accommodate additional speakers. All speakers, virtual and hybrid, will receive two minutes to comment as an individual. Only representatives of a county board appointed advisory group, commission, and or committee and or a commission will receive three minutes to comment. A timer will be displayed on the screen if speaking virtually and speakers in person will follow the timer stationed on the podium. Audio of tonight's meeting is available by phone. If commissioners, presenters, or speakers lose internet connectivity, please reconnect by phone. However, if you are dialing in by phone and unable to see the screen, we will provide an audible 30 second warning to wrap up your comments. You will be muted when

your time has expired. The meeting chat is active for presenters or commissioners who need technical assistance only. Please do not use the meeting chat for discussion, public comment, questions about agenda items, or requests for further information. All public comments must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony period. Tonight's meeting will be available for review through the YouTube platform. A link has been provided on the planning commission website 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Although the meetings will no longer be a live broadcast, the meetings will be available for review with closed captioning on Comcast Xfinity channels 25 and 1073 and Verizon Fios channels 39 and 40 24 to 48 hours after the adjournment of the meeting. Lastly, this is a public forum. Tonight's meeting will be recorded and posted to the county website via a link to YouTube as stated. All information associated with associated with tonight's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements. Madame Clerk, please call the first agenda item.

Thank you. Our first item is an overview of the risk assessment and management plan and how it is helping inform flood resilient design in Arlington. We have dees staff Eileen Wquest and Jason Papaacosma to present this item to us this evening. This is anformational item.

Great. Thank you. Thanks for inviting us here. And we have a short presentation and then we're happy to take questions as well. So, um, so we're going to talk a little bit about the risk assessment management plan and how it's helping Arlington be more flood resilient as we as we move forward. So, let me sorry. There we go. Oops. Jump to the next slide here. Sorry. Um, so just to talk a little bit about some of Arlington's um kind of flood risk challenges, what we're dealing with currently. Um, you know, as we all know, some areas of the county have experienced repetitive and severe life-threatening flooding. And some of these areas, um, the reason they have a higher risk of flooding is they are in located in areas that were former stream valleys. Um so during the history of Arlington's early development about 60% of our natural stream network was um buried underground in storm sewers and um at the time you know the storm water management requirements at at that time obviously were not the same as as what we have kind of more modern standards today. Um so the storm water pipe capacity at that time you know was not accounting for future development and obviously not for climate change. um you know back this was you know nearly a hundred years ago. And also the design did not include um what is known as overland relief which is um something that is is planned for in um current engineering design and that's a safe pathway for water to flow you know if the system reaches capacity during a during a flash flood event. Um so again some of these areas are are former stream valleys. Um you know they have this this higher risk of flooding and this is really kind of a key focus of the ramp. I'll I'll talk a little bit more about that as we move forward. So, um but with our overall storm water management program, um following, you know, several severe storm events that we had in 2018 and 2019, the county really tried to pivot our storm water program to have more of a resilience

focus. And there was an interdep departmental working group that was formed and had um a series of recommendations and and several of those you see reflected here on the slide. Um and they they made these recommendations for strategies to reduce flood risk in Arlington. Um and the ramp is one of those those key kind of recommendations. It falls under the analytics and and data assessment um category that you see here. But there were also other other areas as well that were uh focused you know for improvement. So, so the ramp is really um overall is a a framework for better modeling u measuring and understanding our risk um in the face of increasing frequency um and intensity of storms. So the some of the key aspects of the ramp that are really important you know for our future planning are these climate projections. So, not just understanding our our current risk today, but what would be our risk in in 20 240 and 2070 um with these these changing storm patterns. Um and then also new inundation maps which highlight some of these areas um that are outside of FEMA flood planes but that also have areas of flood risk. And then a a really key part of the ramp also was um risk assessments. So understanding what our um cost implications are, what our our current risk is. Um so we understand that today um if we do nothing, this is potential risk that we might um you know be affected by from flooding. And so we can understand that when we're looking at flood mitigation and the cost of potential flood mitigation projects. So you have a better way to to compare those um and understand those. So So that's just a little little overview at the ramp. So again, um just trying to clarify. I think everyone is is probably very familiar with FEMA flood planes. Um those are again um flood hazard maps that are published by the um by the

agency the FEMA and those are flood insurance rate maps. You might hear from the as well and they basically include these areas called special flood hazard areas. Um and those generally are also known as a 100red-year flood plane. a 1% um chance of flooding um in any given year or it's also known as a 100red-year flood plane. So, those 100-year flood planes are federally regulated and structures that are in the flood plane um must have flood insurance if they have a um a federally backed mortgage. Um so, everyone is is pretty familiar with uh FEMA flood planes. But one of the challenges, you know, that we've seen in Arlington and also across the country is that actually a lot of flooding is happening outside of these FEMA flood planes. So 40% of flood damage claims are happening in um you know in other areas beyond the FEMA flood planes. So you know the key there is that the FEMA flood planes are not really capturing all the high-risisk areas. So that was one of the focuses with the ramp and the inundation mapping that we um have in the ramp you know is trying to um better explain and and highlight these other locations where we have um also have flood risk. So, so for example, you can see on the map here, this shows um you know some parts of Arlington where we have the the ramp inundation areas. Again, those are are not regulated um as FEMA flood planes, but they are areas where the the ramp identified through modeling that there is elevated um some elevated flood risk. And again, you can kind of see those are some of the former um stream valleys. So again the the risk is related to those being lower lower topography areas lower elevation even if the stream is is no longer you know remaining there. Um and you can see in the dark blue and the light blue those are official FEMA flood planes. So again the this is just kind of explaining the the difference here and the importance of the um the ramp in terms of highlighting these these

inundation areas and kind of giving us that additional information. So, oh, let me see. I think oops know if this has an animation on here. So, um so anyway, sorry this slide is is not showing up all the way there, but um but basically the the ramp included information um on multiple climate change threats. So, um in addition, you know, rainfall and storms, increasing frequency of storms and intensity, but also looking at sea level rise and um storm surge. So if you had a combination of um a very intense storm, you know, while you were having a hurricane or something, you might be having storm surge coming and you could have a combination of factors um with that. So So just to provide some more information, how are we using the ramp? The ramp was was completed in 2024. So these are some of the examples of the ways that that staff have been um you know, kind of using and applying the information. Um obviously I know um you all have seen some of it in in the recent plan reviews. So that is something you know with with public and private projects um we are using it to uh communicate more to the public so people can have more information. That's you know one of our key aspects is for people to better understand their flood risk and then you know they can make choices in terms of flood insurance or flood proofing or other things um to to best protect themselves. uh resiliency planning and and measurement. Um and then also, you know, we'll talk a little bit uh as well about providing guidance uh for our county projects as we move into the CIP. And again, some of that relates to, you know, looking at the potential cost from, you know, our existing flood risk. And then that that is helpful to compare um you know, to future projects so you can see the the cost benefit. Um, another important sort of follow-on project um that came out of

the ramp is some um flood adaptation design and construction guidelines. So, we've been working on those over the past year and we're um in the process of of completing those and so we'll be sharing some more information about those as well. And so, those are really important. Again, they have kind of a combination um a new type of flood adaptation map that really tries to combine the FEMA flood planes and the ramp inundation maps and provide u more information about these these higher risk locations, but it also has a lot of great strategies for um designers and and construction um um you know providers um to be able to design their projects in more resilient way. So that that will be um we'll be sharing that very soon. So um and as we talked about, you know, the ramp is very helpful looking at the the value of our current investments, the cost of an action um and confirmation of some of our previous um analyses. Um and then it also did include some other policy and programmatic u measures. And then one other thing too is um you know more agencies and even some of the bond rating agencies are looking for this types of resilience planning information um for local governments and and other um uh organizations. So if you're applying for grants and and other things um having this this type of study done is is very helpful um for that as well. So, so just a few other slides kind of giving some examples of some of the information from the ramp. So, you can see on this slide here, this is um an example of one of the um inundation maps um in the ramp. So, it's got on the left side um a 10-year storm, you know, with baseline conditions and then on the right side is a looking at a 500year storm in in0. So again, um it's not only looking at our current situation for

flood modeling, but projecting forward with um with potential climate change impacts to storms and and what we might see as a result of that. So So there's um this type of mapping available for quite a few areas of the county in in the ramp study. And so then obviously that can be very helpful with our capital project planning. So it helps, you know, us to identify areas and and properties that are at a higher risk from flooding. Um, and again, you know, they may be outside of the the FEMA flood planes. Um, and then we can also look at part of the ramp also identified and I'll just I'll just jump ahead to the next slide here to kind of illustrate this. um in the ramp. Uh they were also able to look at um so once you have the current information you know and modeling and and flooding you can look at when so when we do certain number of projects you know what type of reduction in flooding are we seeing um from those specific projects. So uh in all the wersheds that were studied in the ramp there were a number of projects that were scoped and we are able to estimate reduction in flooded area um in terms of acreage and and percentage and and things like that. So, it's very, you know, quantitative that way in terms of being able to evaluate and and compare projects. So, you know, as we um talked about earlier with some of the the watersheds where we're dealing with the um severe flooding there, there can be a real challenge with space. Um and I know everybody probably, you know, deals with that with with a lot of projects in the county. There's just, you know, a lot of need, you know, for for the space in the county. and there can be a challenge, you know, trying to find room um to make some of these storm water improvements. Um so again, with our capital project, we we do have a relatively new voluntary property acquisition program, and that can um often be one of the most cost-effective ways um you know, in terms of finding more space, you know,

to be able to make the the stormwater upgrades that we um that we are doing. And it also does help to remove um some of these vulnerable properties you know from the the more um risky locations. So um and then again as as the planning commission has seen you know the we are using the information as well um during development plan review. So all the projects are reviewed you know relative to the ramp inundation maps um and we are staff are providing that information um to developers as well for their consideration you know to um you know look at the design are there ways to reduce flood risk and improve the resiliency for the particular project. Um now again this is not a regulatory um requirement like with a FEMA flood plane but it's just again providing you know that additional information and resources um to to and in in a lot of cases it seems you know would be in the interest of of the um the builders and the property owners you know to um to take that into consideration. So but there is a key emphasis on um not shifting flood impacts you know to adjacent properties as well. Awesome. So, and and as I mentioned the ramp um in addition to all the modeling and mapping um there were also some other programmatic and policy recommendations which you can see here and I won't go through all these in detail but many of these the county has um you know undertaken and and is working towards um you know better communications um through you know between agencies. Um, you know, one key area we've been focusing a lot on is having a better uh rainfall um monitoring network, rain gauges and flow gauges, and that's something the county has been um building. Um, and then this also, you can see on here, voluntary property acquisition. So, there's a number of these uh policy recommendations have um have been moving forward. So, as I did mention the flood adaptation design guidelines, these have

been under development and um you know, we will be finishing them up soon and and be sharing some more information about those. So, um so they provide more information about um these flood risk areas and they have a lot of different um voluntary strategies that that builders and designers can take into account in terms of of how you um you know, how you design your building and and things you can do. So it will be useful the residential but also commercial and other levels as well. So so we'll be sharing those shortly. And then we also just wanted to highlight as well that these all the ramp mapping information is available on the county website. And so I have the link um there. And so you can go on there and you can look at the different um climate um you know climate uh um scenarios and and and different layers. you can kind of turn those on and off and see um see all that information there. So, okay, I think that was all we had for the slides. So, I will pause there and see if there are any questions. We can go back if anyone wants to.

Miss Winquist, thank you so much for being with us tonight. And I want to uh thank Mr. Feifer for working with us to coordinate this. This is a really important topic and we hear about it all the time on all the projects and some of us are not as skilled in it or experienced in it as others. The reason this came up this way was um as we were doing the Walgreens site um which ramp was used there and the one commissioner that we have who I think knows a lot about this, Commissioner Robertson

mentioned that oh my gosh that's just not enough. And so following up on that comment, we thought it would be appropriate for everybody's purposes to hear this. So thank you. So I'm going to open it up for questions. Any questions? Uh okay. So let's go with Commissioner Striner, then Commissioner Lantel, then Commissioner Robertson.

Okay. Well, yeah. Uh what Commissioner Baggley said, this is very educational, so I always love those. Um so there you mentioned the piece about the sort of regulatory authority. Is there any appetite for that from staff or do you think the sort of personal self-interest of preserving you know homeowners preserving their and land owners preserving their property is enough for this and that the primary focus should be educational and informing and informing policy decisions made here or is there a push for regulatory authority here as well? Um I think if you want to jump in on

Yeah, I'll jump in on that. Yeah, that's that is the sort of the next question. And I think the way we're looking at this is this is a starting point. A lot of localities are doing what we just described. How do we fill in the gaps that the regulatory FEMA maps don't cover?

So this is where we start. I think there's a lot of considerations. If you take it regulatory, you know, looking more closely, what authority do we have? What does that mean for properties and their ability to develop and all those things? So I think one way I look at it is we're a lot farther along than we were five years ago in this space. We really weren't. we had nothing and five years from now I I I would think this would be more advanced then you know as as this these considerations become more and more important. So I think I think maybe where it's headed but there's a lot to consider before we get there. Yeah. And I think where it is now is great too because if I'm if I'm a land owner and I can see that my my property is in a very vulnerable area I'm going to be very self-interested in preserving that. So this information is helpful. So thank you.

Yeah. Actually, I'd like to hear Commissioner Peter Commissioner Robertson's comments before I say anything. Go ahead, Commissioner Robertson.

Thank you. Um, I think you guys have done an absolutely spectacular job on this. I'm so impressed with the thought and the effort and the uh commitment to take seriously something that a lot of communities don't take as seriously as they should. Um my my question which I will warn you ahead of time doesn't have a good answer is uh how would you describe your level of confidence that the horizon modeling and your IDF curves and your blended engineering approach and the other actions that you've taken the terrific actions that you've taken will be sufficient to a climate future that is wildly uncertain. curtain.

Sure. That's a good question. I'll jump in and then yeah, Jason, I'm sure you you'll have um more to add. So, I know they did have a couple different um scenarios they were looking at with the um you know, kind of cl potential climate change. So um you know with um the IDF curves which you know for everybody's um awareness if if you haven't heard that it's those are basically just um you know planning planning information that people the engineers use to kind of like figure out how to how large to design the storm water based on you know what ratefall they expect um you know for for different storms. So um so they did look at we did have two different scenarios that we included um in the ramp. So, I think that was one way to try to get a, you know, sort of a more optimistic and then, you know, maybe a little bit more um, you know, not not as rosy of a scenario. So, um, so I think that was, you know, um, generally the the approach we took with that. So,

well, I I'll I'll just beat this horse that's already dead. You're not rosy scenario isn't not rosy enough. Okay. Um we did uh I I worked at EPA during the Clinton administration which was in a different geologic age. So um we tried doing similar things and we failed um uh almost miserably to u predict with any accuracy what we faced. And I think a degree of humility about that will help us uh make this a better program. So all I'd suggest is something like, you know, an an X factor that you add to these things to uh to try to take cognizance of it. You when we were dealing with u the reauthorization of the safe drinking water act, there was a 10x safety factor applied to help protect the health of children. Um, was there any degree of certainty that 10x would be enough? No. But we uh we wanted to add something that took cognizance of the fact that kids, you know, ingest more water and pollutants in terms of their body weight than than adults do. Um, and uh some thinking about things like that that might be used in this kind of situation I think helps us. um we're never going to be able to avoid all of the problems that we face from an uncertain climate future, but it allows us to uh gain a little bit on them. Um I thank Commissioner Lantel for the difference and yield to him.

Thank you.

And moving from uh Commissioner Robertson's looking way out the road, I want to look closer to now. Um up on the screen of course is spoutr run which was the big topic of last last meeting. What sort of coordination is there now and what sort of um putting things in the capital plan is there now? We know this is a problem area. We now have a plan for at least one block of this but the new pipe there isn't going to connect up with anything. So, it sort of isn't going to be able to be used yet. We're already getting flooding now. Um, it's going to require a great deal of county participation and for that matter VOTE participation in order to make anything happen along that that area there because it isn't just that one site, it's that whole area. And of course that drains a huge amount of Arlington further upstream um where we've done a little bit of of overland relief for one project but you know not much more. What sort of coordination is there? What sort of getting things done now is happening in response to what you're clearly highlighting as major problems. And it's not just this one site. a few others, but this is like jumps out almost as like one of the the most in need, I guess.

Sure. Yeah. I'll um pass that to Jason, I think, is

Yeah. And it's a good it's a good question. I will start by saying it's even more challenging, I think, than you mentioned. Not that you don't know this, but those pipes, one of them's under a private, you know, the pawn shop, one of them goes on to the shopping center, right? So, it's even more plus V dot. So in a way that's in in a nutshell this is kind of you know a very I'd say they use the word good loosely here a good example of the challenges of a stormwater program these these legacy land use and drainage decisions that were made as Eileen described you know decades ago without really thinking about like what was coming or how water wins in the end so but but to your question we've started because we're in the middle of our capital planning process the next 10-year CIP will be proposed in June and for consideration July. So, we're having some conversations with our transportation folks about planning for that area because there's transportation needs there as you know and there's storm water needs and so how do we put that all together and then we're going to have to engage other parties that that's what makes it extra challenging because it's not just within our right of way to plan and implement it has these other parties. So, we're looking at it for sure. It's not going to happen overnight, but it's a high priority to figure out like when when can we do that and what's what's it going to take.

The fear is that we are 2026 now and we wouldn't be able to get anything until 2036 2040 to really address it and that's way too far off. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Thank you so much for this presentation. I'm very happy to see it and um I really did love all your slides and the information.

I think it's something that all of us and the public needs to be more aware of. Um, I remember a project that recently got approved and I think it was by 66. I'm sorry I can't recall the name. And one of my questions that I asked during this uh SPRC was if the building essentially becomes an island what if worst case scenario and I didn't expand on that but in my head I knew why I asked that question. It's because gosh it's really loud. We are not really planning for worst case scenario in a building completely cut off from er police help

similar to what happened in Puerto Rico where San Juan was completely cut off for about a week or two and um people didn't even have access to water. Mhm. So, I'm wondering if there's any way within RAMP to expand on that and start wondering if there are going to be buildings and houses within these spaces that potentially can become islands in quotations, how would they respond in a worst case scenario?

That's that's a a great question. I mean I think one of the advantages of the modeling and the mapping and the ramp is that it really um you know helps to highlight these areas and so it's not just in dees or um or CPHD but all of our departments you know we and part of it I didn't necessarily focus on it tonight but the a part of the ramp was looking at critical facilities around the county um and identifying you know for our public facilities you know where are ones that are at higher risk. So um countywide we can be making um you know changes or adjustments to those um those properties. But you know this information um you know can can be used you know with our emergency management you know um uh departments and and divisions and you know for planning and so um we do coordinate with um you know with DIY and and on all the um kind of hazard management and those types of plans as well. So, so I think that's, you know, really a key here is just kind of, you know, elevating, you know, this this information and kind of highlighting these areas that are more vulnerable so everyone can can start to understand and, you know, whether it's transportation or um emergency response or, you know, however you're you're you know, what what you're looking at um what kind of adjustments we need to make, but but that's a very good point as well. So,

any other questions or comments? Awesome. Mquiston staff, thank you so much for joining us this evening. I know how busy you are. And again to uh Mr. Feifer for the coordination and again over here to Commissioner uh Robertson who kind of came up with this questioned at the beginning so that Mr. Feifer and I could push this further and um you have elevated the conversation amongst us. I've learned a lot this evening. So we really appreciate your time. Thank you, madame clerk. Could you call the next item?

Our next item is SPLA25-000036, a site plan amend amendment for site plan 66 to allow for temporary conversion of 125 residential units to hotel units for a period of two years located at 1901 North Moore Street. And we have Emma Martin, our principal planner, to present this item this evening.

Hello. Thank you. Give me a second to pull up my presentation. You okay? Hi there. Hi, I'm Emma Martin with the Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development, and I will be presenting the 1901 North Moore Street Major Site Plan Amendment. I'm joined online virtually by um AED's Jane Kim and DEES's Rob Gibson. This item consists of a request to temporarily convert 125 residential units to hotel units for a period of up to two years. The site is subject to site plan number 66 which is approved for a two tower 27story residential building with ground floor retail. Adjacent properties include Gateway Park to the north, Brandon Gateway mixeduse development to the west, the Waterview mixeduse development to the east, and Central Place to the south. Site plan 66 was originally approved in 1968 for the Rosland East office building, which has since been demolished. In 2021, a major site plan amendment was approved to redevelop the site with a 423 unit 27story residential building with ground flooror retail and there have been various minor site plan amendments over the years. The building is currently under construction. The parcels subject to this application are zoned coin and the applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing zoning or GLUP designation. The co rousing zoning district corresponds with the high office apartment hotel glop designation and the site is located within the Rosling coordinated redevelopment district. The applicants proposing to convert 125 residential units to hotel on floors 5 and 7 through 17 mostly in the southern tower as well as converting 77 parking

spaces to hotel use for a temporary period of up to two years. The applicant initially requested the temporary conversion for a period of 5 years, but they amended the request to shorten the time period to two years after receiving feedback during the project's review. The top image on this slide is the approved fifth floor plan. The bottom shows the proposed. The beige color is residential and the pink would be temporary hotel units. They're proposing a partial conversion in the southern tower of this floor. There's no changes to the sixth floor, so this is the seventh. um with the approved on top and proposed shown on the bottom. And this is the last floor plan I'll show you, level eight, where they're proposing a partial conversion. This is similar to floors 8 through 12 and then full conversions of the southern tower on floors 13 through 17. The temporary hotel use request is consistent with the Rosland sector plan, which recognizes the importance of both residential and hotel uses in the Rosen Coordinated Redevelopment District or the RCRD. The proposal provides flexibility of use that's responsive to market opportunities while also establishing a very limited window of impact for concerns raised during the comm community the engagement process. Specifically, the proposal supports financial performance of multif family buildings which helps construct residential buildings and overall increases housing supply. It likely has a limited impact on overall housing supply as these will be res temporarily used as hotel during the initial lease up period and then converted back to residential. It adds a unique hotel type of units which can be added or removed quickly and is finally a permitted use in the zoning district is temporary in nature and doesn't permanently alter the land use. Staff conducted community outreach at the beginning of the public review process to the following groups including the North Rosen Civic Association, Radner Fort Meyer Height Civic Association, the Rosland Bid,

Waterview Condominiums, Lay Meridian Hotel, Central Place, and the Hilton Hotel. And on February 4th, 2026, we had a virtual public meeting and invited civic association, surrounding residents, the bid, as well as liaison from the planning commission, housing commission, disability advisory committee, transportation commission, economic development commission um to engage in a public discussion with the applicant and staff about the proposed site plan amendment. The applicant and staff provided an over overview of the request followed by questions from the public. Attendees asked questions about traffic and transportation um and expressed concern about temporary units taking away from the resident residential inventory as well as a desire for a shorter period of time for the conversion which at the time was requested for 5 years um and the community had voiced more of an appreciation for 3 years as opposed to five. Staff had also created account a web page that included links to the application materials and community meeting materials. So staff believes that the proposal generally complies with the adopted county plans and policies, can be achieved with no structural no structural alterations or additions to the building or streetscape, and is not anticipated to create undue adverse impacts on on the neighborhood subject to compliance with the proposed conditions. Therefore, we recommend adoption of the ordinance to permit temporary conversion of 125 units for a period of up to two years. And that's all for my presentation.

Thank you, Miss Martin. And now we'll hear from the applicant.

Thank you very much, Chair Baggley and members of the commission. My name is Andrew Painter with the law firm of Walsh Kawuchcci. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. I am joined uh with representatives from Jefferson Apartment Group, Greg Van, Greg Vani to my right, also Jason Food and Mike Goodwin with Placemaker. Um and I appreciate Miss Martin uh you know her work on this and her summary. Um she is going to run the the the slide deck tonight because I keep getting booted off of Teams for some reason. Um, what I'm going to do is sort of just provide an overview of the application. I'm going to turn it over to Greg Vani to, uh, discuss how we got to where we are. Uh, and then the time remaining, I'd like Jason to, uh, speak to, um, just, you know, his company and placemaker and stuff. Um, we can go to the next slide. Um, this is an exciting use of the property. uh in our estimation, if we can go back one slide, uh that proposes the temporary conversion of 125 units in an approved building that is on the property for a hotel use for up to two years. Um the approved building is under construction uh and JAG intends to begin leasing in the next few months. But as Miss Martin uh mentioned, your staff report notes, the proposed temporary hotel use will facilitate faster occupancy within the building. It will help activate uh what would otherwise be vacant units during the initial lease up period. It will provide a creative way to partially recapture and realize the inventory of hotel units that we lost during the pandemic. And it will provide a compatible use that provides economic activity and help Rosen's retail and restaurant spaces including within this building. Uh, next slide, please. Um, she provided an orientation of of where this is, but the site is uh shown uh in beige there. Um, it was approved back in 2021 for a site plan um major site plan amendment for redevelopment. It is a plan for high office apartment hotel on the GLUP. It is in the RCRD and the sector plan as your staff report notes recommends modernizing Rosland's hotel inventory uh adding to it and having

continued development uh with it in the modernization of it. Uh next slide. So the 2021 site plan uh permits construction of a mixeduse building containing 422 residential units. Uh it's 27 stories. It's a unique building. If you have been down to Rosland recently, uh it is quite striking architecture. It has two towers. Um and the uh northern tower is in the foreground closest to Gateway Park, but it's in the southern tower that the majority of the ch proposed changes would be located. Sort of the darker building that's there. Uh the building is supported by uh 283 parking spaces in a partially above grade and below grade as well as about 11,000 square ft of ground floor retail space. Uh next slide. Here is a uh rendered site plan uh showing uh on on page north or page the top of the page that is the eastern sort of the side of the property. You can see north Lind Street as you go into Georgetown. That is where the main lobby entrance is going to be and where there would be short-term curbside utilization for uh pickups and drop offs and just parking along North Lind Street along North Moore Street on the western side of the building. That is where the loading is and all the vehicular entrances are for residences um and and visitors. We go to the next slide. So, at this point, I'm going to turn it over to uh to Greg just to briefly talk about the construction status and where things stand. Greg.

Great. Thank you. As Andrew said, my name is Greg Vani. I'm a senior vice president with Jefferson Apartment Group on here on behalf of ownership. Uh as described, the building is is substantially uh complete at this point uh with just interior unit finishes uh and other finishes remaining to be completed. Uh we are awaiting permanent power from our friendly uh energy utility company uh and and expect to receive that this summer and then start to deliver units in uh common areas uh it this fall.

Right. Thank you. Next slide. So what is being proposed is uh temporary uh conversion of 125 units on floors five and floors 7 through 17 in mostly of the southern tower to be used for hotel uses. Uh we did initially file for a period of 5 years but after meeting with uh members of the public as well as county board members and discussing with staff we later reduced that to two years. Uh it would be supported by 77 parking spaces. The parking ratio would remain a 611 which is identical to the residential parking ratio. Uh there are no exterior or any major interior structural changes, no modifications to site circulation, GFA layout, no external signage. The only signage would be inside the building or inside the garage. Um and so again, it's really just taking unleashed uh dark vacant residential uh apartments uh during that initial lease up period, which for a building of this size over 400 units uh can take a while. Uh next slide. So, I'll I'll let um uh I'll let Jason speak a little bit to Placemaker, but I did just want to highlight a couple things here. Um one, Placemaker is a good local success story. Um as some of you all know, it started out as Y Hotel back in 2017. Uh and the idea of a pop-up hotel or temporary conversion really was pioneered in this county. It is simply or you know since taken off nationwide. Uh the company has successfully operated three interim pop-ups in the county as well as partnership with MRy Mount University. for the other three partnership, for the other three popups, uh they ultimately transitioned fully to residential use and the company has grown into the largest independent hotel operator in the region. It has contributed over a million dollars in transit occupancy taxes. Uh it employs more than 24 people at every single one of their temporary uh uh interim uses for hotels. If we can go to the next slide and I wanted to spend just a second to talk about the temporary hotel use. Um

first uh as staff mentioned this really does help derisk large-scale projects during that initial leaseup phase where there is uncertainty. It improves lender confidence. It helps unlock and catalyze additional housing development. You know especially for the larger atcale projects uh for residential uh as staff mentioned also it's not permanent. Uh this is only for a limited time. uh the experience that Placemaker has had is that the majority of these uses go away and convert back to their residential use within about a year to a year and a half. Hence the reason why we've requested two years. Um third, and something that is really appreciated by the people that uh that live here, this offers and the ability to combine apartment style living and spaces, especially if you have suites or two bedrooms with a common living area in the middle uh with hotel style consistency. Um, and you know, frankly for me and my family, I I would love to stay in something like this because we have kids and we need more space. Um, but in doing so, we do capture new visitors who might not otherwise stay in Arlington. It's especially true for families. It's especially true for relocations and corporate tenants. Uh, and it's also true with a lot of embassy work and other types of things uh downtown that want to be proximate to DC but not in the district uh proper. Um, and what we have found or what Placemaker has found is that a lot of people that come here, whether they're relocating from a different region or they are apartment users or people that are interested in locating uh in the apartment, this provides an opportunity for them to actually live on site and then there are is a significant number of people that eventually end up leasing and becoming permanent residents of the building. So, there's a benefit for that as well. Um, and lastly on this slide, Arlington has approved this use in nine other uh locations, four of which were Placemaker Y hotel locations. Next slide. Um, one of the things that we found and if you've done uh a temporary hotel conversion before, um, you you know that there are a series of conditions and up until this uh this application, the conditions were not as robust as what you're seeing tonight. During our discussion with representatives of the

community and especially with certain members of the county board, we learned that there were some concerns about the fact that there really is no specific policy about temporary conversions. There are also concerns about compatibility with residential uses and there's also concerns about the need to build community trust. Um, and so we proposed a series of conditions after talking with those stakeholders, proposed them to staff. Meanwhile, staff is working on their own set of conditions. They merged them together and what came out is what is in front of you this evening. Um, some of them are carried forward from prior um, you know, prior hotel conversions. But a couple things that I wanted to mention. Um, first, in addition to the temporary hotel tracking report and the utilization report at the conclusion of the two-year period, uh, we are now obligated and have committed to, uh, more robust check-in procedures and distributing information about parking and standing and idling uh, in travel ways in front of the building. Uh, providing information about transit options, providing information about pedestrian connections, environmental sustainability, building efficiency, trash collection, and water usage. So, that is mandatory now. Um, second, uh, you know, having an on-site 247 liaison that is responsible for hotel management and providing that contact information not just to the county but also to the bid, to the civic association, to adjacent property managers and owners in the vicinity of the property. Um, having a temporary hotel parking management plan, having a temporary man temporary management plan as well, and then having procedures for hotel operations, pickup, drop off, and delivery as well. Um, so all of this we thought we could use this as a as a way to address some of the concerns that we've heard. Uh, and we've we've it really has been educational. Um, within whatever a lot of time I have, Madam Chair, I'd like Mr. Finen to speak just a little bit uh, if that might be allowed.

Uh, 30 seconds. Jason, thank you for having me. My name is Jason Fudin. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Placemaker, formerly Y Hotel. Uh, and we founded the business, as Andrew mentioned, here in Arlington. To keep it very brief, um this is this is our home. This is where we came from. We're now national, as Andrew mentioned. Uh jurisdictions like Santa Clair have permanent policies to have pop-up hotels to increase their development of housing supply. And we're super proud of Sergeant Arlington. And I'm happy to answer any questions about this popup or anything else. Thank you all. Good job. Um Madame Clerk, do we have public speakers this evening? We do not.

Wow. Okay. Um I think uh most of you have seen that we did receive some comments and things. So hopefully you've had a chance to review those. Um, I was the planning commission's uh uh representative to the lunch and learn and just as a reminder, this came up uh as a means of um making sure that there was enough uh community outreach and input in both um adapted reuse and uh major site plan amendments. and then also enabled having someone from the planning commission be able to then um make a report because we didn't have anybody who was reporting on these to us other than what we got from staff and an applicant and I did float this as an option for uh our newer commissioners to shadow me and uh Commissioner Amado did so I wanted to just recognize that um you saw my report if you didn't I have copies that I can distribute I brought a couple of hard copies um the biggest thing that we heard I think at the um lunch and learn was one thing that's already been addressed the from 5 years to two. Thank you. Um also transportation issues which sounds like the county board was also spooled up on as well. Um and those include pickup and drop off and primarily along Lind Street. Um, and let's see if there was anything else really that uh sticks out as other things. Um, and just any impact that might be in the hotel industry. So, I will leave it at that and open it up for questions. Commissioner Berky, I'm sorry. Okay, hold on. Commissioner um we'll go with Commissioner Gravara then Commissioner Berky then did you no and

then Commissioner Peterson.

Hi good good evening. Thank you for a great presentation. I I was reading through some of the emails I've re received from um community members. I know that um you know hotel inventory has been down since the pandemic but so have visitors. Um, I know a Meridian was concerned about um an increase uh in sort of competition on uh to to their business model. I'm wondering I I know in the staff report you said you don't foresee that being too problematic, but do you also see that perhaps this this is going to be more of a model that's going to be used by developers? And if so, I know it's been used essentially nine times. Um, I'm just curious on your thought of this. Um, because I I do think it's a it's a good bridge way, right, for offcumbency tax revenue increase. Um, I'm a dog lover, so maybe you could use these for dogs, uh, you know, uh, lodging, um, where some other hotels have restrictions. So, just wanted to get your general thoughts on, um, those questions. My colleague Jane Kim from AED might have more information in terms of market trends um in hotel stock. Jane has joined us online and looks like she's on screen.

Hi Jane Kim from AED. I think um the 125 units and the fact that it's a temporary use is kind of mlay some of the concerns that the hotels may have. I understand that it is a soft market due to a lot of um kind of outside forces in the region. Um but you know, as was stated in the staff report and I believe mentioned by um one of the commissioners previously, you know, we've seen a pretty significant um you know removal of hotel units in specifically in the Rosland area. So we think that the 125 temporary units that this project brings um you know obviously doesn't make up for that big loss but also is kind of a minimal impact both towards the housing the hotel supply as well as the temporary reduction of um housing units.

Okay, great. That was sort of my inclination but just wanted to clarify. I appreciate that. I have a question. Commissioner Burphy, I I'll yield my time to Commissioner Peterson and then I'll go ahead.

I have a question similar to Commissioner Gavvaris, which is just um I was looking at the uh Arlington Economic Development website and saw for um the year 2025 the hotel occupancy rate for the whole county was about 70%. So, I I was also wondering about um you know, since we we still have a lot of vacancy in the hotels, does this potentially hurt the toot? Well, I guess we're still going to get the toot tax one way or the other. Um but I was wondering about like our the businesses that are already here and already contributing to the community. I was a little worried on their part. So, do you know in Rosland specifically, what is the hotel occupancy if the county overall is at 70% for 2025?

Jane, I see. Oh, okay.

Yeah. I mean, I believe it's pretty similar within the subm market overland as it is um overall within the county. Um I think that place marker is also providing a slightly different type of unit versus a traditional hotel. I know that the amenities and things like that are there, but as Mr. Painter mentioned, I mean, these are apartment style units. And so I think the increase in type of supply could even draw potentially other types of visitors to um seek these types of units within the Rosland neighborhood, which I think um has more traditional units, hotel style units with the existing market. Um, and yeah, we will be getting the toot regardless. So, that's not there's no loss in the in the in the potential tax revenue there.

Yeah. Okay, that's a really good distinction that it's a different type of hotel unit. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Berky.

Thank you. Um, so this is for I believe for Miss Martin. So, the um Don't worry, it's not going to be too bad. Um so the site conditions that the applicant is proposing here those would be enforced through what complaints to the to zoning enforcement. Basically it'd be complaint driven. So it would depend I guess on which condition you're talking about but you know if there was a violation of a condition then that you know a formal violation would be issued through zoning depending you know depending on the condition but yes zoning would enforce the conditions

and that would that would typically be complaint driven right yes

typer sh yeah yeah his head um and I'm looking in here it looks like There is a tracking report and is that the the on page 19 of the staff report and is that the end of the looks like it's the end or is that every 3 months? Here I'm looking here. Looks like once every three months. Okay. I guess what I'm getting at with my line of questioning here is um I I you know, we've seen this before. Um and I think it's my duty as a a planning commissioner to evaluate it with our policies and make sure it's and conform, you know, conforms with them. Uh I I don't love these personally. I I do worry it's sort of um some folks in the community might might see that they're getting housing and that it's a different use that's being proposed. I understand the the reasons that are being articulated here. Um but it is a different use and the the folks who are staying in a hotel, it's just a different use than if it's residential. And so, um, I I would like to see a, you know, I need to think about what this would look like, but I would like to see a little bit more oomph, a little bit more emphasis behind proactive reporting, um, to ensure that these conditions are being met because what is almost always the case is that is reactive and it is incumbent upon like the residents and folks who live nearby to then file a complaint. It's a whole thing. And while you know the applicant has a right to develop um certainly folks also have a right to understand what the conditions will be and that they're followed and not have to undertake like a ton of work to make sure that they're being um followed. So um I just wanted to put that on the table. That is not a reason that I would not support this but it is a concern that I have about these projects when they these uh applications when they come through. Thanks.

I have a question first. Um during the uh community meeting, I believe it might have been Ditmar that uh said that they when they did something similar that they specifically in an attempt not to compete with the hotels uh did a um minimum 3-day uh up to 30-day. Is this something that you're considering? I don't think Well, Jason,

no. Um the the way the model works is it we lean into whatever length of stay naturally occurs. So in the summers we end up with a lot of long stays, a lot of Capital One interns from Fairfax uh and and from around the region. And then oftentimes in the spring and fall we see shorter term stays with families on the weekends coming to go to Georgetown or the National Mall. So, uh, it's imperative that we have that flexibility throughout the period, but our average length of stay will be somewhere between four and seven nights, but there'll be times where it's a night for a family that's got, you know, three kids, and there'll be time where it's three months for an intern that's here for the summer. Thank you, Commissioner Steinberger.

Thank you. Um so so I think and I had a comment but I think also piggyback off of some of what we we've heard from staff and then I think that dovetails nicely with what um Commissioner Begley was asking with regards to the average length of stay. I think because this is a different unit type. It's also more potentially more likely that you will see people who want that sort of longer stay. I personally know people who've used the sort of like they're renovating their house kind of thing and they want to move into somewhere and so I think that that has been you know a useful maybe not the intended necessary market for this but that's you know people who stay for like you know 6 weeks um in that you know sort of environment um whereas someone who's you know going out of town for a day or two may tend to veer more towards a more traditional hotel environment um you know anecdotally speaking um so I the reason I initially raised my hand um was to largely align myself with Commissioner Berkey's comments because I think from where where I sort of interpreted that he was going with some of his comments is that I think that it's reasonable for us as a county because we we get these sort of one-off requests every I don't know this is maybe the third or fourth one at minimum that I've feel like I've personally you know been asked to to vote on. And so clearly this is, you know, an entire business has grown out of this as we've discussed, you know, here in Arlington. And I think that's great. I also think it's reasonable that we as a county create some guard rails and sort of say this is what we expect to see with regards to um, you know, this sort of temporary use. if the request is going to, you know, continue to come more often and we're going to have the same kind of conversation every, you know, 6 to 12 months or whatever, you know, average it is that we have this conversation, I think having some expectations from county leadership on what the county wants to emphasize and what the county wants to do with regards to a policy in this area makes sense.

This is not a policymaking body. That's we're the keepers of the comp plan. That's not our role here. So, I'm going to vote in favor of this because I think I voted in favor of all the other ones, but I would like to put on notice the county that we should get some guidance on this that this is a reasonable thing that, you know, clearly a business has been created. Developers have, you know, figured out that this is a way to do ramp up. If we as a county want to sort of set expectations, whether it's that if developers want this as a benefit, they have to do something more to, you know, encourage it. Whether it's that we need standards on, you know, these should all be dog friendly. I'm not saying they have to be. I'm just saying that like we need some standards on what this should be and this is not the body that should be making that. You know, we we've got letters and feedback, you know, with uh associated with with this request related to, you know, if there's a housing crisis in Arlington, well, essentially, how does this help the housing crisis? I don't think it does. I don't necessarily think that that's what we're being asked to vote on tonight or that that's sort of the purpose of what is happening here. The project itself has already been approved. These units are going to come online as residential units soon and then, you know, ramp up over some period of time. I'm now hearing to be two years. I do anecdotally think two years is way more reasonable than five. So, thank you for making that change. Um, but I think that if we're going to keep having those conversations, the county board needs to do us the service of saying, you know, these are the priorities. This is what, you know, we as a county want to encourage or conversely discourage. So, I will vote for this, but I guess I'm putting the board on notice that this is something that from a policy perspective, it can't keep coming to planning commission for us to sort of make policy ad hoc. That's not reasonable or fair, honestly, to developers or, you know,

place maker, you know, or, you know, the county at large. So, thank you.

Well stated. Thank you. Um, any other Commissioner Lantel? Um I just want to associate myself with uh Commissioner um Steinberger's comments there and remind us this body that we in fact did pass a resolution during one of these earlier ones for the that very to ask that very thing of the county board to give for the guidance and policy. So you know we're already on record of wanting that and it's and I absolutely agree we to remind the board that we do want this guidance. I too will be voting in favor of this. Um and that's mainly because of the two-year limit. That was an issue every time it's come up. We wanted to keep this to two years. Um I've and that's the only reason I'm comfortable with this. Going beyond that makes me very very nervous and I really don't want to do that. So anyway, um again, I just wanted to to yay for time. Thank you. Commissioner,

I wonder if you can clarify the benefits that the residents because I don't I think they were mentioned at some point like what because I mean it seems like if they're getting something nice out of it, they might look more favorably on this. And I might ask Mr. um Mr. Mr. Fin to mention this, but I will say in our discussions, especially with county board members, the resident benefits and the interaction between, you know, the residents, the you know, the tenants that are leasing in the building and the hotel manager, like that was a major thing. Um, and so there's a series of things that don't show up in the conditions that Placemaker does operationally as a matter of course. Jason, yeah, it's like one, we are pet friendly. Just put it out there. You can't with your dog.

Did you say you're dog friendly? I didn't hear that. We are. We are very dog friendly.

Nice plug. Uh the very first time we had a placemaker, my dog stayed with us. Um so uh yeah, there's a bunch of opportunities for the residents to benefit. Um I'd say there's there's specific things that we do for residents and then there's soft things. So the specific thing we do for residents is they get discounted stays in the building. A lot of folks, you know, rent exactly what they need space-wise, a studio or a one. And so when their family comes, they can stay in the building at a major discount. We also offer allocart cleaning. Uh and so if residents want, they can just text our concierge and schedule cleaning of their apartment uh at no cost to them. So, uh there's some real benefits in being in a hospitality infused apartment building. Um and then the soft benefits, we also have a 24/7 on-site staff in addition to the 24/7 on-site staff that the residents will have. And that means we end up befriending a lot of the residents who come by for the free coffee or the snacks or a conversation because we are hospitality focused concieres and they're very chatty. Uh and so it's just a great little ad to the building. In Arlington, this would be our fourth popup. Um the longest ever went and months. So Jag's in the business of making this multif family. There's a question about that. We're we're here to be temporary.

Can I continue? Because I I don't ne necessarily see it as a negative. I mean, I I I appreciate the concerns that are going around and I think you need to address all of them. There's a lot of this kind of stuff happening in Europe, too, which is very interesting to me because we have a lot of in Europe, we have a lot of buildings that are not being used. And so, I think having some kind of hybrid situation in general is not something that I disagree with, but I do wonder if there's a way to to lean more towards the extended stay paradigm. So that what happens to that furniture after like is that like what I I'm very practical like what how are you guys going to manage all of this?

Yeah. So we are generally extended stay the length of stay is a lot longer than a traditional hotel. Uh and we focus on embassies were mentioned we do business with all the embassies in DC World Bank. We do a lot of training stuff at the state department somewhere between six and 12 week stays. So there is a lot of long stay. Um we have two business models actually. This is our pop-up model where we just where that bridge when a new building forms. We also have permanently blended buildings. Uh we have one in Arlington we do with Marry Mount as an educational uh institution where we have Amazon's first just walk out technology in a hotel was in Arlington. And so we we do that too. But for our popups that the furniture is all rented. It all goes away. Um we can furnish something like 20 units a week or something crazy. Um and so it comes and it goes. Uh and we're here just to you know bridge that time between delivery of the building and lease up.

Maybe there's a gift to the future resident. Um, the cleaning is pretty nice. Um, Mr. Steinbecker,

sorry, logistical question and I feel like I've asked this question before, but I'll simply acknowledge I don't remember what the answer was and maybe it's changed over some number of years. So, I presume that there's a lot of coordination like if the building is leasing up faster than like the two-year predicted or what have you. Do how does that work that like if a unit is like hotel rented rented hotel what's the verbiage booked hotel booked then you and and then you know someone wants to like buy like lease that apartment like how does that coordination work? Can someone just summarize that for me? Yeah, we have an agreement with JAG where on uh very quick notice we'll start handing units back and so um the longest one we had was at Boston quarter. We were there for 10 and a half months even though it was a two-year approval. Um but at uh the Bartlett it saw a really crazy lease up. We were there for like six months and um for Y Hotel Pentagon with or partners on Columbia Pike uh CO happened about four months in and so we called it. Um so but we can very quickly unwind the pop-ups are designed they're designed to be done like that. Commissioner Torres.

Thank you. Um I will not be supporting this um because it doesn't add up to me and it's nothing personal. Just if the units are ready for occupancy, I'm not understanding why they can't just already be um residential. And if um there's not a good answer to that other than the fact that you can't sell them at the price you thought that they were going to be sold or rented, then I don't think that's really going to improve in 2 years because we're approving so many projects in this area that is going to saturate the market if it's already getting saturated. Um which means that we might be in this place again in two years discussing the same thing. So I love the building. I love the design. You guys seem like really nice people, but I just don't see how if if we if we could if the argument was that there's not enough hotels, we need more hotels, then I could see that. But that's also not an argument. So,

any other comments, questions? Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Peterson. Um, I just wanted to say quickly, um, I empathize a lot with how you're feeling, Commissioner Torres. And I also, amidst a housing crisis in this community, um, I also, my first gut instinct is like, why would we do this? And then kind of talking to colleagues, talking to staff, you know, there is the reality that it does take time to fill the units just logistically for like movein days. And, you know, there's 450 units here, I think. And so that just if every person moved in once a day, you know, that ends up taking time. And if the units are sitting empty, that doesn't benefit the community. Whereas if they have, you know, somebody renting them for a hotel use, then that benefits the community for the short term. But I agree that in a housing crisis, we we really shouldn't have these unless we really need to. So if we they came back in two years and said, "We'd like an extension. We couldn't fill up." I'd say, "Well, then lower your rents." So, I'm okay with a a two-year timeline, but I wouldn't extend beyond that. Commissioner Amado,

was it ever considered to have some units be for affordable housing? Uh, we do in fact, as part of the original approval, have on-site affordable units uh as part of the original site. Right. But if the hotel is not renting, like would you open it up to that? Tough. It's a tough question. Unfortunately, that that's inconsistent with the loan covenants and other financing um investments that took place to get this project started and and to the finish line. So, um,

yeah, and and I almost also may, um, just to pick up on something that Commissioner Peterson had mentioned too, and Greg, please correct me if I'm wrong, but typically a building, you're looking at maybe 20-ish units a month, 20 plus units a month that you're leasing just generally. And for a building of this size of 420 units, it's year and a half to two years to lease up.

It is. and and the logistical challenges associated with moving people in, even touring through people through the building. Um, and that that leasing process is a a governor of of a kind on on how many leases we can actually sign. In this case also uh we've experienced some significant delays associated with uh the original uh site work around the perimeter of the site and then also now with our uh permanent power connection to Dominion's grid. That will mean we're delivering essentially most of the building at one time which only further exacerbates that sort of log jam of of getting residents into the building. But I do want to emphasize, as the name of our firm implies, this will be an apartment building long term, and we very much want to occupy it with residents uh who are who are signing traditional long-term apartment leases.

Commissioner Berkkey,

I'll keep this brief. Um I'm going to be supporting this proposal um not because it's it it fits within a lot of the aspects of our our different pieces of the comp plan. Uh I have my concerns about you know enforcement of the site conditions but uh as a planning commissioner it's my responsibility to make sure and it's all of our responsibilities to make sure that the proposals that come before us are are compliant. There's a lot of wiggle room there of the different aspects of our policies and our comp plan. So um you know absent that u you know I have no choice but to support this. Um, this certainly fits within, you know, our economic development um, priorities. Um, I think we can, we've talked about the time frames. I think two years is reasonable. I think if it went beyond that, we certainly could raise concerns about, you know, how it affects our housing priorities and our and our, uh, affordable housing master plan and things like that. But I just think it's important to remember that, you know, we have to make sure that when we have these applications that we're tying it to, you know, whether it fits within the comp plan. Thanks. All right, seeing no other hands, I believe we are ready for a motion and of our vice chair Guvara is helping us out with that tonight. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Um, I move that the planning commission recommends to the county board to adopt the attached ordinance for SPLA 250036 to permit temporary conversion of 125 residential units to hotel units within the RCA site plan development site plan number 66 for a period of 2 years with modification to the hotel parking ratio subject to all previously approved conditions and new conditions. number 63 through 69. Second. We have a second by Commissioner Striner. Was that correct? Yes. Did you get that, Mr. Feifer? Thank you.

Best hand in the west. Any other comments? Uh, would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, nope. I'm fine. All right. So we will go ahead and um do the vote alphabetically. Commissioner Amado I. Commissioner Berkkey I. Commissioner Guvaro. Hi. Commissioner Johnson. Hi. Commissioner Lentel. Hi. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Peterson. I. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Steinberger. I. Commissioner Steiner. I.

Commissioner Torres. Commissioner Baggley, I'm an I. So, we have one, two, three, four, five, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 eyes. One nay. Correct. Um, thank you. All righty. Uh, I assume there are no other mission motions missions motions this evening. Okay, great. I just want to again thank Miss Martin, um, Miss Kim, and Mr. Gibson for all of their work on this as well as the applicant. and we wish you a lot of success there and hope that you will get at least up quickly. Um looking forward to having that nice thing done in the in Rosland there. So, thank you so much. Um madame clerk, would you like to call the next item? Item number three is SPLA25-000028, an adaptive reuse site plan amendment to convert two office buildings to residential use with ground floor retail use modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse of the buildings located at 1800901 South Bell Street. We have Courtney Badger, our principal planner PD to present this item this evening. Good evening, commissioners. I am going to start pulling up the presentation. Just give me one second. Great. Good evening everyone. I am Courtney Badger with CPHD's planning division. I'm here to present um on the 18001901 Southpell adaptive reuse project. The item before you tonight is an adaptive reuse site plan amendment to convert two buildings, two office

buildings in Crystal City to residential. The subject sites are located within site plan number 56 on the JK block in Crystal City. You can see the limits of site plan 56 outlined in white on this map with the adaptive reuse buildings outlined in red. 1800 Southbell, also known as mall 1, is in the northwest portion of the block, directly south of the Crystal City Metro Station. 1901, also known as the mall 4 building, is midblock on the southern half. Both sites are zoned CO mixeduse district which corresponds to the general land use plan designation of high office apartment hotel. There is an open space triangle on the southern portion of the block um where the 1901 South Bell building is located. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing zoning or GLP designations. This site is located within the Crystal City Sector plan in the central business district. The Crystal City sector plan calls for the redevelopment of 1800 Southbell and it calls for the removal of the 1901 Southbell building to expand Center Park. 1800 Southbell is identified as a redevelopment site in the sector plan which allows for a 300 ft high building at this location with a base density of 4.8 F for residential. The sector plan also calls for active retail on 18th Street which is on the northern side of the 1800 building. The sector plan also envisioned 1901 South Bell building going away to allow for the expansion of Center Park. The sector plan identifies Center Park as the largest park in Crystal City with a target size of about 74,000 square ft. With the construction of the Grace and uh Reva residential buildings, which are on the eastern portion of the block, the county was able to acquire 45,000 square ft of a public park easement for what is the existing center park today. Um, in

addition to that, JBG contributed $300,000 towards a master planning effort that is still in our CIP to be done and um built the grand staircase that leads to the existing park area. To achieve the full sector plan vision of the park, the 1901 South Bell building would need to be demolished and that land or easement be conveyed to the county. Uh JBD as adaptive uh reuse application consists of the conversion of both of these buildings from office to residential with ground flooror retail. The 1800 South Bell was constructed in the late 1960s and is currently completely vacant. JBG is proposing to do minor changes to the exterior of the building to facilitate the conversion to 129 residential units with approximately 5,000 ft of retail on the ground floor. The proposed parking ratio will be 0.2 two spaces per unit with seven residential park visitor parking spaces. The 1901 South Bell building um is also a 19 late 1960s construction. This building is not quite fully vacant, but projected to be vacant within the next year. And JBG is proposing to convert this building to 186 residential units with approximately 46 um 100 ft of ground floor retail again with a 0.2 2 parking space ratio per unit and 10 residential visitor spaces. So combined, JBG is proposing to remove over 543,000 ft of vacant office space from the market and convert it to 315 residential units and provide just under 10,000 ft of ground for retail on this block. These are both a part of an adaptive reuse application. Um, this process was established as part of the adaptive reuse policy which was adopted in response to the urgent challenges facing the county resulting from the declining commercial office sector and the presence of a large supply of obsolete office space. As outlined in the policy,

chronically vacant office buildings put significant strain on communities, including negative impacts on local economic activity, neighboring property values, overall quality of place, and public realm in the county's fiscal health. Therefore, a core principle of the adaptive reuse policy is that repurposing obsolete office buildings is a public priority. While emphasizing the urgency of implementing a streamlined approach for the review of the adaptive reuse application, it also acknowledges a potential need for policy trade-offs between meeting current standards and ultimate project viability. So, the adaptive re process is aimed at reducing the amount of vacant office space in the county. Looking specifically at the vacant office space in Crystal City, as of Q3 of last year, the vacancy rate was 27.7%. The adaptive reuse that was approved last year at 2100 and 2200 Crystal Drive reduced that vacancy by 3.7 percentage points. If the buildings that we are discussing tonight are removed from the office market, it will reduce vacancy even further down to 20.5% vacancy rate. staff conducted community outreach to the following groups including Crystal City Civic Association or Highland Civic Association and the National Landing Business Improvement District. One of the goals of the adaptive re policy is to provide a more streamlined review process to be more responsive to the changing commercial market sector. Therefore, they don't undergo the typical major site plan SPRC review process as they're focused on only the change of within the existing building. However, given the trade-offs um surrounding Center Park, staff did host an additional engagement opportunity at a lunch and learn event. Um and at that event, there was a lot of discussion about the trade-offs of this proposal with some general support for additional housing, but also questions about open space in Crystal City and the implications of this on Center Park.

Uh following that lunch and learn event, staff and the applicant agreed to pause the proposal to explore ways to achieve the full extent of Center Park. After some good faith negotiations with JBG, financially feasible acquisitions of 1901 South Bell were deemed not feasible at this time. Um the existing 45,000 square ft that is dedicated to Center Park will be going through a master planning effort and we recognize that this conversion is about tradeoffs. Um, weighing the trade-offs, staff feels that the increase in housing and activation on this block will be a net benefit to Crystal City by reducing the amount of aging vacant office space and increasing the amount of housing units to be delivered quicker than a traditional site plan project. Uh so the subject adaptive reuse site plan amendment for both 1800 and 1901 buildings are generally consistent with the intent of the county's adaptive reuse policy which recognizes the repurposing of obsolete office space as a public priority that may necessitate certain policy trade-offs in meeting current county standards. The proposed conversion from vacant office to residential and retail uses provides an opportunity to revise revitalize the Crystal Mall block with new housing and retail opportunities adjacent to the Crystal City Metro Station and the removal of these uh buildings would yield notable reductions in Crystal City's office vacancy rate. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the adaptive reuse application. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Badger. And now we'll hear from the applicant. Uh thank you very much uh Madam Chair and I believe my presentation is also being brought up by Miss Badger. I want to thank Miss Badger uh and uh staff uh on this application as well. Um I'm joined tonight by Dolores Navia with JBG Smith as well as Matt Ginovven and Carly Snder with JBG Smith. Uh and then our project architect team for both buildings uh both CGF architects and BBB architects. They're here in the room as well and can answer any questions. Uh we are very excited uh we can go to the next slide to uh present this before you this evening. Um, it's an application that seeks to take a major step in realizing the county board's 2024 adaptive reuse policy and breathe new life into uh two buildings that are almost 60 years old. They are obsolete commercial buildings. Uh, and this proposal would remove about a half a million square feet of vacant or soon to be vacant office GFA from National Landing Office inventory, which today as staff mentioned, experiences an approximately 27% vacancy rate, and convert that space into 315 residential units. Uh, one of the things that is somewhat unique about the proposal is the average residential unit sizes for both buildings would be approximately, 1100 square ft with more than half of the mix skewed towards multiplebedroom units, two and threebedroom units, which as you all know is atypical for new construction. Uh it's something that JBG believes is not only going to provide product differentiation uh that will broaden the type of housing that's offered in National Landing uh but we've been saying from the beginning and we believe it uh it will allow growing families that are living in National Landing to stay connected to the neighborhood as it continues its evolution into a walkable mixeduse destination. If we can go to the next slide. Um Miss Badger already sort of oriented you. did want to flash this up on the screen because in so much as this is a tale of two buildings, uh it is also part of the fabric of a larger story about the evolution of National Landing. So you can see the two buildings that uh are the subject sites outlined in blue. You can see the 45,000 square foot uh

center park area in green and then you can see other uh projects that JBG Smith has uh either delivered or is in the process of delivering in the immediate vicinity of the property. Next slide. And Miss Badger oriented you already to what the sector plan calls for and the adaptive reuse uh etc. Um that's okay. We can go to the next slide. Um the proposal that's before you uh in our estimation continues to advance uh a more than 10-year uh revitalization story in National Landing largely led by JBG Smith uh where it's delivered about 1,600 new apartments with the Grace and the Reva and the Zoey and the Veilen. Uh it's brought in 55 new uh retailers which triples the amount of retail uh that National Landing has. And then on on top of that, there's been continued investment in open spaces. In particular, uh the water park uh which is east of Crystal Drive that was completed in October of 2023, but that really has emerged as the cultural hub of this district of National Landing. Not only does it have beverage and food kiosk and water features, but it has a performance stage and outdoor seating. Uh those are specific items that were long planned for Center Park, but they've been relocated or located in Waterpark where they've been very successful. And as Miss Badger mentioned too with the Grayson Reva site plan, uh there was the monumental stairs and a slicing through of the 1901 office building uh to create porocity between Crystal Drive and Center Park. Something that was never envisioned by the sector plan, but has been a phenomenal success. Next slide. And building on top of that in terms of what is coming uh Miss Badger mentioned the 2100 and 2200 Crystal Drive uh project which is in the upper left hand side of the screen. Uh that'll deliver an additional 195 apartments as well as 344 uh hotel rooms. Uh on the right hand side of the screen, those two images, uh JBG is investing approximately $40 million uh in a 12,000t state-of-the-art uh event space that will also have a culinary uh program as well. And then I think we're all uh awaiting the um with baited

breath the opening of the the new Crystal City Metro Rail Station which is in the lower lefthand corner. But all of this builds upon JBG's more than half a billion dollar investment in its office portfolio in Crystal City uh and is gradually turning National Landing into a very vibrant pedestrianoriented destination. Next slide. And so for more than three years, um JBG has pondered what to do with these two office buildings, uh trying to find the highest and best use. Uh as Miss Badger mentioned, these two buildings were constructed in the late 1960s. 1800 is 12 stories. 1901 is 11 stories. Uh they will be either they're either vacant today or in the case of 1901 is estimated to be vacant by the close of this year. Uh both buildings experience outmoded floor plates, constrained ceiling heights. there's no private uh office tenant space and there's really very limited options if any options at all for large office conference space and meeting space. So as a result uh both buildings are now deemed functionally obsolete and the prospects for retening them with quality office tenants really are non-existent. We could go to the next slide. These are just images of the two buildings. Uh if you've been down there, you're familiar with what the conditions are for the building itself. It's kind of a sort of a dead space when you're walking under there. There are arcades that are dark with no activity happening. Next slide. Uh, and the same thing is true around 1901. It's interesting. They are both of the same vintage, but they are different architecture. Uh, but they're both very elegant in their way. Um, if if I can say so. Uh, next slide. So, when you look to see what a a building should be or a particular proper should be, the first thing that you should do is look at the comprehensive plan recommendations. As Miss Badger said, this is subject to the Crystal City Sector plan, which is a broad vision to be realized over a 40-year plan horizon um to transform Crystal City, now National Landing, into a vibrant mixeduse destination. The 1800 office building is planned for redevelopment up to 300 ft in height with ground flooror retail. Uh the 1901

office building is recommended to redevelop entirely with open space. Uh as M Miss Badger said, forming an approximately 27,000 foot portion of the planned 72,400 square foot um uh center park. Um next slide. And so the sector plan calls for the county to construct center park. Uh and it also envisioned the 1900 1901 building remaining which is shown here. Uh and that building footprint really does separate center park from Crystal Drive. Uh there was an implementation strategy in the back of the Crystal City sector plan imple implementation action 29. Uh that the county was supposed to identify a strategy for procuring the 1901 office building and delivering Center Park. Uh there has been no forward progress on that. That really is to be determined. But if you look at what Center Park is supposed to be, it's supposed to be oriented towards Southbell and 20th Street South. It's supposed to be envisioned as a principal gathering space for concerts and festivals and other casual and social uses. On the right hand side of the screen is how it has evolved. Uh as Miss Badger mentioned, uh JBG has committed $300,000 towards center parks uh planning the master planning uh master park planning process. Uh JBG dedicated uh a 45,000 square foot public access easement along the existing mall portion for center park. Uh and then with the grace and the reva site plan 421 uh we introduced the idea of tower separation to break up the 1901 building provide a new 25,000 foot public plaza the grand or monumental stairs and then a lot of the same ideas that went into um center park have been captured in the water park as I mentioned including the performance space. We can go to the next slide. And so, uh, in in 2024, uh, as was mentioned, the county board adopted the adaptive reuse policy. Uh, and JBG began exploring the potential for a residential conversion of both of these buildings, uh, to a potentially beneficial use. Uh, and that policy really does broaden the potential list

of uses to which obsolete office buildings could be put. And it makes removal of the office building uh, or a vacant office building, GFA, a public priority. And to us uh you know introducing residential usage would not only activate these buildings but would accommodate new residences. We can go to the next slide. And so uh what is shown on the lefth hand side of the screen is the uh 1800 South Bell Street post renovation and on the right hand side of the screen the lower image shows uh the ground floor portion of the 1901 building. We can go to the next slide. Um again it would be 315 units. There is a focus on multi-bedroom units. approximately 50 plus% will be two and threebedroom units. Interior and exterior renovations including window replacement, the addition of operable windows, repainting, uh the architectural designation of residential entrances, and then adjacent landscape and streetscape improvements around both buildings. Next slide. When I went to planning school, I learned that planning is at the end of the day all about a balance. And I think here a balance has been struck. Uh it's taken a long time to get here. We originally supposed to be before you back in December of 2025. We deferred tonight's public hearing to allow a full exploration of the possibility of of trying to work together to find a way to make Center Park occur. But at the end of the day, stepping back, this does conform to the general land use plan. It satisfies many of the recommendations of the Crystal City sector plan. It satisfies the adaptive reuse policy. It removes vacant office supply and it introduces new housing supply. Um, so with that, our entire team is here. We can answer any questions, but we appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you,

Madame Clerk. Do we have any public speakers? We do. We have two speakers this evening. Um, John Muso is here in person and Tarsy Dunlop is online. So, we'll take Mr. Muso first.

Uh, good evening members of the planning commission. John Muso, government affairs manager at the Allison Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the chamber, I wish to express our support for the adaptive vious project before you and we strongly urge you to please recommend its adoption. We believe that this uh very much advances the public priority as noted in advancing the adaptive reuse of obsolete um office space as well as helping realize the goals that we all share for Crystal City to be a vibrant community now and into the future. Um, regarding adaptive reuse, as noted, the county and the chamber very much supported the county doing this, advancing a public priority for adaptive reuse by the adopting adaptive reuse policy. We believe that transforming two obsolete, almost entirely vacant office buildings in a transit-rich environment like Crystal City would go a tremendous way, not only in terms of advancing the adaptive reuse goals and reducing the 27.7% vacancy rate in Crystal City, but also helping alleviate the shortage of housing of all sizes in our metro corridor. As noted, there's going to be a focus on larger family um larger bedroom units, which is definitely something that is very much in shortage here in Arlington. And so, this would go a long way in terms of helping alleviate that and advancing the county's housing goals. Additionally, this helps advance the goals that we all share for Crystal City to be a more vibrant mixeduse neighborhood with nighttime and daytime activities. And we believe this really goes a long way in terms of building on the tremendous progress that's already been done with the Crystal Drive projects, the Amazon HQ2, and so much else that's creating a tremendous vibrant neighborhood in Crystal City. And this is going to build on that progress. So we very strongly urge you all to please recommend adoption.

Our next speaker is Tarsy Dunlop. Hi. Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Um I am the president of the Crystal City Civic Association. Um CCCA is supportive of ABD adaptive reuse um efforts generally especially given housing needs and vacancy challenges. But these projects should not be benefit-f free. While forms of benefits may differ, the county should not abandon the CCSP's longstanding commitments, especially as Crystal City continues to grow rapidly in density, residents, and commercial activity. Despite this growth, the area remains underserved in cultural and civic amenities and public spaces in an increasingly densifying area. Specifically, approval of the 1901 South Bell proposal risks delaying the long plan center park for decades. Um, 1800 South Bell Street presents a critical opportunity to deliver on key CCSP priorities. Um, a space for library reactivation of the underground for theater complex. We recognize the properties proposed to be converted represent significant value added which the county can enable to agree a agreeing with JBG's proposal. We urge the county to acknowledge that a percentage of the Crystal City TIF should be dedicated to partially compensate for the lack of public benefits due to less new development and more added built density with these prop new built density with these properties. The fact that these properties are con contributing more post conversion to the tax base and tiff in particular should be s sufficient for considering committing a part of it towards the goals and deliverables of the of the CCC plan of the CC plan. This is a policy asked from the board but also an ask for JBG to agree as a stakeholder to provide space and agree on the use of tiff money. In some we ask that when considering this adaptive reuse proposal, the county not sacrifice long-term community goals and needs for

short-term development gains. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Um this was actually the first I believe um when we did the lunch and learn um or when we introduced the lunch and learn um idea. Uh so this was the first one that we did with the adaptive reuse. I this was back in November. I was also the lay or the representative for this. I sent out my report. Um obviously the uh center park expansion is not going to happen. That was um probably what held this up so long. Um there were some other things mentioned but I think uh as per our previous speaker Miss Dunlap some of the concerns in the community were about um benefits. So with that if anyone has any uh if they want to see my report I brought copies if for some reason you didn't see it online. Um and uh I don't think this has gone any place else because those commissions were allowed to be a part of the um the lunch and learn. So, with that, I'm going to open it up to questions. Any questions? Yes. Um, Miss John, I'm sorry, Commissioner Johnson.

No problem. Sometimes I forget my last name these days myself. Um, the one of the questions that I have um is around what is the current occupancy rate of JB Smith's buildings in the surrounding area. Um, I know that we have done a lot of building in Crystal City/Nashville Landing. um to add two more sites is a lot of more building um and more apartments. And while apartments are wonderful, I just wonder what what we where we are in that space. Um so if that if that could be answered first and then the second question is really around the two and three bedrooms. I I heard there's more about multiple um multiple sizes in these units than the previous than some of our other spaces. Um, is there the thought around fourbedroom units as particularly as we're talking about community benefits?

So, for, you know, for the for the two three-bedroom units, again, over 50% are going to be two and threebedroom units. There's no thought at this point in time for fourbedroom units. Um, and Miss Navia can probably speak to JBG's office portfolio. Yeah, thank you so much. My name's Dolores Navia. As Andrew mentioned, Commissioner Johnson, I think to answer your question, in terms of the three residential or four residential towers that we've delivered in the last two years, the Grace and the Reva are currently in the high 80s in terms of occupancy, I believe it's 86% and then the other two are currently going through Lisa up at around 50%.

The one other thing I will say, thank you so much for that information, really appreciate it. Um the other the one other piece I would just share is um that in looking at the exterior of the building um and surrounding all of the lovely new buildings that JBG has um put up um if I were to move into National Landing into such a building, I would feel some type of way. Um, and and I think that we have to take that into consideration for the rent that people will be paying to live in in those in the properties that you were mentioning here today. Um, the the windows in and of itself look like 1955. And so we we we want to make sure that we're we're meeting the the look of the community um as well. That's all. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Amado,

so much to say and I 100% associate myself with the speaker online and with Miss and Commissioner Johnson. Um I think adaptive reuse is a wonderful concept. I do see a problem here with um kind of um just a quick fix to something that's maybe some that requires more studying and more uh understanding. There's something I actually studied the floor plans that you posted. I'm just wondering um before I get into is it okay if I ask a very architectural question? Um, the original building, the offices were lined up with the structural grid. None of the apartments do that. Is that on purpose?

Like to Yeah, Chris Sama with ZGF Architects can answer that. Hi, I'm Chris ZF Architects, associate principal. Um, you're you're correct. Office buildings aren't originally designed to host residential units. So, one of the reasons that we push for the larger units to help mitigate those column grids and they actually provide some layouts that are more gracious because we have to follow this more rigid grid, but none of the walls. So, those columns will be in the middle of the apartments. Correct. Well, she's saying no, you're saying yes. Some go ahead. depending on the size of the unit. Some will, some will not.

I just want you to know that your plans are showing every apartment with columns in the middle of the unit. So that because I saw the before and after, um I think aligning some of the walls with the columns might be better. I understand that you're trying to squeeze some of I understand all of the complications. And this is why I think sometimes trying to push a square into a round hole can be a problem. And I think I'm having a hard time with the architecture in terms of the glazing the um the the and also the the way you guys are engaging the street level. You're not showing what the original street level looked like. It had Sinatic Theater on it. Um, I really would like you to do a comparison between what Sinatic showed at street level and what the new retail is going to show um once completed because the uh public engagement with Senetic was, you know, larger. It was about the arts. And I know you mentioned a um a stage in the park,

but I'm still wondering, you know, you have this all this new stuff happening on top and it's not clear to me what's happening below. It's like the catacombs, you know, you got these beautiful things sitting on top of an empty space. It's not clear to me what you're doing with the rest of it, the park. There's so so many questions to ask and I want to you know allow everybody else to talk but I do have a million questions for you. One thing that I'd like to just cl

one thing that I'd like to just clarify on the columns components yes there are columns throughout the units. One of the things that we worked really hard outside of the concept plans which is what was submitted as part of the application since then is actually laying out each of the units and with that layout we are wrapping around columns. we are hiding them in certain ways that allows us to not have an um and impede any of the flow within the units. And so while they're there from a structural perspective, you can't get away from from columns even in new buildings, they are going to be hidden as best as we can to ensure that they're either in a closet or on the side of the um living room or potentially in the bathroom where it makes sense and not necessarily in the middle of the kitchen. We would never deliver a building like that. And and if I may um if I also may talk about the ground flooror retail experience. We have retail in the 1800 building that's going to be on 18th Street South and then we have retail that's going to be fronting on or retail equivalent that'll be fronting along 20th Street South uh in the 1901 building. And so I don't know if either one of the architecture teams wants to talk about or Dolores if you want to speak to that. Yeah, I think

one of the other things that you mentioned commission commissioner um is around the synetic theater and that space and I just want to kind of come back to the fact that this is really the revitalization the 1800 office building. It has nothing to do with the synetic space. That is a completely different space in it of itself. Um and the retail is actually located on 18th and Bell Street. That is where our retail is. And so the activation will be alongside the building as well as on that corner. Um, and we could talk about, you know, what we do later on as part of the sidewalk experience between the space of 1800 and the AC hotel, but that is a different project. It is not the 1800 free vital station project that we're talking about.

Go ahead. I Okay, hold on. And I think we had Okay. U Commissioner Peterson, did you have a

Oh, yes. Um well, first, um I just wanted to re reiterate my um general strong support for the adaptive reuse policy. Um I think it is really important. Um for the 16 plus years that I've lived in Arlington, commercial vacancy has been a a growing crisis. And when I was on the fiscal affairs commission, I know a lot of work was being done by Arlington Economic Development to address it and then the pandemic hit and it just got so much worse. So this policy, I think, has made one of the largest impacts on addressing commercial vacancy than any other policy that I've seen um Arlington pursue. um the fact that we would be going from a 27% vacancy um to 20% vacancy with this project um and the other projects that have been approved for for this area um I think is is really phenomenal and you know the difficult tax year the difficult budget season that we just had um part of the reason that we saw a tax rate rate increase was because of our struggling commercial market. So projects like this help us bring in some of the muchneeded tax revenue that we need. Um I think the benefits are uh that we are seeing more housing. I think we're going to activate the streetscape. I think we're going to see more support for the local retail. I think we're going to see the environmental benefits of reusing an existing building. Um, all that said, it does worry me that we have um important community benefits that are part of our sector plan that will not end up getting realized because of this policy and that that is a side effect and we had to make you know this policy does require us to make these difficult decisions and I think it's incumbent upon us and the county to say well we aren't okay with losing some of these

important benefits and so what can the county do to um address that and so a lot of times we rely on the u developers to provide the community benefits through development and I think if we have a policy like adaptive reuse then we need to accept that you know we're going to get that extra commercial tax revenue and so maybe we can use that or other county resources to um help provide the promised community benefits to the county. So I have a motion um to that effect that I will be suggesting later. So stay tuned. Commissioner uh Vice Chair Guva, then Commissioner Torres, then Commissioner Steiner.

You know, when I first started, I I really thought about what's really our role as a commission and what we can prescribe and what we can actually uh how can we can effectuate change. And something I've learned is that change here happens at a glacial spa uh pace. However, um I know that other commissioners helped lead the way with Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Peterson Shriner, obviously Madame Chair about really pushing for um multi- uh unit homes so that we did have a a sort of a wide variety of access for different um families. Additionally, I I actually think it's positive that not everything is going to look like the brand new shiny things because that will allow actually access for other communities uh community members to um to live in Arlington. It'll be at a lower height lower price point and it'll have bigger units. So, I think that's a really positive uh progression. Uh the other thing I did want to mention, I do want to associate myself with Commissioner Peterson. I do think there's um this policy is amazing for adaptive reviews and I mean it's been since 2024 right we all worked on this um but there are there really is a genuine question about community benefits and how do we um sort of make that delta uh I know I saw the letters from the community members some of them wanted library theater open space of course as a community we would want this and but there's a trade-off right Um, but I do think that uh the county board does need to issue more guidance so that we can sort of create a better balance between uh both create um having more housing but also uh being responsive to

our community needs. Commissioners Torres, I have a couple questions. Um, could you provide a breakdown of the square footage for each unit? If you have studios, what the square footage roughly is, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms. Sure, I've got that.

Yeah. Um, so in Well, I'll just give you the broad ones. So, one bedrooms would be between the two buildings. One bedrooms would be between 735 and 974 ft. The two bedrooms would be approximately, 1100 ft² and the three bedrooms would be approximately 1,664 ft² and that's between the two buildings averaging them between the two.

Okay. Now, the reason I asked this question is um I want to associate myself with the comments of uh Commissioner Amado because one of the benefits that a potential renter or buyer could have in adapter peruse, which is not a new concept, right? We've seen this in New York where warehouses no longer are functional. So all of a sudden you get these beautiful loft spaces and people envision like get, you know, the benefit of the high ceilings and columns and industrial look. Um, but if if we're seeing that the design is really just trying to fit in um as many units as possible without really taking into account the grid of the existing building where potentially it could be a benefit, right? Making sure we align the walls with the columns and then therefore you would have bigger spaces. For example, um I have a one-bedroom unit that was designed in 1980. And a one-bedroom unit, the spacious because it's 1,000 square ft. Now, you're designing units that are 700. That's that's like another bedroom really. Um so, that's where the design really plays into effect and why it is important. If there if we already are allowing people to build without providing county or community benefits, then at least maybe the people that are going to live in these spaces should have some of those benefits by having more space by use utilizing the gray that already exists. If that makes sense.

Commissioner Striner, Commissioner Peterson and Cabaro took the words right out of my mouth, so I just associate with them. who should let me.

Yes. And I'd also like to assoc associate myself with Commissioner Peterson's comments and I will probably be voting for her uh motion when she raises that. Um clearly um we all mourn the loss of the that possible park there, but it's possible that park would not have occurred anyway. We have a building that's empty that wasn't going anywhere. there's no way since the county declined to buy that property that means it's going to be sitting there. It's not going to get torn down. It's going to be sitting there. So, um in given that the county did not step up, uh for the for that building, I do think the county does have an obligation to try to find other ways to contribute community benefits um in lie of this building going down. Thank you. Seeing no other comments or questions, I believe we are ready for a motion and vice chair Gubaro will be helping us out with that. Thank you.

Sure. I move the planning commission recommend to the county board to adopt the attached ordinance for SPLA 25-000028 to permit the conversion of two existing office buildings to residential use with groundf flooror retail with modifications for reductions of residential and retail parking ratios, density exclusion, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse located at 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street Mall 1 and Mall 4 subject to all previously approved conditions SP number 56 and the conditions of the attached adaptive reuse site plan amendment ordinance.

Do we have a second? Second, Commissioner Patel. Thank you. All right. Um would you like to speak to your motion? No, I think we're uh we're good. No pressure there. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to go ahead and vote and we will do this alphabetically. Commissioner Amado nay. Commissioner Berkkey I. Commissioner. Commissioner Johnson. I. Commissioner Lel I. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Peterson. I. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Steinberger. I. Commissioner Striner. I Commissioner Torres

I Commissioner Baggley is I. So we have 11 yeses and one no and thank you. Now I understand that uh Commissioner Peterson you have a motion. Yes. I emailed this around to everyone earlier today. So I hope you all had a chance to look. Um so my excuse me one second. Um, madame clerk, could you put that up on the Thank you.

Okay. So, I move that the planning commission recommends to the county board to identify plan goals that will not be realized due to the county's adaptive reuse policy for 1800 and 190001 South Bell Street site and further adaptive reuse sites and prioritize county resources to support these plan goals. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Striner. And thank you for Commissioner Striner for your word smmithing assistance earlier this afternoon. You're very welcome. Thank you. And uh would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah. So, I alluded to it already, but I think this addresses um one of the unintended side effects of the county's adaptive reuse plan that goals um sometimes important goals sometimes can't be realized because of the policy. And while um I don't necessarily think that we need to um change the policy itself, but I do think we as a community do want to make sure that we are fulfilling promises to the community, making sure that our plan goals to provide parks or uh libraries or theater spaces or cultural spaces or affordable housing do get addressed. So since the county will be benefiting from additional taxpayers and commercial tax revenue through the adaptive reuse policy, we can step in and um provide some of these plan for benefits through a different uh mechanism. Um so the county resources could be in the form of operating budget, CIP land, etc. depending on what the the NIST planned goal is.

Commissioner Patel and then Commissioner Amadale. Um, Commissioner Peterson, I am um I'm I'm supportive of your of your motion. I just have a question in terms of what that means then on the Saturday vote. Um, are you asking them to specify on the record specifically which goals are not going to be realized for this particular property or are you asking for a general a general awareness that we are missing out on uh policy goals? And so when we are reviewing the CIP um we can consider that um staff has already uh talked about ways that they are going to mitigate the central park being um a missed opportunity. So um since so the the county can look at ways that the CIP or operating budget can otherwise support some of those missed opportunities. I'm I'm wondering if it needs to actually be clearly stated rather than generalized principles because I worry that then what we're going to get is we didn't get all of our affordable housing, we didn't get all of our public space rather than very clearly articulating the very things that we did not get.

And I think that this is, you know, unlike some of the it is the intention of the planning commission spaces. I actually would I want the county board members to go on record as recognizing the very things that we are trading off on here for the public to to better understand and and realize. Right.

So, if we could wordsmith this a little bit to say um and I'm sorry that I didn't do this beforehand. Um I will note that I was late for the record. Um, so I think that it needs to be um to specifically identify um on the record or maybe it needs to be specifically identify at the time of of the vote of the county board's vote. um plan commission recommend to the county board to specifically identify plan goals that will not be realized for yeah I mean I think that that's enough and then they will know that it needs to be spec once you add the word like specifically I think that they will know that it's not a generalized proposition

okay so at the time of approval at the time of approval because we it wouldn't be necessary if they did not approve the plan if they did not approve this Um, so your friendly amendment to the motion on the table is to add the word specific to add the word uh yeah to recommend to the county board that at the time of approving um this project that they specifically identify plan goals that will not be realized. Yes. Oh, sorry. Um I'll take you in a second, Commissioner Abadale. Go ahead, Commissioner Stein Steinberger.

Oh, wait. M. Did Robertson have he was supposed to be after me? No. Okay. You You took it down. Were you in agreement with me? Thank you. So, um, can I have this? It's not updating live. I was going to Is there a way to refresh it or Okay. Um, go ahead, Commissioner Stinberger.

So, I I guess that is this motion only effective if we pass the motion to allow the adaptive reuse tonight. So, or does this motion need to convey whether some sentiment of whether or not the adaptive reuse proposal passes? because I would suggest that it needs to be needs to go both directions that if whe whether or not it passes or doesn't there's going to be trade-offs here. We're either not going to get units on the market or we're not going to get open space. So, I want it to be clear that the county board has to if they're going to be specific about what's not happening, they need to be specific in both directions.

It's for me. Go ahead. No, I

Yeah. No, I Yeah. I I but I I wouldn't typically disagree with that notion if this were a situation that it wasn't very clear that what we get out of it is additional housing which is why we did adaptive reuse. It's a primary goal of adaptive reuse. The issue I think here is and what is what we're hearing from the community over and over again is we are missing out on some very important community benefits when we are doing these policies. So, it's not that we don't know that the goal is to increase housing. That we all know. The issue is what are we losing in the process and I think that is what the county board needs to go on record and say at this particular site we are losing A B CDE E and F. However, the policy is to increase housing.

I would say that we need to be clear on how many housing units we are not getting if this doesn't pass. So, I I stand by my statement but I appreciate the clarification but I think it goes both ways in my view. Well, we've already approved it, so we aren't if the if the board appro Sorry, I'm saying if the board approves it or not, because they don't have to take our recommendation. They might not. They probably will, but they don't have to,

but if they don't, then there's not I mean, the plan itself says how many housing units are coming online. But if we're asking them to itemize what they're not going to get in a plan, if this if they do pass this proposal and we're not going to get this open space, we're not going to get this, we're not going to get this activation, then I think they should also say, okay, we decline, you know, we denied this motion, therefore x number of units are not coming on line. So, and I view it as they need to be specific either way. I I appreciate the distinction. I think for me, I feel like it would need to go both ways. That that's just how I feel. Can Can we just look at the what uh Madame Clerk has been kind enough to put on the screen as an amended based on our Yeah. Is this

That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Steinberger, is this something that you think

I would say a time of project approval or rejection. So, I would not be in agreement with that. I I just want to let you know because the whole point of this is to alleviate the community concern around what goals are not being achieved. We if if you say that it's at the time of project approval, right, the only issue is the goals. If it's decline, if they're going to deny it, it they have they're denying it and we're losing the housing in the process. We already know that that's happening. Commissioner Strider.

Yeah. So, the way that I see this this motion moving, it seems to me a little redundant because this sort of weighing of the pros and cons of each option seems like something the board would do anyway just in the in the course of their discussions. Um, how I was seeing this originally was that this was an opportunity for the board to direct staff to identify specific things like the park here and other future site plans because there are only a handful of these in the county and find specific areas that they know that by doing by choosing to go the adaptive reuse route, they're not going to be able to deliver on X things and work the execution of X things into the CIP and the operating budget. Like I I envision this is more of like a longer longer term thing rather than just getting them on the record for a particular vote. And I think that and again, Commissioner Patel, I saw you shaking your head. No, but I feel like this is something that would kind of just be our I know with what I was saying initially, but I feel like these Yeah. Yeah. And anyway, um that that I feel like this this sort of if we do this, we're not going to get that is going to come up naturally and I don't think we need to weigh in on that. Okay. Why are you shaking your head?

I disagree. I think the problem is that we they do not say very clearly on the record what the trade-offs are on a particular project. I think that is where the community is coming up and saying this is not okay and that and then we're not able to really take account for what it is that we've lost or we haven't lost. So I think this particular motion is a kind of essentially like a best practices motion that says we want you to do this in these spaces and probably we want you to do this in more spaces than just this where you are being very transparent with the community around what the tradeoffs are on a particular project. Now if it was not an adaptive reuse project I would be more inclined to agree with what Commissioner Steinberger is saying because there would be more things on the table. But that's not what's on the table here. And I think you have to be like, you know, it's like a situational awareness on this adaptive reuse notion. And so I think the the county board has to come out on the record and say this is what we're trading off when we're doing it. And that's not to say that it's wrong, right? But there needs to be an acknowledgement that they acknowledge that this is happening for the community, right? And I think that that goes a long way in the community then understanding, recognizing, and feeling a little bit more comfortable with it. uh particularly as other projects come down the pike. The other thing that I was shaking my head about was because this particular motion doesn't go to a generalized statement. It is specifically it's specifically addresses those two projects

future adaptive reuse sites right but this particular site I mean I and like to your point right like how many are we talking about where are we talking about like that's that's a I think just this is a best practices kind of motion that starts to build that muscle for our county board saying this is a transparency issue. Yeah. And but is there a way that we can do both like in in in a motion like this or we get that? I ask in the in in the to try to bring us back to focus here. What about this would you not be able to support in terms of what you were willing to support before it was amended?

Well, yeah. I mean, I I I'm I would still support it. I just think it has to be sort of a clearer distinction that that we're not just telling the board to say we're getting this and we're giving up that, but that we also want the board to look forward and say, you know, for these handful of projects, staff should identify areas where we're going to have potential shortcomings. And so I think that it would it would just have to be sort of separated. I'm I would still support it as is, but I think let me think on how I would phrase it to direct or maybe for the 1800 1901 and well it says in future adaptive reuse sites. It does speak also to the future,

right? What if this is two motions? Yeah. Yeah. I think I understood it to be a broader motion as well when Commissioner Peterson routed it this morning, last night, some point in time, right?

Um, and so that was just sort of how I understood it to be that we were using 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street as an example of what we expect from the county board and not simply because I I agree with Commissioner Shiner. I think that's the course of the conversation. That's probably the entire conversation that the board's going to have on this project is what are the trade-offs? what are we getting and not getting? So, I don't I don't want this to get lost in the sort of like like what would be sufficient to meet the kind of like specifically identify is that like a a memo? Is that like a a slot? I don't know what we want the county board to sort of release with that to like did you have something in mind like from

I just think they need to say it from the dis. We're not getting X Y and Z and then it gets captured on the record and we go from there. I don't have my mic on so Oh, I do have my mic on. Um I I mean I just think it's something as simple as it going from the dis because the same thing that happens here when we have our minutes it's the same you know we are captured forever more and so somebody would capture that forever more for the county board as well. It just would be part of the record. Well and I think that I think at this point that the county board is going to be well aware of this discussion. But having said that Commissioner Torres, you have something to add?

Yeah. So one thing that could be added is also um maybe starting to compile a database of these particular projects and what is missing so that at some point we realize okay are we approving too many of these without the benefits that we're used to like how where's the breaking point I guess I saw it more of as just compiling data for now and then later on seeing what we do with that data if commissioner Peterson

um so my understanding from when we approved the policy in, you know, a year and a half ago is that there are only a handful, like maybe 10 buildings in the county that are eligible for adaptive reuse just based on the way they're shaped. Like they can't, so certain buildings can or can't or are more suitable for being residential. And so I don't think we're going to have a lot more um projects that would qualify. I actually did reach out to staff at economic development to ask how many more projects do you consider eligible and where are those projects located because if they're all concentrated in one neighborhood then that neighborhood is disproport disproportionately impacted by the potential to lose sector plan um goals or if they're spread out through the entire community maybe that's less of an urgent issue. Um, but so at this point I just want to kind of have us publicly acknowledge that we know the adaptive reuse site plan or sorry the adaptive reuse process does cause us to potentially lose goals that are you know identified goals in the in the sector plans or area plans and we acknowledge that and we think that the policy is important and yet we do still think these goals should be acknowledged and pursued and so the county just needs to make up for that and so that's what what We are recommending that the county board do um figure out what those important goals are and proceed with addressing county resources that could um provide those goals to the community. No, they're um on vacation this week. So, they are going to provide that answer to me um before the county board meeting and I'm the one presenting to the county board. So, I can include that information to the board just as an FYI, but you know, address that we didn't have the information to make a a vote at this meeting.

Yeah. Vacations. Commissioner Strer,

I've I've cooked something up here and I'm going to send it to you, too. Um, let me know how this this sounds. So that this would be a separate motion from the idea that commissioner Patel is talking about like that's localized to this particular item and this is more broad in the way for future site plans adaptive reuse plans. So it would read that I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board direct staff to identify relevant sector plan goals that will be delayed as an unintended consequence of the adaptive reuse policy and to increase the county resource allocation for these initiatives to support the identified goals. I don't how that's different from mine.

Yeah. Well, the idea is that it would just kind of bisect the bottom half of of your motion and make it a separate one. It's not fundamentally different. I was running on the idea that we'd make two motions and so I just took the bottom half. Yeah. Oh,

not particularly. Sure. I'll go slow. So, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board direct staff to identify relevant sector plan goals that will be delayed as an unintended consequence of the adaptive reuse policy and to increase the county resource allocation for these initiatives to support the identified goals. So, that's the same as mine. Wait a minute. We put more money into the pro into the initiatives that we're not going to get because of the adaptive reuse programs. I don't think we can say unattended. Yeah, because it's intended.

We're just we're just using in a different frame framework, but it's it's an intended situation. Uh I have a suggestion just in the interest of time and since we seem to be a little um messed up here uh why don't we go ahead and vote on first of all I believe procedurally we have to say that we are amending or friendly amendment friendly amendment friendly thing of to get it to this correct is that correct so no further discussion on that let's have a vote on that and then if you want commissioner strainer to float. Yours will do that. How's that sound? Great, everybody. Let's go. Okay.

Yes. Striner. Yes. So, we're going to go ahead and vote on the motion as it reads here now. Okay. So, Commissioner Amado abstain. Okay. Commissioner Berky I. Commissioner Gavaro. Commissioner Johnson. I. Commissioner Lintel. I. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Peterson I. Commissioner Robertson I. Commissioner Steinberger abstain. Commissioner Steiner I. Commissioner Torres I.

Commissioner Baggley I am also an I. So we have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. We have Yeah. 10 and then two abstains. Correct. Thank you. All righty. So now, Commissioner Shriner, would you like to make your motion and then we'll see if it is seconded? Okay. Sure. Yeah. So, I'll read it a third time here. Third time's the charm and I'll I'll get rid of Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Oh, I Okay. I took out I'm going to take out as a consequence because I think that's right. Okay. Sure.

I do actually have a question. Do we need Okay, excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Hold on. Hold on. You all need to have your microphones on, please. Yes. Hold on just one moment, please. Commissioner Gabbara, thank you. Oh, yeah. Well, uh, so my question or my suggestion was instead of just saying delayed, perhaps we can include may not come to fruition because some of them may not just be delayed. I just have a procedural question which I feel like this motion is separate and apart from the the actual main motion and so I'm wondering chair Bagley. Yes.

If we might just do the main motion to allow these kind people to leave while we probably will sit here for another 15 minutes trying to word smith this motion. I I believe the main motion already passed. So it's already done. You can please go because they're programmed like we are. So I mean hey there you go. So let's kind of wrap this up. Let's Commissioner Strider, would you like to do the motion and we can move ahead? Thank you. Yes. Okay. Are there any other text amendments to it really quick? I can work in before. Okay.

You can yell at me about that one because I didn't have my mic on. I don't like that fiscal policy stuff because I'm not sure that there is any indication that it is going to happen later. Which is why I think that Commissioner Peterson might have made her motion in the first instance around identifying which goals have not been achieved. Therefore, when we're doing the CIP review, we have the conversation of what didn't happen. All right. Go ahead, Commissioner Striner. I just didn't understand the financial thing you said. It seemed like talking in circles. I just didn't understand it.

Yeah. I mean, the idea is is that because we are not going to be doing these specific initiatives through these through these projects and we're not getting that revenue uh through these sector plans. We would be shifting that burden into existing resources to pay for what these these like the parks things like that. we would be just be using what we have already and not using uh projects from these new developments to pay for these initiatives if that makes sense. Just replacing it as a revenue source

in a minute. Sorry. So, uh can you take a look at the screen and see if this is accurate and if we need to amend this before you actually make the motion? Yeah, the there's a few language changes in that, but generally that's accurate. I'll Okay. Okay. Let me think we're removing. Yes. And and uh and yes, I have both of those in. Yeah. I don't think that we have the authority to ask the county to increase county resource alloc. I don't think that we have the authority to do something that has a fiscal impact like that. Am I wrong?

No, I had concerns about that too. I I don't think Yeah, that's good to know. I just work in budgets, so that's where my mind goes. Okay. Well, I also don't know. Is that like resource allocation to buy these buildings? I didn't understand. No, no, no. I mean like county money to like CIP investments to achieve that. Consider increasing. Considered increasing. not direct. I thought we were buying things.

Um, in the interest of time and the applicant is sitting there with 10-year-old twins at home going like, "What's going on here?" Can we kind of come to a res do you I mean, we can always vote it down or whatever, but um did you want to go ahead and make the motion as as you feel it needs to be? Well, I I So, I'm wondering how is this different than mine? It's directing staff instead of directing the county board because I think this is what mine said except that you're telling staff to do the

Yeah. And my my idea is that this would happen. We would kind of frontr run this rather than it just sort of be the county board doing it. So, that for these remaining site uh adaptive reuse projects, we're having staff consider it before it comes to the board. So, there are ways to address it ahead of time. And can I just ask um Mr. Feifer, you're documenting this so that you know and I do know that the board is very sensitive to our comments, especially when we arrive at stops like this where we're having a hard time navigating. Correct. We'll make sure it ends up in the letter. Yes. Thank you. I knew that would happen. Okay. So, Commissioner Strer, what do you want to

Yeah, I'll amend it or I'll I'll move it as I kind of have it amended and if it gets shot down, at least the comments are through. So, I'm I'm I'm comfortable with whatever outcome comes from this. So, anyway, I will move that I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board direct staff to identify relevant sector plan goals that may not come to fruition as a consequence of the adaptive reuse policy and to consider to consider increasing the county's budgetary resource allocation for these initiatives. Do we have a second?

Second. Uh, Commissioner Torres. Excellent. Given that everybody's had ample opportunity to, I think, digest this, we're just going to move to the vote alphabetically. Uh, Commissioner Abado, abstain. Okay. Commissioner Berkkey, nay. Commissioner Gar, she's not here. Commissioner Goar. Okay. Commissioner Johnson, nay. Commissioner Lantel, hi. Commissioner Patel, nay. Commissioner Peterson. I. Commissioner Robertson. Nay. Commissioner Steinberger.

Abstain. Abstain. Okay. I hope you guys at home see how hard we take your comments to heart. Okay. Commissioner Striner. I. Commissioner Torres. I

Okay, Commissioner Baggley. Oh, God. I'm going to go I here. So, I got one, two, three, four, five, six eyes, four nays, and two abstains. Correct. Excellent. And I believe we are done with this item. So, I do want to thank uh Miss Badger and staff for this. I know that this was a long time and coming and I really applaud the county's effort to try to buy that building and you know the demolition costs and everything were just you know it's unfortunate because we would have loved to see the park there. So I want to congratulate the applicant too for good faith negotiations on that. Um, and uh, we look forward to seeing this project come to fruition and appreciate all of your effort and the delay that we had to get here tonight and for your patience this evening. And for our speakers who joined us as well. So, thank you all very much. And for the rest of us, we have just a little bit of PC business and then we'll be out of here. All righty. Uh, a couple of things. So, we have minutes to approve for both the April 6th and April 7th um meetings. Uh can I ask for unanimous consent for both dates or do I have to do individual?

Both. Okay. I ask for your unanimous consent. Great. Thanks. Got it. Um any staff updates? Uh Mr. Feifer? Uh no updates this month. Thank you.

Thank you. Um LRPC Um so we had a really great meeting um on April 29th where we uh got an update on the special GUP study report. Um there are going to be some administrative changes. Um you can read the report on the LRPC page. Um there's now going to be a tier one to hybrid option. There will be an appeals process. Um there will be some streamlined study documents and um there will be an opportunity for applicants to start the SPRC process if they want to take that risk um kind of towards the end of the special glut process. Um and so we'll see how that goes. Um we also met to discuss the climate action plan which is kicking off now. Um the staff is aiming to have that done uh winter 2027208. Um they asked us lots of questions about the vision and themes. Um please have a look at the slides and the recording and you can send in your own questions or comments. Um and we also um we submitted our 1401 Langston special GUP study report recommending that a full tier 2 um study be done. So that will be coming in the um next few months. Uh and then our next meeting is on May 13th where Commissioner Steinberger and I will be leading um a comp plan update looking at the draft guiding principles and the intro chapter outline. Thank you. Uh SPRC number one. I didn't u submit a chair's report this month because there have been no changes since the last time that I sent something out. We do have one roster to approve. Can I ask unanimous consent for the Virginia Hospital Center, Carlin Springs? Yes. Great. Perfect. And I want to thank again um Commissioner Patel, that's a big project, a long-term thing, and thank you for for uh chairing that. Um Zoko, don't think there's anything correct.

Nope, not this month. Great. Um form-based code, all is quiet on the Pike front.

Great. and PFRC. Um, there's nothing coming up. Uh, I did advance some calendar dates. Uh, I won't go through those tonight because you can read them. I did want to do a followup. Commissioner Lantel, I want to say maybe two meetings ago, you'd brought up please do not schedule SPRC's at the same time that uh, transportation commission is done. I just wanted to follow up with that. That was the one and only time it's been done. It was done in um concert with the applicant and also the project chair. Transportation was not discussed that night, just so you know. Um just as a FYI and something to be thinking about. Um next year we lose four commissioners rolling off. We have commissioners Patel and Steinberger rolling off in uh January. We have Commissioner Peterson and me in um July. And Commissioner Berkkey has indicated that he will not be re-upping his um so I am in the process of looking around for other I I talked to somebody this morning who is interested. I will be interviewing somebody next week. So if you want to be involved in that process at all or if you know other people, please let me know. Um, also, uh, congratulations to staff because when we did go to the county board budget meeting and requested that minimally, um, if they could just save the one FTE from being eliminated in their department and could it be frozen, that was accepted. So, it will be frozen. So even though there's a cost to that, it's much less and they don't have to go through that extreme process to try to get that later. Um we will June uh PC meetings we are tenatively uh June 1st and June 3rd Eevee charging the election

with uh commissioners Revar and Robertson HRB Nelly Custous Elementary School Local Historic Designation Commissioner Steinberger and if we're lucky enough um David Howell Forestry and Natural Resources Commission will be here to talk about biofilia um some of the updates in that we all talk about it some of the um newer commissioners have not heard that presentation. I heard an updated one a couple months ago and we will be able to fit that in asformational item like we had this evening. I think those are kind of important. And thank you to Commissioner Peterson for representing us at the May 16th board meeting. And last but not least, and I'll send out a report about this. Last week I had an opportunity to meet with um similar people as chair of our planning commission with Falls Church City, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, and Fairfax City. Um some interesting comments there. So once I get their report back, um I will send that out and you guys um can certainly take a look at that. Any questions? Anything else? Boy, we did good tonight. So, thank you all so much for being here this evening and um we are now uh ajourned