Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025 uh meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Tenley Peterson, chair. Tonight, the commission will discuss and vote on the Riverhouse Neighborhood Development Project. This is the only item that will be discussed this evening. If you are here for any other agenda items, please visit our web page for a complete look at the meeting agenda and materials. Our recess meetings will be conducted Wednesday, December 3rd and Thursday, December 4th, both at 7:00 p.m. Presenters and speakers joining the meeting through Microsoft Teams. Please keep your phones and other electronic devices muted until you are 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 cl 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 your screen. 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 me email confirmation is required to speak at tonight's hearing. We are not able to accommodate additional speakers. All speakers, virtual or hybrid, will receive two minutes to comment as an individual. Only representatives of a county boardappointed advisory group, committee, and/or commission will receive three minutes to comment. A timer will be displayed on the screen if speaking virtually and the speakers in person will follow the timer stationed at the podium. Audio of tonight's meeting is available via 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 you with an audible 30- secondond 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 will be 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 meeting will be available for review with closed captioning on Comcast Exfinity channels 25 and 1073, 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 tonight's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements. Tonight, we are also joined by Commissioners Bagley and Patel, who are joining us virtually. Madame Clerk, can you please call tonight's agenda item? Thank you, Madam Chair. The item for the evening is Riverhouse Neighborhood Development Project with six parks. 1 A is R E ZN22-0000007 the resoning 1B SPLN23-0000001 phase development site plan 1 C SPLN23-0000002 the site plan 1 D SPLN23-0000003 site plan 1 E SLN23-00 00004 site plan and 1FP25-00001 site plan as well. We have Adam Watson,

our senior planner for this project to present. Thank you.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. And good evening, members of the planning commission and the public. This is the Riverhouse neighborhood and as the clerk said, I'm going to be covering six items tonight. Uh the first will include the resoning, phase development site plan for the Riverhouse site and uh design guidelines to accompany them. Uh three final site plans for new construction. It's building N1, building C1 and land S, which is comprised of town houses and stacked flats. and then also a final site plan for the existing buildings on the site today to remain. So, this site uh is located in Pentagon City. It's very large. It's 36 acres. There are three existing buildings on the site today, the Ashley and the PTOIC and the James, which combined have 1,676 dwelling units, and those are all proposed to remain. Uh, also want to note that 85% of the existing units on site today are market rate affordable and the James House also has 42 operating calves. Again, all those are proposed to stay with this proposal. Uh, in terms of our general plans, policies, and zoning, uh, the general land use plan designation for this site is split between high, medium, and high residential. It's part of the Pentagon City Coordinated Redevelopment District. Uh which means that it's under the Pentagon City sector plan and the sector plan sets the base zoning density for this site using the previous medium residential glow up designation of 72 dwelling units per acre. There is a proposed reszoning to reszone some French areas around the site to RA 615. So the site is uniformly zoned RA 615 and that resoning is consistent with the Pentagon city coordinated redevelopment district. Uh switching over to talk about the Pentagon city sector plan and I think we'll revisit this slide a lot tonight. These are our six key guiding planning

principles for uh the study area and for Riverhouse. So those are coordinating at district scale, meaning completing the missing links physical and over time to become a cohesive neighborhood connected to the broader 22202 community. Equity, places for people, places for nature, transportation, and green development. Sorry, there's a lag. Okay, apologies about that. Okay, getting more specific now. Uh the Pentagon City sector plan has uh very specific recommendations for the riverhouse site and that is to allow significant increases in uh existing density uh to achieve our community benefits, our urban design and transportation goals and specifically to increase density in this case we're talking about housing from approximately 47 units per acre which exists today up to 150 dwelling units per acre as a maximum. The community benefits are uh targeted and defined in the sector plan for Riverhouse and that includes expansion of Virginia Highlands Park uh along with a uh realignment

turn.

Can you please mute yourself? along with a uh construction of a realigned segment of South Joy Street, creation of green ribbon uh segments throughout the site. And the green ribbon is uh a bofilic uh element that sort of ties together all of the planning principles I spoke about on the previous slide. Creation of additional public space on the site totaling at least 2 and a half acres. uh having a road diet and uh two-way cycle track on South Joy Street and then at least 10% of net new density above 72 dwelling units per acre as on-site committed affordable units. Uh another slide we might spend some time talking about this evening. This is the sector plan building and public uh realm edge map, but I'm using it here to just illustrate to you where the sector plan recommended public spaces and green ribbon be. So, moving from left to right, uh, showing you at least one acre net gain for Virginia Highlands Park expansion. Towards the middle of the site, what we're calling the N12 public space. That's, uh, casual use space that we had a separate, um, planning process for concurrently with SPRC. And then on the north side of the site, uh, 2 acres of dedicated, uh, public space, which is going to be combined with a small county parcel along Army Navy Drive. I also want to point out that there's a principal route of the green ribbon that would run from the 15th street south spur down to Virginia Highlands Park. That's the only uh primary typology route uh on the riverhouse site. And along with that is recommended a a line of strike to be unobstructed by buildings. Okay. In terms of uh development proposal and the anticipated phasing, um I know the applicant will speak about this in greater detail. So I'll just summarize by saying there are uh final site plans which we're referring to as the initial phases of development uh and that includes lands in the southwest corner of the site, the C1 building

adjacent to it and then towards the middle of the site the N1 building. These new uh buildings combined would generate uh 743 new units to bring the total residential density on site to 2419 units. In addition to that, the N1 building will also have about 15,000 square ft of retail uh for VHC health urgent care clinic. So, moving to the bottom part of the slide, this is the full PDSP. You'll notice that it also includes four future phase buildings, C2, C3, N3, and N2. And those buildings would bring uh the bulk of the remaining well just the bulk of the of the density overall proposed uh allowing for up to additional uh 2,000 plus units to bring us to a total of 4,466 dwelling units total on the site as well as an additional 4,000 square ft of ground floor retail in the IN2 building. Just like the buildings are going to be phased, uh, so too will the public spaces. And so this is a comparison of what the, uh, initial phases or the final site plans will be bringing forward, um, versus what the full buildout of the PDSP will bring. So with these initial phases, uh it's it's almost all of the green ribbon network except for uh segments running between the Ashley and the PTOAC through the parking lot to remain in the interim and uh connecting that N1 and2 public space to Army Navy Drive where the applicant is proposing interim pedestrian routes that will include also uh public access easements and about a third of the N12 public space adjacent to N1 with the full PDSP. Uh this would bring about uh uh fee dedication of an expansion of Virginia Highlands Park along with the realignment of South Joy Street. Uh an acre and a half of of land that's going to be public and that would be the green ribbon between C2 and C3. That's the that's the green shaded area just above the that the hatching for Virginia Highlands Park. The remainder of the N1

and2 public space. And then um as I showed on the slide of the sector plan, what we're referring to as James Park for the time being, that's the uh two acres on the far north side of the site. So at full buildout, this this is what the uh PDSP will look like and happy to return to this as we need to this evening. In terms of our density breakdown, the the blue is the existing units to remain. So again, 1,676 units are staying. small amount of retail located within the James house will stay as well. The green are the the buildings that are proposed uh for construction. So again, that's 743 new units about 15,000 square ft of retail. And then in the gold or the yellow uh below the bold line, that's our future phase buildings. This includes in N2, uh C2, C3 and N3. One thing to note is that we are not with this initial phase of development exceeding the base site plan density for the site which is 72 72 dwelling units per acre. We're at 66. So we expect to see things for example like uh community benefits related to calfs and affordable housing kick in at a much more substantial rate in the future beginning with the N2 building. In terms of public engagement, we had a very uh lengthy and robust uh public review process that started uh two and a half years ago back in August 2023. We had three LRPC meetings, on-site walking tour, five LSPRC meetings. We also had a concurrent public space planning process for uh design and programming for the N12 public space. So, we're here before you this evening at planning commission. Uh we went on November 20th to the transportation commission where this project received unanimous unanimous approval per the county manager's recommendation and we're going to parks and recreation commission on the 9th next week and I'm I'm sure we'll hear a readout from um some of our other commissions this evening as well. We

expect to be at the county board on December 13th. So just quickly some policy analysis and uh project evolution to walk everyone through. Uh this project has come a very long way from where we started and has been uh very significant improvements made. This slide does not capture all of those improvements, but it captures what I would say are two of the two of the largest ones. Uh the first being that with the previous proposal that we had back during LRPC, uh we from staff's perspective, this project was underachieving on overall county goals for housing production on site. Right? this is a a a generational opportunity to put essentially housing and parks on parking lots and so uh to the extent we could maximize housing production we were trying to do that the other thing again from staff's perspective is that the building form and placement was negatively impacting the size and the shape and the quality of the public spaces that were going to be coming with this proposal which are a key component of the uh community benefits identified in the sector plan. So working with the applicant, working with the SPRC and the LRPC and the community, uh the JBG JBG Smith brought forward a revised proposal in January that um addressed both of these issues. Um so uh substantial increase in overall density from 88 to 123 dwelling units per acre. And I'll show a slide in a second that sort of illustrates that a little more detail. And in addition, adjusting the building footprints in the placement to provide uh much larger public spaces. So, the two areas that I have circled here, uh, the the the space between the C2 and the C3, now we have the unobstructed sight line that I spoke to earlier from, uh, the top of the 15th Street spur down to Virginia Highlands Park. This space effectively tripled in size as did the N12 public space. When you look at uh, the overall area being dedicated from the start of LRPC to

where we are now. So, again, very significant improvement there. Also from a density perspective, this project uh you know the redesign uh resulted in a net increase of over a thousand dwelling units which is very important in terms of achieving the uh community benefits and the cals that we want to see on site effectively tripling the number the maximum potential number of cals that we could have on site. So this is showing you how the original proposal was 88 dwelling units per acre and again today up to 123 dwelling units per acre. Uh speaking of community benefits, this is uh a simplified breakdown of the site plan improvements and the community benefits that will be delivered with the project that you're acting on tonight. So final site plan improvements include a base affordable housing contribution. And I would just note that the applicant has already voluntarily agreed to make that base affordable housing contribution on site. So those calfs we expect to be on site, approximately 12 of them. In addition to that, uh the new streets in the streetscape improvements that are called for in the sector plan, lead gold minimum for all the buildings, TDM program, public art fund contribution, utility undergrounding contribution, and then inbuilding wireless for the new buildings. In terms of our final site plans, I would also add here that the the applicant is actually overachieving on earning these community benefits because as I mentioned previously, we haven't crossed that 72 dwelling unit per acre threshold yet. But we are getting green building incentive policy uh participation for the N1 building uh uh initial portion of the N1 and2 public space a bulk of the green ribbon segments 2A separated uh cycle track and road diet on South Joy Street and in addition to that the PDSP ordinance is locking in the remaining community benefits that are identified in the sector plan and that is 10% of net new units above 72 dwelling units per acre as on-site cals the remaining

portion of the N1 into public space, James Park and a feed uh simple dedication expansion of Virginia Highlands and then also the remaining uh primary green ribbon open space uh between C building C2 and C3. So overall uh staff uh finds that this proposal advances our sector plan recommendations. Uh we're as I mentioned previously essentially putting new parks and new housing on parking lots without displacing anyone. Um so it achieves in term of our of our density and our land uses preserving the existing units adding 743 new ones and then up to over 2,000 in the future preserving and creation of uh you know diverse number of housing types across a range of price points. Right? So, we're going to have efficiency or rental units in multif family buildings and also ownership uh condominium town houses, building heights and building height variation also meets sector plan requirements. Uh green ribbon space is provided. As I mentioned before, public space is provided. We're we're exceeding the minimum acreage that's identified in the sector plan. When you combine the green ribbon with the with the uh actual park spaces, you're you're into about 8.7 acres worth of public space. In terms of our tree and vegetative coverage, also exceeding goals there. That's the proposal is for 35% tree canopy coverage with 45% overall vegetative coverage. The sector plan targets for that are 20 and 30. So again, exceeding those uh bicycle infrastructure, parking in compliance with our off- streetet guidelines. And then again uh meeting that sustainability lead goal baseline for all the buildings. And so with that we recommend approval of all of the items uh according to the county manager's recommendation which is on the draft staff report and also on this slide. And that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you very much Mr. Watson. And then applicant please presentation.

Great. Thank you. Um and I'll ask if Mr. Watson can share our presentation for us. Um, in the meantime, um, good evening, Chair Peterson, members of the commission, thank you for your time. My name is Kendrick Whitmore. I'm a land use and zoning attorney with Venal LLP, and we're excited to bring you our presentation for the Riverhouse neighborhood. Right on time. Um, if you can go to the next slide, please. A quick overview of what we're going to talk about tonight. Uh, we're going to discuss the site as a whole. We're going to walk through each individual site plan and then talk about a few of the overarching elements of this project. Um, as Mr. Watson mentioned, we're seeking approval of a resoning phase development site plan for the entirety of the site and final site plans for the development sites and the existing buildings to remain. Um, on the next slide, Mr. Watson mentioned this, but we have been at this process for quite some time. We began the site plan process in 2022, soon after the sector plan was approved, and since that time, we have gone to the LRPC three times. We have gone to the SPRC five times. We've had multiple online engagements and a public uh space master planning process. We are hopeful to go to the board this month. Um we've gotten great feedback through that time. We appreciate that and as Mr. Watson mentioned, it has really improved the design of this project as a whole uh through these these years of public process. Um I I should also note that this is not the end of the public process. There will be significant time spent on the permitting and design uh of the site before anything actually gets built. Final engineering plans, code compliance plans, sign plans. All of these have to be created, reviewed, and approved before anything is constructed. On the next slide is a photograph of the site today. Three large apartment buildings with a significant amount of surface parking. And I want to make sure at the outset that that I point out this is an enormous site. This is 36 acres. Um, this is the size of Time Square in Manhattan. Um, and that size has an impact on how we've designed this

project, how it's been reviewed, and how it's going to be phased and built out. Our proposal is to retain the existing apartments that you see there today and build on the surface parking lots. It's important to point out that most of the site plan projects you see are in areas with an already built network of streets, sidewalks, pedestrian areas that provide a kind of ready-made environment to support the new development. This case is different. You see that infrastructure does not exist today. Instead, the applicant is building all of these areas, the streets, sidewalks, the bike lanes, the open space, the pedestrian areas. We are taking a dead parking lot area and we are making a neighborhood. On the next slide, um, as I've noted, we've had a uh robust public process and made a large number of changes as a result. Um, I think Mr. Watson went over them uh pretty well, so I won't spend a lot of time on that here, but in essence, the feedback led us to reduce building footprint areas and eliminate some buildings altogether to increase openings and paracity throughout the site. Um, so moving forward on the next slide, this is a an image of what the full PDSP buildout is going to look like. Uh but I should note the ability to build all of these buildings that you see is not what is being requested with this application. While a phase development site plan is getting approved for the entire site, we're only seeking final site plans which create actionable building plans for the items you see here, LandBay S, C1, and N1. um the areas that are grayed out are going to be developed only when future final site plans or entitlements are approved. So on the next slide um this is what it will look like as the initial phases build out. Sorry, can you advance the slide one? That's okay. Great. Thank you. Um this is what it's going to look like as the initial base phases build out. Um, here's a plan

showing the buildout of Land Bay S, which we anticipate would go first. Let's see if that went away. You'll note the remainder of the site stays as is in this condition. Um, and then, uh, the next slide shows what the final condition will look like once, uh, C1 and N1 are also built out. Again, those existing buildings staying as is. Um here on the next slide is a another example of the Thank you. Uh moving to the specifics of the proposal here. Um there are over 1,600 units on the property currently that are being retained. Those are shown in gray. Uh the buildings that will be built out as part of the current final site plan application are in orange. These will add 743 units to for a total of just above 2400 units. When the PDSP is fully built out, that is when those buildings in yellow have undergone their own final site plan approvals, that will result in the addition of about 2,000 more units. Those buildings haven't been designed yet. Um, and so it's possible that those numbers fluctuate, but that's what we have here today. So on the next slide is an isometric view of what those three buildings are going to look like in the context of the surrounding environment. again, Land Bay S, the town homes, C1 and N1 multif family buildings. You'll note that each of them are shorter than the existing Riverhouse buildings. So, I'd like to talk about each of these development areas in turn. On the next slide is Land Bay S. Um, and if you'll advance it one more, we're really excited to be able to propose 132 for sale units here. And I apologize that it's difficult to read that text box with the numbers, but uh we've heard from a lot of folks uh throughout about the desire for new home ownership opportunities and and the lack of those in Arlington, and we're really excited to be able to provide that here. These will be for sale units um in these town home and two over two configurations. As

you'll see throughout this presentation, and you can see on the map here, there's been an emphasis on connectivity, making these areas accessible to and part of the overall neighborhood. So, the next couple of slides are a few renderings and elevations. Um, we have several different unit types, but all of them will be at least uh three bedrooms. Um, the next slide has a couple of renderings to show how this is going to look from the street level and one more rendering here. Um, on the next slide is a little more information detailing the the large number of public improvements that are going to take place here. We're adding those elements of vehicle, bike, pedestrian connections that just don't exist on the site today. I'll also point out there's going to be an interim path that's provided through the existing Riverhouse site and you can see it on the map there uh moving between the existing buildings down toward South Joyce Street to connect Land S with South Joyce through another path uh beyond that of of the new streets. Um and we have a connection similarly up to Lind Street. Um, again creating that infrastructure and connection that doesn't exist today. On the next slide, in terms of parking and vehicular operation, the town homes will have internal garages to meet their parking needs as well as a few on street spaces. Um, next I want to talk about building N1. Um, you can see here it's on the northern portion of the site. If you'll advance the slide one, um, this is a multif family building with groundf flooror retail areas that face South Joy Street. You can see here how the building is accessed for both uh pedestrians and vehicles. On the next slide, uh this really is kind of a central point in the neighborhood. It provides terminus uh for a lot of these access areas, a lot of opportunities to access the building. I'll also point out um on the top of this slide the significant wooded area that we're maintaining and expanding and providing a forest walk through as well as an open space prominade on the right side uh adjacent to the building. And on the

next slide is a little more detail on that open space. It's about a third of an acre and will provide access and respit for uh folks passing through uh the property east west. It was designed and discussed in SPRC as well as in the uh additional park master planning process. Um one of the changes we made throughout the process and a result of hearing from our neighbors and participants was the addition of a staircase to allow easier access to this area from up the hill. It is parallel to Westpost at the other side of South Joyce Street and we'll provide a great connection point down to the metro. Um, a couple of architectural views are on the next couple of slides. Um, I won't dwell on these unless folks would like to talk about them. We can advance another and one more. I do want to discuss uh one of the elements we're really excited about here and that's the FED. We've heard for years about the lack of medical uses in this area. This FED is a new concept, essentially a hybrid between an ER and an urgent care. It provides a place for folks to treat some uh more serious issues uh that an urgent care could handle, but not a full-blown hospital. No one stays overnight. There are no surgeries. There are no inbound ambulances coming here. Although uh if somebody does have a problem that's too serious, they could be taken to VHC from here by an ambulance. So, this is going to be located on the ground floor of the N1 building in that space along South Joy Street. Um, and this is another element that we're very excited about here in creating this neighborhood. On the next slide, um, in terms of parking, we're going to provide parking on site at about 0.5 spaces per unit, removing 254 surface parking spaces that exist today. Uh, finally on the next slide, we move on to building C1. You can see this is kind of tucked in between the existing building and the new road to be built as part of LandBay S. On the next slide, this is also a multif family building with 102 units. You can see the entrances and operation here. Um the next slide

provides some information again about the connectivity and the entrances on the next slide a few renderings uh and elevations. And you can see here on this slide and and this one that we tried to uh use an architectural style that's a little bit distinct from the existing buildings and we're very happy with the way it turned out. on the next slide. In terms of parking, we've removed 44 surface parking spaces and we will park this at Oh, now I'm on. Okay. 4:1 ratio. Well, I sent the email. She's sorry you answered it.

Can all of our virtual um guests please make sure they're uh please make sure they're muted. Um on the next slide here, we've we've really taken that vision from the sector plan and executed on it here in the final site plans. Here are a few renderings of what we proposed wide and gracious paths, pedestrian focused design and the addition and maintenance of significant green areas integrated into the pedestrian ways. On the next slide, um, with that vision in mind, you can see that we have, uh, created paths of the green ribbon that mirror those in the in the sector plan in our overall PDSP with those same important areas emphasized. This provides access for folks coming down the hill to the parks to West Coast to the metro. Um, again, this slide is the green ribbon that's going to be delivered with the full PDSP buildout. Um, on the next slide, you can see what's going to be delivered with these final site plans, and you can see that they're pretty close. We're really happy that we're able to provide the majority of the green ribbon with these first final site plans that are going to really create the bones of this new neighborhood um that allow us to then pursue infill development in other areas in the future. On the next slide, um I did want to talk a little bit about the community enhancements and Mr. Watson touched on that some in his presentation, but um I do think it's important to point out that unlike most of the projects we've seen, and I've said this a couple times, but this really is building a new neighborhood. So there are significant significant number of things that you see in terms of infrastructure that we're not used to seeing on other site plan projects. I won't go through the entirety of that

left-hand column, but that is uh these are the the improvements that are being made to really create the neighborhood here and and really go over that information that you've seen on some of the prior slides. Green ribbon, miles of new roads undergrounding um and uh taking a parking lot and really making it a neighborhood. Um, we're also ensuring that each building will be lean le gold. We're going to be meeting ordinance requirements related to affordable housing, including on site for our base contribution. Um, and then on the right, you'll see the enhancements that are going to come along with that second phase with those future PDSP buildings. Um, on the next slide here, I did want to dive in a little more detail about a couple of these infrastructure pieces. Um, in addition to the green ribbon, we are adding accessible pathways throughout. Um, given the grades present here, that's a real improvement uh to universal accessibility. When we take these accessible routes into account, we get to over a mile of paths, taking this disconnected, non-accessible site and really making it accessible. On the next slide, it's also worth talking about South Joy Street in a little more detail. U most projects you get improvement along the frontage of the building itself, the area right in front of the building. Um instead, we are improving four times the frontage of N1, which in itself is already a has a long frontage. We're going all the way from Army Navy Drive down to the park with those road improvements. again a level of public improvement that's rarely if ever seen. Uh lastly on the next slide a word on on phasing and how all these improvements are going to come online. Um we realize it's a lot here so I want to make sure we take the time to talk through these things. Um this is the num the improve slide of the improvements the green ribbon the pedestrian paths the roadways the interim path that are going to come online with land bay s um and then on the next slide we can see what will be coming online as part of uh seat of uh the N1 building as well uh continuing to build on that more publicly accessible green space more roadway improvements and then the last

slide is uh how this will all marry up in that final PDSP condition with additional open spaces uh to be provided with that. So with that, I'll close out. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your attention and we'll be available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate your uh coming in under time even with the interruptions. Um Madame Clerk, do we have public speakers this evening?

We do have public speakers this evening. Um let me get my screen together here. All speakers will receive two minutes for public testimony this evening. And as I call your name, if you can begin to move up to the front and I'll be calling your names two by two. Please press the button on the microphone before you begin to speak. And there is also a button to your far right if you need to adjust the height of the podium. Thank you. Yeah. Did I call your name? Did Did I call your name to speak? Oh, okay. Go right ahead.

Yes. Hi, I'm Richard Ribb. I ask you to delay approval of the PDSP because there's an arbitrary and capricious rush to approve which without real public engagement which is improper. A very different PDSP exited the project LRPC halfway through SPRC. The PDSP doubled, tripling the current density. The reason it changed was the planning commission, the planning department's memo regarding JBG's block W development saying that even though it conformed to zoning, the density disappointed them because it did not deliver the maximums for the sector plan. Once this happened, JBG got the message, hence the new PDSP in the middle of SPRC. We requested a special glove study as Arlington has done for smaller sites. We requested taking it back to LRPC. All was denied. Instead, there were two more spec more SPRC meetings and we're here. My point standard processes have not been followed. And two, the planning department is not impartial. They are advocating and pushing higher density. So, at the transportation commission, I raised the issue that 22202 is a unique geography, a fishbowl, very few routes in and out. Therefore, the assumed traffic mix, percentage of vehicles is critical. On pages 78 and 80 of the Nelson Nygard transportation assessment, the traffic mix for this area is assumed to be 27% cars, the lowest in Arlington, lower than Crystal City, lower than Rosland. They use the same assumption where the new residents live in townouses or apartments. The source of the assumption, the planning department. Any study the planning department may have done of Pentagon City could not have included Riverhouse as it was not part of Pentagon City until last year at this time. that would have studied apartments above the metro station and a senior facility. We on the ridge are not

27% cars. Using the sumption for this area without detailed justification is an error. I ask you require correct work before approving us. Russell Coffler is followed by Jessica D.

Good evening. I'm Russell Coffler. What are the primary evaluation criteria for site plan development in the Arlington County zoning audience? 15.5. Is your microphone on? Excuse me. Is the microphone on? Okay. Maybe get a little bit closer to it. I don't I'm not sure it's catching your voice. Thank you.

The only Arlington County Zoning Ordinance 15.5 includes compatibility with the neighborhoods and I quote and not be injurious or detrimental to the property or improvements in the neighborhood. The current plan places 500 plus HVAC compressor units less than 40 yards from my balcony and will generate enough noise on a warm summer night to make the balcony unusable. Also, the height of building N1 will obscure my view of the dome of the Capitol and thereby reduce the value of my condo. In addition, the current travel time for the ambulance and fire trucks from station 405 through South Joy Street is around 5 minutes. Even with the flawed traffic study, the increase in traffic during rush hour will probably double that time, jeopardizing another evaluation criteria to promote and protect public health and safety. During the flawed review process of this development proposal, none of these issues has been seriously considered. Therefore, the planning commission should deny the applicant's proposal until they reduce the plan 2790 unit development to comply with the county's evaluation criteria for site plan development. Thank you. Jessica D is followed by William Stranges. Good evening. My ask tonight uh is that if you approve the PDSP uh you conditionally approve it with the removal of the green ribbon at the 15th Street spur. I'm asking you to do the right thing today. And the right thing in this case is to actually take into consideration the concerns that the current community has presented to you with fact-based quotes and evidence. That community would be the diverse middle inome individuals and families who have lived in and meaningfully contributed to the area for in my case over 20 years. Not the unknown entity of what may come when this project is finished. We have not been asking for unreasonable things. We have asked for reasonable modifications. based on major

adverse changes to our quality of life. At the very least, we've asked that you put in the due diligence that a project of this scope deserves. And just because we have had multiple meetings over the years does not mean that due diligence has been performed. When the county forced JBG to change their site plan right before the second SPRC meeting, that alone should have triggered a return to the LRPC. Continuing to cram the information we needed to discuss into just four more meetings was inappropriate and unfair to all involved. As we've pointed out, much more time and effort has been put into much less significant projects just within this last year. I sent you an email the other day, and I hope that you all read it. It had [clears throat] photos and pertinent information to your decision tonight. It was fact-based, not emotionally based. I don't have time to review those points tonight because we're just given two minutes to speak at you and not engage with you. So, at this point, uh all I can do is beg you again to uh do the right thing for this community that I represent. And once again, uh, remove the green ribbon from the 15th Street spur or at the very least leave us with our parking. Thank you.

William Stranges is followed by Yon.

Good evening. My name is Bill Stranges and I live at 11:01 South Aington Ridge Road. My wife and I have lived in the area for six years and previously to that I have worked in the Crystal City Pentagon area for over 35 years. We oppose the current plan to develop the Riverhouse property. By increasing the density of Riverhouse from roughly 1,700 units to 4,500 units will make the property one of the densest populated properties in the DMV. Such an increase in population will have a huge impact on the vehicle traffic, the surrounding permeable land and green space. It will also require additional infrastructure for electric, sewer, and water utilities. Additional space in schools and/or new schools will also be needed as well as other community services. Further, the prospect of having over 500 HVAC units running 247 at eye level to our balcony will make it impossible to use in the summer. This will contribute to a decrease in the value of our condo when we are ready to sell. This decrease will be further exacerbated by the close proximity of N1 and N2 to our building and the destruction of the natural geography of Arlington Ridge. We are not against the development. We are we supported the original plan that uh ver Vernado presented six or seven years ago with uh two five-story buildings. Finally, with the current personnel drawdowns occurring in the federal government and at Amazon, one has to question whether the density being proposed is really

required. A recent article in the Washington Post postulated that in a few years there will be housing surplus. One only has to recall the base realignment and closure act of the '9s and its impact.

Thank you very much, sir. Um, you're welcome to email us the rest of your comments. Appreciate your time. Yanji is followed by Mary Rearen. [clears throat] Hi, good evening. My name is Yin. I have been living representative for 30 years. I'm not rich people. I'm just even probably not middle class. I own a small business. I spent a lot of money bought my condo and I thought Arlington is a good place to live in raise your family, your children, your grandchildren. Right now I have two grandchildren but right now this your plan I feel going to destroy all of us leave because imagine before is 1600 units in the 32 square mile right now according to your plan adding on it's eventually it's a 46 some 4600 units. If each units two people living there, how many people? 10,000 people all living this small 32 square ft. The quality of life definitely going to go down. The traffic a lot of things going to go down. Have you ever considering that before from my building I can see capital I can see PTOAC river but right now after you are bu you building all of that 32 whatever building we only can see all of forest building it's nothing about nature

nothing about human living condition don't mention about affordable all of these Never going to affordable. Okay, I'm finish.

Mary Rearen is followed by Judith Richards. Good evening. My name is Mary Rearen and for more than a decade I have lived in the Pentagon City area on Arlington Ridge Road in the Representative Condo Building. I'm here tonight with some of my neighbors to voice opposition to this plan at this time. We're not opposed to new development. We know it's inevitable. We know that additional housing will be built in this area. However, we are opposed to overdevelopment in this area. This plan that's before you tonight will more than triple the density in our area. This plan adds too much density in an area of the county that's already very dense and very diverse. I also oppose the plan um that's here tonight because of the process that brought us here. For several years, I and many of my neighbors have tried in good faith to engage with the county and to engage with JBG. We had a good dialogue with JBG for a number of months. We came to agreements about building sizes and stories of the buildings that would make sense for our neighborhood. And then the county pressured JBG to dramatically increase the size of the buildings that are being considered a phase. The next phase that's not being discussed tonight includes a 22story building that would be directly in front of our building. That is a huge impact for our neighborhood. So I ask you to please do not approve this plan at this time. Thank you. Judith Richards is followed by Jeffrey Williams. Hello, I'm a uh unit owner Judy Richards

in the um representative condominium. We overlook the directly the N1 building and the 579 mechanical unions um on the roof. I'm here tonight to urge you to approve the plan for N1, but require that that uh JBG remove the 579 mechanical units from the roof and redesign the building to match other residential buildings in the area where mechanical units for the units are placed within the the buildings and other mechanical units for commercial purposes are placed under a roof. The uh Pentagon Row buildings provide a perfect example for how to do that. Attractive roofs and so forth. We [clears throat] in our community have uh estimated the the sound decibels be created by all these units of the 501 residential units. the decibels will grossly exceed the Arlington County um um sound ordinance. And that's not even counting the 78 much larger commercial exhaust fans and um commercial retail HVAC units and elevators. So what we're what we're asking is at this point it appears very clearly that um Mr. Whitmore has told us at the Arlington Ridge Community Association on November 17th that JBG has not studied the sound problem. They still believe that this will not be a problem and we were told at that meeting that if it is a problem after the building's built, we can complain.

Okay. Well, that's clearly not an option. The other thing is we're on the um we're on the ridge. We are Mim, thank you. Your time is up, but we did receive your email and um have gone through it. Thank you very much for your time. Jeffrey Williams is followed by Susan English.

Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Williams. I've resided at the Riverhouse for more than 30 years and I support the site plan proposals and the larger phase development site plan. The Riverhouse site is less than half a mile from the Pentagon City Metro. Replacing outdated surface parking with dense housing near Metro and bus routes will help Arlington achieve walkable, livable density. The site plans in PDSP will significantly increase Arlington's housing supply and will provide different types of homes for all kinds of families from studios to four-bedroom town homes, including rentals and owned units. Integrating well-designed pedestrian routes, including the green ribbon elements, enhance walkability, and public open spaces, will create places that bring us together to celebrate shared community. Over the course of the LRPC and SPRC process, deviations from the sector plan guidance were noted and subsequently addressed by JBG. Responding to SPRC discussions, the applicant changed the site plan materially between SPRC 1 and two. JBG continued to refine its site design, responding to feedback, addressing most sector plan deviations. The list of changes made was extensive, but I would highlight a few. a significant increase in improvements to the public open space opposite Pentagon Row, revisions to the center parcel public open space and Virginia Highlands Park View corridor, increasing total PDSP site plan density which allows more uh um um committed affordable units, the addition of refuge and seating areas to the primary green ribbon segment from Kent Street to the 15th Street spur. The current site plan and PDSP have evolved significantly over the course of the public process and the current plan

accords much more closely to the sector plan guidance. Thank you. Susan English is followed by Jason Schwarz.

Good evening. I'm Susan English, a 43-year resident of Arlington Ridge. That length of stay does not entitle me to greater voice on this project. On the contrary, I support and welcome the voices of those who need and appreciate this new housing opportunity. The Pentagon City sector plan roofed in 2022 pursued a vision of increased vitality with more housing and mixed use close to the metro station. That vision included for this large site creating view corridors up the ridge, added open space, and walkable bikable green pathways to access the new development and better connect the community. I remain firmly in support of that vision. Phase one of this development is less dense than the maximum allowed under the sector plan, but is welcome for its mix of four-sale town homes and stacked flats, new 7story market rate units, a VHC affiliated urgent care, and a significant rebuilding of South Joyce Street with a wider sidewalk, two-way bike lanes, and shorter crossing distance for Riverhouse residents. Beyond that, this first implementation of the green ribbon will help set a standard for the future expansion of these urban pathways, which will eventually provide a more biofilic experience for residents and visitors. In phase two, which may be years distant, the open space will be expanded with a 1acre addition to Virginia Highlands Park and 1 acre fully built open space between N1 and N2 buildings. The market conditions for building phase 2 seem far off, so potential for on-site committed affordable units will be delayed. Notwithstanding the significant transportation improvements and needed

new housing make this a welcome development. Thank you. Jason Schwarz is followed by Carol Wiser.

Uh, good evening. My name is Jason Schwarz and I fully support this proposal. This is a gamecher development for Pentagon City, uh the Richmond Highway corridor and Arlington as a whole. It really provides a significant increase um in Arlington's housing supply and different types of homes for different kinds of families from studio to three-bedroom apartments and three to four bedroom stacked flats and town homes providing rental and home ownership opportunity. There's really a good mix of something for everyone. Uh this proposal is a great improvement over the initial proposal um uh with much greater um increases in density. Uh this site has a longunning history of proposals going back many years well at least well over a decade. Um and this one is in line with the Pentagon city uh area plan and provides substantial benefits for Arlingtonians now and many decades in the future. This provides new transit oriented development um and uh next next to significant amenities and right by the metro which recently the DMV moves task force is moving forward to a multi-billion dollar plan. The homes here are going to be next to the metro where the average weight times uh during peak periods will be counted in seconds not minutes. That is the sort of opportunity that this has next to major job centers, recreational areas and other great places that people really desire and covet so much. That's why this is so amazing. And lastly, there's really, as I sum up here, uh there's no displacement of the existing residents. Um all this new housing, greenery, and infrastructure is going to be placed where there's currently no no housing, just parking spaces and underutilized um areas that may have worked in the past, but now it's time for the next generation. Uh the new public open spaces are going to be great and the phased uh plan really provides a realistic and feasible uh path forward for initial lower density development with the the stack town houses and town houses and the future higher density development when

we really could need it. So, thank you so much.

Carol Wiser is followed by John Muso. could she turn the microphone on? However, I urge that that be accomplished in a way that respects and preserves the value that I and others have invested in our condominiums, not through the tripling of the density. This concept has been sold as a way to uh place a uh useful buildings and green spaces on parking lots. But it is not just parking lots that are being removed. There are large lawns, mature trees, tennis tennis um courts and swimming pools that are also being replaced. This will lead to a heat island effect. And the plans for the green spaces in many ways are forbidding. the um aspect

from Joy Street is uh actually quite um quite forbidding and I ask you to please consider delaying and further listening to the members of the community. Mr. Muso Good evening members of the planning commission. John Mucus, government affairs manager of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the chamber, I wish to urge you all to please recommend the adoption of the phase development site plan 4.1 site plan amendments and reszoning before you regarding the Riverhouse site. This project would replace a site that is predominantly used um for of underutilized service parking lots. It would transform it into a dynamic mixeduse development with community benefits that not only advance the goals of the Pentagon city sector plan but also advance the housing and smart growth goals of the county at large. This project would realize the vision as mentioned earlier um for infield development at the riverhouse site as part of the Pentagon city sector plan. It would also advance the goals of, I believe, nine separate elements of that sector plan. Additionally, this proposal would provide much neededed housing units in a growing metro accessible neighborhood of not just Pentagon City, but the greater National Landing area at large. Furthermore, this proposal includes some home home ownership opportunities, additional rentals, which adds to the diversity of housing stock in this neighborhood. More broadly, this would complement existing progress in making the Pentagon City neighborhood and National Landed at large a vibrant mixeduse comm community. We've had so much success especially in the last 10 years of really transforming this area and this would greatly complement that success. Uh community benefits as mentioned such as the green ribbon, new streets, an expansion of Virginia Highlands Park. These great

community assets will only benefit not just the residents to come but the existing residents as well. Um for that reason we please ask that you recommend the adoption. Thank you very much. We will now turn to our virtual speakers online. Please listen for your name and then turn on your camera and or your mic at that time. Our first virtual speaker is Tina Muse followed by David Osggo. Please note that my request does not affect building heights, does not affect density, and does not affect the green ribbon within the riverhouse site. My request is very narrow. If you choose to endorse the PDSP, If you choose to endorse the PDSP, please condition that endorsement on removing the green ribbon segment that extends beyond the Riverhouse property line and onto the 15th Street spur. That short spur is the only access point for the two active garages at Pentagon Ridge condominium. Pentagon Ridge is the smallest of the apartment and condo buildings in 22202. Yet, it would become the only one to lose all adjacent street parking and the only building where the green ribbon would run directly in front of its garage exits. The Spurs geometry is inherently unsafe for multimodal traffic. Vehicles must nose into the roadway to see oncoming traffic on both Arlington Ridge Road and Lind Street. Introducing pedestrians and cyclists at those points creates conflict zones that cannot be engineered away. By the time someone walking or biking would realize the segment is unsafe, it would be too late. If you endorse the PDSP, I

respectfully request that your endorsement be conditioned on removing this one small segment from the primary green ribbon. Thank you.

Okay, we're going to try a new thing tonight, so bear with me just one moment. Okay, our next speaker online is David Osggo, followed by Michael Perry. And you should be able to see the twominut timer.

Yes, I can. Great. Thank you very Thank you very much. Thank you for uh this opportunity to speak. My name is David Osgo and I am a 30-year resident of Arlington, actually a 40-year resident of Arlington. I live at 1026 South 18th Street for the past 30 years. So, it's the neighborhood that's going to be impacted by this new development. Look, I realize that development is inevitable and I actually very much support development, but I do not support this plan. The county is moving ahead with a plan that will triple the density in the neighborhood. Uh, you know, when you look currently at traffic patterns at the traffic between 16th Street and 23rd Street, it's already like working a Rubik's cube trying to drive down that road. It wasn't always that way. It's only in the past two or three years that has gotten that bad. Uh, this is unfortunate, but unfortunately, uh, tripling the density is only going to make matters worse. Uh, additionally, uh, when you look at the current plan, there's a huge loss of open green space. It's it's going to reduce, uh, space by 60%. Uh, uh, ultimately, we need those spaces in order for water runoff. Uh the county has terrible problems with regard to runoff problems that have been driven by the fact that we have have not had very good planning uh and we've uh had a lot of overdevelopment. You know ultimately I thought it was very very instructive throughout the process where we heard that everything was staff driven. We kept hearing the phrase staff driven staff driven. This is a plan designed by staff for the staff, not for the Arlington community at large. Thank

you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Perry, followed by Rebecca Heler. Michael Perry, if you are online, sir, please unmute your mic. Okay, we'll come back to Mr. Perry. Rebecca Helixer followed by Alicia Marlo.

Hello, this is Rebecca Hilixer and I am a resident and a homeowner in the uh 1101 South Arlington Ridge Road representative and I am here to speak because I am very opposed to this plan. I enjoy the um as a recent uh Arlington resident within the last couple of years, I moved here specifically into this building because of the neighborhood feel um and also the beautiful iconic views of the Arlington Ridge. And this plan as proposed both the near-term and far-term would significantly impact the uh feel of the neighborhood and the beautiful views that we enjoy. And as a daily walker, I think that the density would really negatively impact the um traffic and the safety of being able to walk around safely in the neighborhood by such an increase in population density that these this building plan would uh result in. And I don't think that um the process offered a good chance from at least my last few years of being here to add and have my inputs listened to and also others in the building and on the uh street that I live on. I feel that there's a lot of the same sim similar um sentiments. uh the benefits are minor uh that are proposed in this plan, but I think that the impact negative impacts are significant, including what has been for mentioned with the noise of the HVAC units, um the lack of views, uh the heat generated by the overdevelopment of the buildings and um I think that uh you know, we'd lose a lot of the feel of the neighborhood by this plan going forward. And I'm not against development. And I I appreciate it, but I also think that the building height should be equivalent to the Pentagon Ridge no more than five

stories high and to keep the the uh the flavor of the the neighborhood as it is now while adding modest and reasonable density. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alisa Marlo followed by Natalyia Lord.

Um yes. Hi. Um, Alyssa Marlo from the Pentagon Ridge Condo. Um, generally I'm not in support of this plan, but at a minimum I'm here again to notify the county of the unsafe conditions at the 15th Street spur. Um, generally um I feel like many people have said that there was a bait and switch by the county staff pushing JBG um to change after months of working with them to accommodate the needs of long-term residents like myself, been in the zip code probably 12, 13 years or so. um the hypothetical new residents. Um it seems like potential market conditions won't won't really require the needs of the second phase, but however, again, as I mentioned, the 15th Street spur really needs to be removed. Now, uh there's uh 32 people that park in a garage just outside of there. Um kids are going to ride skateboards, kids are going to ride their bikes. Um my roommate and I go outside of that garage a minimum of four times per day. I don't want to hit a kid. I know that she doesn't either. Uh our garage height is about six feet uh six inches. It won't accommodate repair vehicles. Uh won't accommodate AAA vehicles and things like that. And so there's going to be nowhere for them to go. Uh potentially maybe on Arlington Ridge Road and even when we have an Uber driver or I have a friend pick me up on Arlington Ridge Road, people will honk um ridiculously and we'll get yelled profanities at us. So, um, that's a the spur I'd really like to you to consider at a minimum, again, for a life safety, um, consideration. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Natalyia Lord, followed by Bernie Burn. Hello. Hello. My name is Natalya Lord and I live in Ridge House condominiums. I'm one of the more than 800 property owners living adjacent to Riverhouse. My concern is that this PTSP adds up to almost or 2500 new residential units uh at full buildout while narrowing the streets joyce from four to two travel lanes. Despite excellent efforts to increase and improve mass transit, such an increase in density will generate thousands of additional daily car trips on a street network that already backs up significantly at Joyce and Army Navy Drive, Army Navy Drive and 26 Street and Arlington Ridge Road and the 395 ramps to manage increased density. The new approved transportation plan seeks to reduce the demand for private vehicle use to and from the area and the confinement of car trips to off peak periods. In other words, make it really, really painful to drive. As every resident in the area today can tell you, the densification of surrounding neighborhoods has already fully [snorts] succeeded in achieving these goals. We cannot drive anywhere or invite anyone without considering the time of day. While relying on walking or biking exclusively is very appropriate for many and it's wonderful, it's not realistic for those aging in place, caring for small children, or simply needing to stock up on groceries. Before endorsing

the PDSP, please require an independent thorough transportation study. Realistic trip assumptions. Better yet, eat or take out food from restaurants at Westpost or I. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bernie Burn followed by Audrey Clement. Hello. Uh, can you hear me? Yes, sir. We can.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm Bernie Berno. I talk to you frequently. Uh, the plan schedules, the applicants, uh, October 17th revised conceptual land plan do not adequately conform to the Ali County Board's 2016 Monarch Pledge. The pledge encourages developers and residents to plant milkweed, other nectar plants that support monach butterflies and other pollinators. The plants also do not conform to similar recommendations as the county's forestry and natural resources plan. To their credit, the present planting schedules now contain common milkweed, which they previously didn't. However, the plants also contain many trees and other plants that are not native to all this county in this vicinity. Some are hybrid courses with non-native species. Some are already known to be invasive. Others may become known in the future as invasive. Many may not feed native pollinators. I've informed the applicant about these the landscape the applicant and its landscape arctic of those species but they have not significantly changed. There were a few changes but not many. The the plant schedules for this pl project list lists many cultivars. Landscape architects often select that cultivars based on their attractiveness to people not to pollinators. Cultivars often have reduced nutritional benefits or are toxic because of their altered structures or chemical compositions. [snorts] Many have not been studied well enough to identify those that may be harming pollinators in that regard. The applicant should therefore replace all public cultivars with native plants unless the cultivars are more resistant to disease than they are their parents. I haven't found any of these. Uh the the buildings do not contain green roofs or plants hanging h clanging from or clowning on walls. Uh the open spaces contain two including the green ribbon contain too much pavement and too little

green space. I'm not sure why they call it a green ribbon because it's mostly not green. To create bofailia the project needs Thank you. Our next speaker is RJ Clement followed by Ben Devonszo.

Welcome members of the planning commission. I'm Audrey Clement, former member of the transportation commission. On November 20th, the transportation commission rubber stamped the Riverhouse PDSP based on a multimodal transportation assessment MMTA by Nelson Nygard. That's unfortunate as the transportation impacts of this massive infill development are huge. The existing Riverhouse provides 1,800 parking spaces for 1,600 units for a parking ratio of about 1.1 cars per unit. Table one of the MMTA indicates that upon full buildout, there will be 2019 spaces for 40 4,400 units or a dramatically reduced parking ratio of about45 cars per unit. New residents moving to Arlington to get out of their cars are probably good with that. But what about existing Riverhouse residents? They will be forced out of their cars, not only due to lack of parking, but also a road diet that reduces travel lanes from four to two on South Joyce across from Pentagon Row. The MMTA concludes that although level of service at two major intersections will be degraded upon completion of the project in 2035, the effects can be mitigated with signal timing changes. This finding appears to conflict with the driveway trip counts shown in tables 22 and through 24 of the MMTA. Table 22 shows existing PM vehicle trip counts at 437. Table 24 shows 2035 PM vehicle trip counts at 798 for an increase of 83%. This is a huge jump considering that most of the traffic will dump dump onto South Joy Street which will have been reduced from four lanes to two. It's time for the planning commission to do what the transportation commission didn't and take a second look at the

MMTA. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ben Nonszo followed by Nicholas Jacobe. Hi, good evening. My name is Ben Deonso. I am speaking as chair of the Crystal and Pentagon Cities Council. As a reminder, the CPCC is a Arlington County appointed advisory body made up of residents, businesses, and property owners in the Crystal and Pentagon City Sector area and we advise the county board in particular on how uh to implement and to oversee implementation of the sector plans. It is notable therefore that this is the first uh official plan putting aside Metropolitan Park that is being adopted under the Pentagon city sector plan and therefore it's significant in the precedence it sets. Um the CPCC discussed this uh plan in our meeting earlier this fall in September and generally we did were uh appreciative of the changes that uh were made to better bring the plan in alignment with what the sector plan allows. There's little doubt that when the Pon city sector plan was being reviewed that the Riverhouse portion was perhaps the most discussed and debated at that time and so the fact that the county board adopted that plan and uh indicates that it is really important that we adhere as close to the sector plan as possible. The CPCC did not have objections to the couple of deviations that came up uh around the facade of N1 um as well as the edging on the uh forested side of the plan. We did note that the lower level of density will lead to fewer levels of uh affordable housing. Uh so please refer to the

letter that we sent to the county board and CC the planning commission on for the full range of our analysis but in general it is exciting to see the Pentagon city sector plan being realized in this way. Thank you. Thank you Nicholas Jacobe is followed by Rosa Munda Nart.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Peterson and members of the planning commission. I'm Nick Jacobe and since 1987, I've been a riverhouse of butter for the home of the ridge house now occupied by a member of our family. We've all been working very closely with the developer on this project for many years. And sadly, it's the rare case of a project that was better at its inception in spite of many years of review. There are parts of the project I like. I'm glad to see home ownership in the townhouse abortion. The VH project is going to be great, although the design of the town homes is really uninspiring compared to the original proposal. Arlington prides itself on diversity of all kinds. So, I was sad to see the senior housing and ownership condos fall out of the plan. Both are housing types that are sorely lacking in our county. But these are market choices, and in capitalist America, we need to listen to the market. My real trepidation is the noise from the N1 building. I'd really like to see an honest acoustical analysis of the 500 odd units humming in unison on the roof of N1 just below our rich house balcony. In some I reluctantly support the 4.1 application because let's face it, it can only get worse at this point. There have already been enough chefs in that kitchen. I'm also concerned about the impact this project and many others in the pipeline will have on the already overcrowded schools in 22202 and in South Arlington. It's not hypothetical. IPS is already teaching classes and trailers. I don't need to remind you that the original proposal included space for a school that has sadly been omitted. As to the PDSP, I don't think we give we should give a free ride to approval. When Mr. Kafritz built the original three tripods, he gathered up all the densities and built the then fashionable towers in the park typology. We've enjoyed that open space for decades, even if some of it was used for parking. With the PDSP before you, staff is recommending massive development. HUD has pointed out that we don't have a housing crisis. We have a housing affordability crisis. What will these towers do for housing affordability? I don't think they'll help much. So, I

urge you not to give the PDSP a free ride and suggest you kick back in down the road. Thank you. Thank you. And just a friendly reminder for those online to please keep your mics muted until you are called on to speak. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rosa Munda Nart followed by Becca Dert. Uh, good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you.

Uh, good evening. My name is Rosa Munda. I've lived in Arlington for 30 years and I own a condo in Ridge House. I do not support this plan and my building has voiced concerns to many aspects. Community opposition is huge. Over 500 residents on the ridge itself are against it. A petition with 3,000 signatures, which represents over 10% of the entire zip code, was submitted. This is very powerful. The concerns are the 500 rooftop compressors, which is egregious. The noise will be unbelievable. The site will be an eyesore and the property values will be harmed. Alternatives do exist. across the street at 1401 Joy Street. They used inwall units, so please no roof compressors. People have talked about the views. Uh Takes Caronis held an open door Monday in 2220 recently and said he supports an independent study of viewsheds. Let's put that on the record and get it done. Other items for the record. This process was supposed to be transparent with community input. Instead, county staff force the developer to increase density or risk losing approval. That is just not right. SPRC is not a yo-yo for height and density. This process has not been transparent from the start. Riverhouse and Arlington Ridge were misleadingly folded into the Pentagon City plan despite not being part of Pentagon City. That was grossly disingenuous and misleading to residents. Today, the planning commission has a the planning commission has a fiduciary duty to protect current residents quality of life and address noise, traffic, parking, infrastructure, compressor farms on the roof, and property values. That duty must be met. Many residents

and taxpayers oppose this plan. Please consider their voices. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Becca Deedert, followed by Robin Frank.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Rebecca Deer and I serve as the Virginia Housing Advocacy Specialist for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. CSG advocates for walkable, bikable, inclusive, and transit oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Metro DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. After reviewing the proposed phase development site plan and the changes agreed upon through the site plan review committee, we are testifying in support of reszoning the Riverhouse site to enable compact pedestrianfriendly and transitoriented infill development. Being within walking distance of the Pentagon City Metro, these projects offer an opportunity to address Arlington's well doumented housing shortage while leveraging our worldclass transit system to expand housing and economic access far into the future. I've been a resident of Arlington County for the past six years. The countyy's recent affordable housing needs analysis provided evidence of what many of us who live here were already well aware of. There are not enough homes in the county, particularly for households at the lowest incomes, but also those for in for those in middle income brackets. We must take every opportunity to expand housing choice in the county, particularly where it is needed most, the neighborhoods with access to transit, jobs, and upward mobility. We are especially supportive of the inclusion of on-site committed affordable units in this large-scale project. This is an investment in our county's economic and cultural vitality that will benefit our community and region for years to come. As an environmentally conscious organization, we are also in favor of JBG Smith's proposed community benefits, including the green ribbon connections throughout the project. The guarantee of lead gold certification and the expansion of Virginia Highlands Park, the reduction in parking requirements and integration of infill development strategies are also smart growth practices we welcome. We appreciate the hard work of the staff, developer, and members of the SPRC to refine this plan, and we urge

you to support it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Robin Frank is followed by Susan Casarina.

Thank you. Um I have three points tonight. First, I support further development in South Arlington. Nevertheless, I associate myself with the concerns many of the previous speakers uh have raised tonight. The pro number two, the process has been defected and rushed. It has not been transparent. Three, one specific concern is the green ribbon segment that extends beyond the Riverhouse property line and onto the 15th Street spur. The short spur is the only access point for the two active garages at Pentagon Ridge Condominium, my condominium. This plan would be unsafe. As is vehicles must inch into the roadway to see oncoming traffic and on, excuse me, on both Arlington Ridge Road and Lyn Street. Adding pedestrians and cyclists to this mix would prove literally fatal. Pentagon Ridge is the smallest of the apartment [clears throat] and condo buildings in this area. yet it would become the only one to lose all adjacent street parking. Thank you.

Thank you. Susan Casterina is followed by Erica Schwarz.

Good evening. My name is Susan Casterina and I have been living in Arlington Ridge for about 10 years. I ask that you, if you are to approve, you do so conditionally with a required change to the location of the green ribbon access on the 15th Street spur. This is a very narrow and steep street off of an already heavily trafficked and often backed up Arlington Ridge and and Lyn Street. We use 15th Street as our primary access, you've heard, to our condo. It accesses two garage. It's also used heavily by visitors, service vehicles, including garbage trucks, and the occasional ambulance, moving trucks, and utility trucks. The approval of the green ribbon on the 15th Street spur will disproportionately negatively affect some owners, especially us in Pentagon Ridge, to benefit another private owner, JBG, and it will put vulnerable foot traffic on a direct collision course with the vehicles moving in and out of 15th Street as well as the heavily trafficked Arlington Ridge. I ask that approval of the green ribbon not be made to the 15th Street spur. I ask that it be removed from that because that would be negative to the community and I ask that you not approve any plan which uses 15th Street Spur as any main access point for foot traffic or the green ribbon. To do otherwise would be to leave a legacy of disregard for the safety of the community and for the privacy and livability of the residents of the Pentagon Ridge condos and others on the ridge. Thank you very much. Thank you. Erica Schwarz is followed by Isabella Ramirez.

Hi, my name is Erica Schwarz and I'm an owner at Pentagon Ridge. I would like to ask um that you approve the PDFP on the condition of removing the 15th Street spur from the primary green ribbit route because like said before the entry and exit of the garage would be right adjacent to very vulnerable foot traffic and I don't want to be worried about being in danger of hitting somebody every time I leave my garage. I commute to work multiple times a day. Um, we also really valued that street parking and the access for public services, moving vehicles, etc. And, um, I really think that we should not be using the 15th Street for any sort of green ribbon again just for the safety considerations mainly and the use of the parking that disproportionately negatively affects Pentagon Ridge. Thank you so much. Thank you. Isabella Ramirez is followed by Karie Garcia.

Good evening. I am an owner and live at Pentagon Ridge Condominiums. I request that if you choose to endorse the PDSP, it is based on the condition of removing the 15th Street spur from the primary green ribbon route. This is because a spur is the only entry and exit into two active garages into our building, and I am concerned for the safety of the people living in our building, visitors to our building, pedestrians and cyclists in the area. Furthermore, my spouse and I have jobs that do not allow for public transportation, and we depend on the adjacent street parking as our garage does not have any capacity for increased parking spaces. This is the only adjacent street parking for our building and we are the only building in the area who will lose adjacent parking if the green ribbon runs directly in front of our garage entryways and exit ways. Therefore, for these reasons, I respectfully request any endorsement of the PDSP be based on the condition of removing the 15th Street spur from the primary green ribbon. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Katy Garcia followed by Suzanne Boyiso.

Good evening. My name is Katy Garcia and I am the president of Arlington Ridge Civic Association. I've been representing the civic association throughout the entirety of the LRPC and SPRC processes that began in 2023. As in those commiti committee meetings, I will do my best to convey a balanced perspective of the comments and concerns we've heard from across our diverse community. As you've heard already, there have been numerous modifications to the development plan based on guidance from the county and input from community members. The first version of the plan in the LRPC was compatible was with the desires of community community members who wanted less density and lower buildings. However, it did not meet the needs of members who wanted more public green open space. It also did not generate as much housing as was called out in the P Pentagon city sector plan. As has been conveyed by the county and the applicant, the current version sought compromise between the current economic environment and future goals by splitting up the development into two phases. The community has been consistently supportive of accessibility across the site, public open space, multimodal connectivity across the site, and connection to the existing public pedestrian stairways like the Hume School and the South Lind Street stairs. variety of housing options to include town homes for purchase closer to the single family home neighborhoods, VHC medical facility. We've also heard consistent concerns about multi-modal continuity beyond the site on Kent Street, 15th Street Spur, and the Hume School Stairs. Specifically, concerns that pedestrians won't be able to leave the site safely. Neighbors are also concerned about health and safety during the large-scale con construction process and HVAC noise. And last but not least, the community is deeply concerned the associated public facilities and infrastructure improvements will not be commensurate with the increased density to include schools, K through2 seats, libraries, and community centers in 22202. Unfortunately, the shift to a multi-phase development has also resulted in a number of challenges in

trying to convey the nuances to our community of the process. If this development is approved tonight, we kindly request the planning commission support in advocating for the public investments needed to alleviate transportation and public infrastructure concerns. Thank you. Our next speaker is Suzanne Boyiso, followed by Doris Rippy.

I've got to hand it to you. You've had all the meetings, conducted the surveys, and heard all almost all of the comments, but I question if you are truly listening, going through the motions with some inexplicable force driving this forward, for what purpose, and to whose benefit? HQ2 was the driving force for um more housing, but much of that has changed. Not. And we don't want high-rise construction blocking the sun. We don't want more traffic, more noise, more crime. You don't listen or accept criticism on the single most nonsensical aspect of this design. The green ribbon terminating a dead end at the foot of one of the steepest public rightways in the area. But wait, it's not terminating there now. Because when given Pentagon Ridge a choice to locate a sidewalk to the east or west of this right ofway and whose response was neither with very thoughtful and detailed explanations why you claimed that we had not responded. You have the applicant include an 8 foot wide sidewalk shown in the plans at a 20deree slope, taking away the only adjacent on street parking for our building and creating a hazardous and unsafe condition for anyone who drives the spur or accesses the new sidewalk or crosswalk. There are likely other gaffs in this project design, but this directly and ine inequitably affects us at Pentagon Ridge. Please do not let it affect the family of a child

who is seriously injured or worse playing daredevil on that hill or the cyclist whizzing by the Spurs intersection at South Flynn Street who is out of the line of sight of the driver making that turn. Thank you. Our next speaker is Doris Rippy, followed by Alli McKela.

My husband and I are residents at the Pentagon Ridge Condominium. We urge you to not extend the primary green ribbon onto the 15th Street spur. Such placement is illogical and inherently dangerous. This spur is our condo's only access for garages, as you've heard. In addition to daily resident use, it's constantly used by delivery trucks, garbage collection, vendors, moving vans, and more. All of whom will need to continue out to have access to our building whether there's a green ribbon or no green ribbon. Its location just past a blind curve that drivers take at 20 to 25 miles over the speed limit and at the juncture of two busy streets, Lynn and South Arlington Ridge Road, means there's no safe space to install a pedestrian crossing for ribbon access. The pitch of the road coupled with the blind curve makes visibility and merging onto Lind Street a dangerous proposition. Introducing pedestrians, cyclists, and scooters onto the spur would create exactly the kinds of conflict vision zero is meant to avoid. Our community continues to express our legitimate concerns over the danger of having the primary green ribbon go over top of the 15th Street spur, but feel that these concerns, which by now, as you can hear, have risen to the level of warnings, have to date not been heard. When the accidents begin to happen, and they will, corrections will have to be made at great effort and expense to the county and the taxpayers to correct a problem that never should have arisen in the first place. The pattern is predictable. At dangerous roads and intersections, the stop sign or the traffic light goes up, but unfortunately only after that serious accident or that tragic death. Make the right decision now and say no to extending the primary green ribbon on the 15th Street spur. instead retain its character as a safe, low volume neighborhood path with the

parking we need to serve our community's needs. Thank you.

Thank you. Alli McKela is followed by Michael Perry if you're on the line. Good evening everyone. My name is Iy and like many of my neighbors at Pentagon Ridge, uh I ask that the 15th Street spur be removed from the primary green ribbon route. Uh my husband and I are the youngest owners in our building and we consider ourselves very lucky to call the ridge home and are overall excited about the development that will be taking place at Riverhouse. Uh but cannot understand why the 15th Street spur is being included in the green ribbon route. Our unit is the lowest floor in our building. We are located right above our garage. So, we are acutely aware of all of the happenings on the hill every single day. And it is not going to be a matter of if. It is going to be a matter of when an accident happens. I watch the trash and recycling trucks come barreling over the top of the hill four times a week. And I cannot imagine what would happen if there was a child on a sidewalk when they turned blind down our hill. They need the entire length of the road to be able to back up into our driveway to access our trash cans. The parking is necessary for friends and family and most importantly repair trucks that come visit our building almost every single day for them to be able to safely and uh quickly serve the needs of our community. The 15th Street spur should not be a access way for pedestrians and cyclists. It is not safe to walk up and down. It is extremely tenuous and exerting physically to walk up and down this hill, especially in the winter. And with the added dangers of cars coming up and down the hill, it just does not make logical sense for the 15th Street spur to be considered part of the Green

Ribbon. So, I please ask that the commission remove the 15th Street spur from the Green Ribbon, but support the rest of the development. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our last speaker will be Michael Perry if you're on the line. Yes, I am on the line and thank you.

I oppose the plan because I see it as a unthoughtful at best and unethical at worst addition of density to Arlington. I see it as adding more density to an already dense condo and apartment heavy area that won't improve young professionals like my own ability to at some point buy a quality home. And it's not going to do anything to bring single family home prices down. And as a serious risk of raising those single family prices if more people come to Arlington, live in these, you know, lowquality condos and apartments eventually competing with people like me who are looking to move up into a single family home, which I'm already priced out of. So, I see the plan as a path towards further dividing Arlington to single family home owners on the one hand and the apartment and condo dwellers on the other. Um, I'm also concerned about the ethics and bad faith behind the planning process. It's already been mentioned that the county seemingly stronghold strong armed JBB Smith into um changing their plan which was agreed to after discussion with the community about what was the best option for long-term planning. And I have not heard that refuted by anyone from the county. So I can only assume that that was in fact what happened. Um last thing I'll say is more director JBG Smith if anybody is listening from there. But I'd recommend that they use their own leverage to push back on the county and help them realize what people in the community and themselves as developers understand would be more prudent long-term planning process. And rather than the county proposal, which I view as naive and myopic and won't produce long-term results, I think pushing back on the county would benefit both Arlington as well as JBG Smith is own brand reputation in the community.

Thank you. That concludes all of our public speakers. Madam Chair, thank you very much to all of our public speakers for your time this evening. Uh, Madame Clerk, do we have any commissions to speak to us tonight? Uh, no commissions, but I do see Daniel Weir. I'm not sure if he's speaking now or he will speak after the committee chair report. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Um, and we have a transportation commission report.

Uh, yes we do. Um, as already mentioned, this was heard before the transportation commission last week. Um, we heard 11 public commenters and much of our discussion revolved around responses to some some of the things that were raised by those commenters. Um, we heard from commenters that the multimodal transportation analysis was not uh was not up to date. Um we did look at that and confirm that it in fact is about as upto-date as it can be uh given the size of the study um and the time periods involved. So we continue to accept the findings of the MMTA. Um there was a lot there was discussion about 15th Street spur um um I will have more to talk about this when it becomes time for our discussion. So I will pass on this uh um but it there quite a number of issues involved with that. Um the street parking by land bay s came up um that remains with the homeowners association rather than um being public parking. Uh this is an area that's not eligible for the residential parking program. Um so that um in order to have visitor parking in the um uh during the land b that landbay C oh no land bay s um that that will have to remain with the HOA. Um let's see we did vote on 9 to zero to accept all one two three four five six of the motions uh for this project. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now I will go to Commissioner Striner for the project chair report.

Yes. So, Commissioner Weir is probably going to uh get the second half of this, but obviously we've had in some we've had eight public meetings on this. Three LRPC's, five SPRC's uh and Commissioner, former commissioner Weir and myself chaired the co-chared the last few together in the SP SPRC department. Um, a lot of what we covered has been covered here tonight. Um, [clears throat] on the on the pros side of the column here, we see massive improvements in terms of aligning with the uh with the sector plan from the first iteration of this project to what we see now in uh what we got in January. Um, particularly along the lines of benefits and park space, you see significant increases in both of those categories. And those are things that that are a in the sector plan and b are some things that are generally very much supported by uh the commission and just general members of the community particularly uh the tree canopy for example. Um we have a 35% tree canopy and a very urban corridor which is very uh unusual in terms of projects that we see. Um, on the downside, again, uh, things that were discussed, you you heard a lot of tonight, uh, concerns around the 15th Street spur, um, private, uh, property concerns, viewsheds, uh, that sort of thing. And the feeling among some residents that the process was a little rushed, um, and that [clears throat] there's some confusion as to what we're actually approving. Uh, there are a lot of a lot of colorful lines and different heights, and so I think there was some confusion. um that even several meetings did not it did not resonate with some people watching because there's just a lot going on on this site. Um so I think it's important for us to have a nice thorough discussion to make sure that we're um articulating what what is going to go in here now and what is what we have opened the door for down the line but are not necessarily committing to today. Um so with that I will stop

talking. Thank you Commissioner Striner. Um, I would now like to turn to our former planning commissioner, Daniel Weir, who served as the chair of this Riverhouse project for uh, I think two years um, before he rolled off the commission this past summer. Um, so he can provide some extra insights. Thank you, former commissioner rear.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, uh, members of the planning commission, it's good to be here. Uh I regret that I didn't have an opportunity to serve with everyone at the deis. Uh but trust that I have heard remarkable things and I'm excited for your service. Uh I I have little to add substantively. So I'll talk um a little bit about some of the points that I uh tried to make sure that um that that members of the SPRC project understood and that the community understood as we went through the process. um [clears throat] uh and and and perhaps uh speak towards that. I as Mr. Whitmore highlighted, this is among the most complex site plan projects that Arlington County has undertaken um perhaps perhaps ever and and likely and and and I think very I think it's reasonable to say likely ever will. um distinguished not only by its scale but also by the fact that the entire site is currently entitled for by development meaning changes to any one portion of the site must be in compliance with the byite development that it presently exists uh and or want of that must be in compliance with some kind of site plan. So nothing can change without a site plan uh um of some form covering the entire site. uh the initially proposed density was insufficient to achieve sector plan goals um as as we've heard uh there's been commentary about that this evening but I think that one of the things that I would want people to understand and and tried to make sure people understood during the SPRC process is that there there is a word for u downward departure from envisioned density and that word is nonconformity right that is what animated uh the the the desire to conform to the sector plan is what animated much of the changes that uh ultimately were presented by the applicant over uh over subsequent um

review, right? To be uh to to produce a an application to produce a proposal like the one that there is now that is more in conformity uh with the sector plan. Um, one of the uh challenges that this project faces is as as you have heard and as as as I've discussed with some of you, the hybrid PDSP/site plan nature of what is before you and what will be before the county board. Um and and this is this is something that's tripped many people up uh including and especially myself over the course of trying to understand the various aspects and nuances of what is being presented and this was an issue throughout the SPRC. Even this evening, we've heard some examples of the kinds of things that are not part of uh the PDSP, right, but would like condenser units on the roof be subject to um be subject to uh an SPRC process, right? When such a building would ultimately come before you or andor the board. Um, at the same time there are things that are the subject of uh SPRC of zoning of the comp plan that are not themselves um uh excuse me that are not necessarily part of zoning or or comp plan but are part of building code are part of permitting uh um and and are discussed in the SPRC process. Um, I want to highlight that uh that the applicant throughout the course of the meetings um demonstrated uh remarkable responsiveness to nearly all concerns raised by the staff and commissioners and community. Um we have heard a lot tonight about some of the specific concerns that were not resolvable. And uh I I I think there we we see um the the sort of kod that I'll put on on

my remarks. Um and I'm I'm grateful for the fact that most of what I would have to say that that is immediately substantive has already been said. So I can I can say this, right? Um we see an example here, I think, of the best of the SPRC process, right? And why do I say that this is the best of the SPRC process? In part, it's because of the areas where consensus wasn't reached. Right? The SPRC doesn't vote. You know, I can't come before you and say that the SPRC supported this or didn't support this. What I can say is that there were areas where a lot of people agreed this is good. There were areas where a few people said, "I don't like this. I don't like X Y or Z." Right? There are areas where some people said, "I really, really dislike these things." Right? And those have been elevated. Right. The the things that can be fixed were fixed. The things that can be fixed to most people's satisfaction but not to everyone's satisfaction. Those are the things that are before you now. And I think that the SPRC process for this was highly successful in elevating the concerns that uh thankfully I don't have to participate in deliberating on. Um uh but but I am grateful that that that you get to uh because they are real concerns. Um they are deeply held by people who raised them. Uh I had discussions with many people on the SPRC panel who I think have presented themselves as skeptical of skeptical of this project after the meeting was concluded and and um am completely convinced that that these are real concerns offered by real people. Whether or not some of these concerns are part of the uh PDSP or toward the periphery of it or part of the site plans, those are for you to decide. But I I would suggest to you that this process um in part because of the

complexity of the plan uh has aly raised the issues that need further discussion uh to you and I will make myself available uh as long as I can for any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. career. Okay. So, I think it's time to open this up for um commission discussion. Um our usual topics. I'll go through them first to see if there's any uh that we might not have to discuss tonight and then we will start our conversation. So, the first uh topic is site location, land use, and site design. Questions or comments? Do we want to? Yes. Okay. So, we're not going to take the questions yet. We're just getting the agenda. So, uh, how about building form and architecture? I'm looking at my two architects. Okay, there we go. Uh, transportation. Yes. Uh, sustainability and biofilia. No. Okay. Public spaces. I'd like Okay, there we go. And I have questions about that. Community benefits. Yes. And process phasing and construction. I feel like that would be maybe architecture since it's going to questions about being on the roof. Okay. Okay. Um so then we will get started then with our first discussion item site location, land use and site design. [snorts] Oh. Uh hello, my name is Adriana Torres. Um I guess my question would be I see that there was a lot of emphasis put on a greened uh path on the north side of the site. However, I would I would wonder if we would need something similar in the south side since there's going to be so much greenery taken away from this site. Um the building is pretty close to the street. So then that makes a tunnel on that on that side um which will be very noticeable. So,

um, and did you have it was that for staff or the applicant or either? Um, applicant. Okay. Sure. Thank you for your question. Can you maybe we could bring up a map just so I can make sure that we're we're talking about the same place and I don't know if Sure. Um,

great. Thank you. I just want to make sure we're addressing the right the right location. I'm looking I believe at uh page 12 uh N1 building and you can see where the um page 12 sorry I believe that's the right okay uh that that works too. Um the N1 building is pretty close to the sidewalk and you can see that the original buildings are pretty far in. Um, I see that in the north side you did a pretty good job at lining up the back of the building. So, there would be a a datim going through and a lot of greenery, which is nice, but in the north in the in the south side, um, the buildings are really right up against the street, which worries me a little bit.

Sure. Great question, and thank you, uh, for for walking walking me through it. So, um, we cited our buildings based on primarily on the recommendations of the the Pentagon City Sector plan. And part of what they did provide for was certain building envelope areas. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Watson. Appreciate it. Um, that that show where the building face should be. And so, um, I I believe part of the intent here along Joy Street was to create kind of a two-sided street where, uh, there was a building face close to the street, kind of mirroring what is at West Post currently, to create a little more two-sided environment than than what's there today, which is essentially a big hill on the on the side of the Riverhouse property. Um, that is the primary uh the primary rationale for the sighting of the buildings. Okay.

I guess I still feel like it's a little bit too close.

Okay, thank you. Um, other comments or questions about site location, land use or site design. Okay, then we will move on to building form and architecture. So, similar question. Um I was trying to make sense and I understand what that you're following the um the county's recommendations on this but I couldn't find any relationship between the existing buildings and the new buildings that are being put in. The the geometries are different and it doesn't um it's just not the same language at least not in plan. So that's a little bit concerning.

Sure. A fair question and and I think part of the rationale for the the differentiation in the building style and type is is the era of the buildings. Those those buildings that are existing today are from I think the 1960s. Um and often lead to inefficient floor layouts uh poor sustainability. Um, so we've in our new our designs of the new buildings are certainly different so that we can have these kind of a things that are a little more palatable to renters and purchasers in in the current market environment and b uh more sustainable, right? Have have better sustainability profiles and meet a lot of the codes and and things that have been updated. I'm not even sure that the original riverhouse buildings were built when the ADA was in place. So, a lot of those things have have upgraded and changed over time. Um, and as a result, the the the look and feel of the buildings is is different as well. Um, we've also, you know, we did intentionally try to have a mix of unit types and to create, you know, we use the word neighborhood a fair amount and and to to have some diversity in terms of what the buildings look like, feel like, that sort of thing. So, that's that's kind of what what we were thinking behind the design.

Okay. Commissioner Guerrara and then Commissioner Bagley. So, I remember touring the site like two years ago or so. I feel like it's been um but I do want to say to address sort of the uh difference in size, one thing I did appreciate is because of the topography, you know, there's a side that's much higher and then as you're going down the design, you guys were incorporating as it gets more to the residential side to have [clears throat] kind of that EHO um feel to it. So I I actually having that mix I think I I appreciate. Um obviously we keep talking about the need to have more yos. I don't know if perhaps this question is for a latter time but I do want to uh learn about what is your estimate for these um homes that are going to be on the market value estimated value.

A great question a very good memory uh from from the walking tour some time ago. Um we we do not know what what those estimates are going to be. We are the applicant is not is not a home builder. Um and will likely be partnering with or selling the property to a home builder to do that. So I don't know that we have the answers to those to what what those are going to cost for the for sale units.

And have you considered given that um you know obviously uh housing costs are rising um it's great that you providing um opportunities for ownership. I do know that they're mostly threebedroom units. Have you considered sort of um cutting those down into maybe, you know, sort of three levels of their onebedrooms just so that you have you're expanding the opportunity for owners?

Yeah, that's a great question. And we do and you know, I didn't I didn't get into it given given the length of the presentation, but we do have a number of units that are two over twos that that have been cut down for that purpose. Right? rather than having a single town home unit in a structure, we've doubled it and we have we have two units there. So that that is a great point and something that we have done in our design. Commissioner Bagley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um did I understand correctly that sound would be part of architecture? [laughter] Yes, you did.

Thank you. Okay, so I have a question for the applicant. um with whatever equipment that you finally purchase to be on the roof uh roofs. Um is there some manufacturers's standard or something or uh statement as to what sort of sound is offput? That's question one. And I guess my next question is should there actually be afterwards a a significant sound problem, what would the remedy look like? Thank you.

Sure. I I can answer the second question and we'll probably ask for some help on on the first one about uh what is there. in in terms of of the remedy. Um, so the site plan conditions, I guess I'll start out by saying it's important to note the county has a sound ordinance. There there is a specific ordinance separate from the zoning ordinance that has uh maximum allowable sound in certain areas throughout the county. There's there are 10 pages or so of of sound legal requirements. Um there are not specific conditions in the site plan that say you have to have this level of sound, but what is in the site plan is a condition that says you have to follow the law. Um it says you have to follow all of the the strictctures of these conditions, but none of it obviates the effect of other laws. And so as a result of that condition, and of course we have to follow the laws anyway, we do have to follow that law and that is that is uh always going to be required here. So in terms of the in terms of the enforcement mechanisms, there are enforcement mechanisms provided for in the sound ordinance. If those are exceeded, there are penalties that are provided. There are um citations and the requirements to mitigate or or stop the uh the sounds that have violated the sound ordinance. So um that is kind of what that process is. if it's problematic. Um I will ask somebody from our architecture team to opine on the question of what those units um say in terms of sound. I don't know the answer to that.

Sure. Thanks. Um the mechanical equipment that we end up specifying for the rooftop, the design team will ensure that it produces sound that is well within the um noise ordinance for the neighboring parcels. Um so I believe that's around 60 dB. Um and it and it's different for the different parcels. Um but it's up to JBG and the design team to ensure that all of the specified equipment together meets that requirement. Um so hopefully that starts to answer the first part of your question. Thanks.

Yes, thank you. And I think that was good for anyone who has more questions about that. I appreciate that clarification. I will ask a follow-up question um to staff. Which uh buildings that we are approving tonight have the rooftop HVAC and is there going to be screening or any element of green roofs or how is that mitigated?

Yeah, I can answer that. So the building in one will have them and I actually would ask I think C1 will have them as well. Correct. Yeah. And and so again the only uh germaine aspect here from a zoning and a plan land use policy perspective is the screening part which you raised and that they will be screened. So there'll be a parapit wall then there's a further setback then there's actually an additional screening wall on the in one building. I think it's at least six feet tall if not taller to to visually screen these from the rightway. Screen them from the rightway is the is the zoning requirement. Uh the noise enforcement is a a noise control ordinance in a in a building code issue that's completely separate from this. So they have u complied with the zoning ordinance and with the standard site plan conditions for making sure these are screened from the right away.

Okay. So it's screened from the rightway which is the pedestrian level sidewalk you wouldn't be able to see. But if you are looking down from your high-rise then you would be able to see it. Yes. Depending Yes. depending on your elevation. And then it's just a question of if the view of the HVAC machines is less desirable than the current view of a parking lot. Correct. Okay. And thank you. If I could ask, how many units are impacted by seeing and hearing this? Was there a study done?

I don't know because again, that's not part of the zoning requirement or or a recommendation of the sector plan here. This is this is the building code permits them to be able to, you know, heat and cool the building in a way that's compliant with the building code, but I the applicant may be able to to speak more to how many individual units there are up there. Were there more than one option offered? Sorry, I didn't catch that. More than one option offered to do different systems, consolidation, relocation to interior roofs. Sure. Again, mechanical enclosure. We welcome you know the applicant to respond to that. This is this is their proposal.

Sure. So we there is not I think an easy way to determine how many units can see that rooftop right in in terms of where those heights are. Um I would say it's the same condition that our existing residents at Riverhouse are going to see. They're also going to be looking down onto this. Um and one that's not uncommon throughout Arlington County. Uh units that buildings need to be able to heat and cool themselves. And so there are times when folks can see rooftop mechanical equipment. And I think if you go anywhere on the RB corridor and many places within the the uh Route One corridor, you you would find that similar condition.

I don't disagree. I was just wondering whether the units that are most directly impacted could maybe the mechanical units could be pushed back or changed a little bit or some remediation. Yeah. Is there additional screening that you could put that would help those particular is it's just one area or actually there would be lots of different views that are impacted.

Yeah. I mean I I think part of the issue is that and I'm I'm a bit out of my depths here talking about this but you know these have to exhaust up right that that is kind of the whole the whole purpose and if we if you add something on top of that that prevents that exhaust and I think would cause other safety issues. So, I don't know that there's an answer that that involves putting something over them.

Okay. If I could just add that um the tower the views from the towers like they vary from lower level to upper level. So, you're seeing them at many different angles um both from both vertically and side to side. So, in order to screen them from each particular unit would be very difficult. You'd essentially have to get rid of them or enclose them completely.

Okay. I will just add I live in a high-rise condo and so my HVAC unit is inside my unit in a closet and exhausts um kind of horizontally [clears throat] out of the building. So I think there are options but um anybody else that wants to add a question? Commissioner Gar. Uh I guess it's sort of along those lines, but I want to go back to uh obviously you guys have to follow the ordinance in terms of the 60 dB. 60 dB is about um normal conversation type of noise um up to let's say a dishwasher. How can you how do you guys go about measuring that that's going to actually take an effect? Because if you go as high as like 70 dB, then that's something that can actually be very painful to hearing. if you go to 85 and and so I'm just wondering I I know a lot of community members had concerns about the noise levels and how they're going to be impacted and so since these are going to be sort of external units how are you going to measure that and ensure that it's going to be up to code essentially.

So this is something that is not done during the zoning process typically. So I I don't have a good answer for you. um in the same way that a lot of the issues related to the building code and and other items are addressed at a later time when the building is more specifically designed. Um once it the building is designed we you know this is again a common condition throughout Arlington and one that is dealt with and I don't know if staff gets complaints uh of violations of the of the noise ordinance frequently but one that's dealt with and can be can be dealt with with the types of machinery where they're placed how they're done and it's we're just not at that level of design yet where I can tell you this is this is exactly what we're going to do and this is what the solution is going to be to address this. Uh yes, of course. Uh I understand. I I suppose I I'm asking this question because I'm wondering if providing perhaps case studies to the community because they seem to be really concerned and say, "Hey, this is how typically it's been mitigated or this is what we've done in other places and look, we're not here yet to discuss that, but it just sort of to mitigate some of the concerns that I'm seeing. Um, so I guess sorry [clears throat] following up on that, I guess it's a question for staff. What is the process for noise complaints, noise violations, and various things? And at what point does that really kick in? Because I understand we're not at the point where we're, you know, placing cabinets. But I think it's reasonable. I am persuaded that it's a little ridiculous to say, "Hey, we anticipate there's going to be a noise problem here." But just kidding, you can't do anything about this until there's a problem.

Well, yeah, I can respond to that. I mean, I just say first, the units don't exist. So, we don't we don't know what the decibel level is going to be for for for any of these things. Second of all, I would say if they're if if someone has uh what they are perceiving to be a violation of the noise ordinance, they call uh they can call if it's after hours, they can call the non-emergency police line. If it's during business hours, they can they can call the community code enforcement, that's ISD, building inspector, and they can come out and they do a very um technical measurement that's based on a lot of details that I apologize. I I I don't know that are in the noise control ordinance to do a sound test to see if there is in fact a violation of the noise ordinance. If there is a violation, as Mr. Whitmore mentioned, there are then remedies that are prescribed in the noise control ordinance.

Thank you very much. So, I think we'll move on now to transportation, which is another one of the um big topics. Commissioner Lantel. Yes, this will be my opportunity to address the 15th Street Spur. Uh first off, um I want to thank the Pentagon Ridge condo owners for all their information on this. Um and I will admit that at Transportation Commission, um I did not fully appreciate what the situation is on 15th Street Spur. Um I walked that site and I want to note first to give me sort of a want the indulgence. It's going to take a little bit to describe what's going on there. Um, it is extremely steep sto steep slope there. The grade is very steep. Um, the it's probably the one of the steepest ones in Arlington as a whole. Um, any of you familiar like a block and a half a block from here, that steep street um down by the where the farmers market is on Saturdays, it is at that level of an incline. Um, and it's even worse because it is a dead end. So that you just you have to back in back. It's it's just very difficult to not just to drive but to walk. Um, and it's most steep at the top, not at the bottom. It looks as though at some point back in the midst of time, the great the street actually went down to the parking lot. Uh, there's a desire line there and there's some leftover pavement. Um, but and people presumably do still walk it. So, I make it makes sense that the green ribbon goes up through here, but it just doesn't work the way it is designed right now. Um, there is right now three parking spots on a parking pad that is in JBG property, which is up against the condo. There's also two informal spots at the end of the 15th Street right ofway that could very well be now on

what is now JBG property. So even though there are about five or six on street parking spots, there's also another five. So really there are 11 spots right now that will all go away under this existing plan. Um and parking there in the middle of the day, there is very little parking on the street. Um presumably there are a lot of people not just who live in the neighborhood, but also people use it to walk down to the subway. So and this is a neighborhood that is not eligible for the residential parking program. So, it's always going to be public parking up there. Um, unrestricted public parking. Um, there is a sidewalk on the south side of 15th Street um spur, but there's none on the north. And that is under this plan is being proposed that to have an 8ft wide sidewalk there, which would be technically the continuation of the green ribbon, which terminates at the end of the JBG property, which is at the bottom of the 15th Street spur. Um, so the new sidewalk would connect to Lind Street to the Green Ribbon, yet it is extremely steep. Um, it there are switchbacks, but the switchbacks also end at the bottom of 15th Street Spur. Neither the switchbacks nor the the um the main stairway is going to be particularly useful to bicyclists. Even if you have rentals, you're going to have to be walking up one way or another. So, while technically you can get a bike up there, it's not going to be particularly useful for bicyclists. And if you did have a bike, once you get to 15 Street Spur, unless you have an electric assist, it's not going to be easy to pedal up that grade. Um, so you're not going to have a lot of people using that. Okay. Um, if it's not if this isn't fixed now, it'll probably never be fixed because the only redevelopment is the JBG site. The condos next door, they're not going to

redevelop. That's there permanently. Whatever we build now is going to be there for quite a long time without a lot of um basis for redoing it. Now, the stairs and the switchbacks are being done to be AP ADA uh compliant, which is great. Um, and I think that they make a lot of sense there. And that's actually, ironically, being done at the least steep part of the slope. Once you get to 15th Street Spur on these nice ADA compliant um passages, you can't go any further. If you if I was in a wheelchair, you could not make it up. If I had a stroller with two kids in it, it would be very difficult to push it up there. If I had an electric wheelchair, I'd be really reluctant to try to go up that and certainly if there's bad weather, it's just not going to be doable. Um, this it so anyway, anybody who's mobility impaired will come up these ADA switchbacks or steps and have nowhere else to go because you're not going to be able to get up to Lind Street. So again, as I mentioned, if it's not done right now, it's never going to be fixed. Um, this does need, I think, a redesign. Um, I agree with the condo owners there that we really do need that street parking there. And this is someone who is generally very transit oriented and doesn't feel that cars are necessarily the best way to go for a lot of our dense neighborhoods. We they have a valid reason for needing that parking there. Um, I would say that we eliminate the proposed north sidewalk and instead add a continuation of the switchbacks that would then go past the JBG property into the green spaces, uh, which would then go up to Lind Street. Now, what's on that right now? It's it's overgrown. Um, there's a lot of invasives. There's probably a lot of certain amount of dead

vegetation. There may be some things that can be preserved, but it's going to take a lot of work, which is proposed to be done anyway. Um, that whole green space that is bordering Lind Street needs to be re reconi rellandscaped to bring it up to what we want our vision of this property to look like. So, there is the opportunity and I think the space for switchbacks would go all the way up to Lind Street. Um, so I am going to now if we again if we don't fix this now we run the emb the possibility of Arlington being embarrassed the way it was when the Rosland Bridge was built that ended up being unusable after it was completed. We'll have something that's going to be spending a lot of money to build these stairs and switchbacks which will reach a point where you can't then use it beyond that. Um, so a lot of money will be invested in something that will never reach its potential. because of that. Later on, I'll be I think I'll be introducing a motion in order to that would say that uh the green ribbon segment that terminates at the end of 15th Street, South Spur would be continued by the planned switchbacks up to South Lind Street and that the plan for the north sidewalk be abandoned. Um anyway, those are my comments, my observations. Um I'm happy to have us discuss it further.

Uh first, I'd like to give staff an opportunity to respond. I think there's probably some response in there from staff and the applicant. Uh, but I'm going to provide some additional graphics and um context. Uh, if I can easily share my screen here. See, not yet. Okay. So, so is that not sharing to the feed? I think you need to share your window.

It is. See if Jazelle can bring it up.

Miss Harrison, do something need to Oh, I see. Do we need to do something over there? Yes, I am in the unique. Let me try again. That might be it. I was in it earlier. No, no, no. Not that one. The other Sorry.

Should we take a response from the applicant while we figure out the technical issues? I should have this open in a second. Is this not schedu?

How about now? Madam Chair, would you like to take a question from Nia while we wait? Commissioner Bagley. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Steinberger.

Okay. Yeah, let's go to Commissioner Steinberger while we wait. Um, I just want to take the opportunity to associate myself with Commissioner Lentomy's comments and I look forward to whatever motion he's going to put forth with regards to the spur. I mean, it is, but I'm not talking into it, so that could be the issue. Um, I'll repeat myself since nothing else is happening. Um, [snorts] I would like to associate myself fully with Commissioner Lelmy's comments. Um, I look forward to supporting whatever motion he puts forth with regards to the green ribbons for situation. I think what is currently proposed is nonsensical. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Giver.

I would also uh like to associate myself with Commissioner Lentelme's comments and would be p uh supportive of his motion. Um I think it would only inc one nonsensical as Commissioner Steinberger mentioned, but also it could incentivize more pedestrian um sort of engagement there. And I just think it's not, you know, we've had community members send us pictures and they've really advocated for this and I just think it won't be um the best use of time and space. Thank you. Okay, looks like we've got our uh presentation back up. So, Mr. Gibson,

thank you for um waiting on me there. Uh so, I think everything that that you've heard and everything that uh Mr. Lanton has has stated about the experience out there is is totally valid. There is a 51 foot grade change uh so a five-story building uh from the corner of uh Lynn Court and uh Kent Street to the intersection of 15th Street uh South and uh South Lynn Street. Um, so 51 feet, if you just do a 5% ADA slope, it's going to require about a thousand feet of ramping. Um, the proposal right now includes about 28 feet of elevation change to get to the bottom of um the spur uh and about a little over 500 feet of of ramping just for that. Um, during the SPRC process, this was a a point of contention and discussion. the applicant had um has has indicated in SPRC that the additional 400 feet of ramping, four to 500 feet of ramping um would have substantial impacts to that hillside, the ability to to do landscaping and vegetated coverage in that that zone. Uh and as a result they proposed the configuration that you see here uh utilizing the um steep but technically ADA compliant right ofway slopes uh of the spur. Um we weren't quite satisfied that that was the appropriate thing to have that as the only option for this route. So what we did was in between the last SPRC meeting and today we worked with the applicant to do a couple things. One was to ensure

that uh the walkway that parallels South Kent Street uh which is part of the green ribbon was increased to 8 ft in width. Uh it was originally a 6 foot wide pathway. So that is consistent with the the secondary green ribbon standards. And then uh it would be delivered not with N1 but concurrent with uh the um the landbay s improvements and the uh improvements up to the spur. And so the combination of that pathway and the existing pathway along Kent Street uh provide an ADA accessible route for users uh to make choices around this site. um that is not the same as as going as ramping directly down from the corner to the end of the spur as as uh Mr. Lomi is um suggesting. But this is the ADA path that we think is supportive of this movement without um without having the additional impacts to the to the hill. The there is the other question of what to do on the spur. Uh and for that what we've we've seen and we presented was that staff could support either multiple paths so north and south uh of the of the spur street um in a manner that uh might deliver on street parking. Uh we could support a path on just one side of the street. So, if they wanted to connect it to just the north side of the street, having the the pedestrian flow um across the driveway entrances um is is an option. Um and so those are the things that have been put forward uh and uh that the applicant has has considered

and I'll let the applicant speak to their analysis.

Sure. Uh thanks, Mr. Gibson. So, um, I'll start out by saying that that we've spent a lot of time trying to balance all the all the issues here, right? U, we've got issues of grade, safety, accessibility, views, access, the vegetation, and the tree canopy. All of which are are called for in the sector plan and and are all principles of good design. So, we we've we spent a lot of time looking at that. We've spent almost every SPRC meeting talking about it. And that's a good thing, right? It's something that we should discuss. And you know, I don't think anybody thinks there's a perfect solution here given the the fivetory um grade change that has to be uh that has to be navigated. So we we started from from that principle and from looking at at the sector plan, right? The sector plan calls for the connection in this area where wherever it shows the green ribbon. Um it's an important part of the the design of the overall project and and the terminus of the green ribbon in this area is called out a number of times in in the sector plan. So that that's where we started with with the review here. Um we we also uh over the process of the LRPC and the SPRC uh removed a building and chamfered some existing buildings to um help provide better sight lines up up through this area. So it's been a point of discussion really since day one. Um and when we've gotten to this point of of how to navigate that grade and how best to do it, we have looked at a couple of the alternatives that Mr. Gibson mentioned. And I'll ask if we can share screen and if Miss Gonzalez can put up a couple of slides to show what our proposal looks like and then what it what we have come up with when we have studied the alternative. So um and and I think it's important too to look at this in this framework. I mean it's I know you've been at the site personally and and lots of folks have but I think it's also hard when you look at a plan to of this size to really understand what's on the ground there. So, this is the proposal that we have today. You can you can see the stair that was added uh for folks

who want to be able to get down who don't have a mobility challenge and then the switchbacks for those who do. We've also added these respit points um to the left of the green line there and you can see it on the left side of the rendering um so that it's not just a straight shot up and down. Gives people an opportunity to stop and enjoy the the vegetation a little bit. So, that that's what we've designed. that's what this is going to look and feel like in practice. We did look at um Commissioner Lantel to your point the the ability to kind of move that switch back over um to the it's plan right but actually to the north and as Mr. Gibson pointed out the amount of concrete and run that was required to navigate as you move farther to the north with that hill made this something that we think is not a good design design choice because of the amount of concrete necessary because of the amount of switchbacks that would be needed to provide an ADA accessible route and you can see how that looks on the plan um moving moving that uh a little bit to the north. So, um, that that's where we've come up with that's why we've landed on the solution that we have. And if you can jump back, please, to the to the prior slide. Um, we think that that creates the best balance between all of these different issues that we're dealing with here. um the sector plan recommendations, the necessities of green space, trees, open space, um height and and grade change throughout the site, um and the ability of folks to navigate it safely and efficiently.

I'll have to disagree with you on that in the sense that it's not the best design solution because you still end up with that extremely steep sidewalk along 15th Street Spur. um either we should totally get rid of the switchbacks and make clear that it is not ADA accessible. It is not anybody who's disabled can't use it and effectively even bikes really can't use it. Um and then have the long long one that Mr. Gibson proposed going all the way over and all the way back again for the ADA. I'm not thrilled with that as an idea, but the switchbacks lead people would lead someone to believe they can actually get up to Lind Street when as a practical matter most would not be able to do so once they got to the top of the switchbacks. Um, frankly, I think that it would be worth doing the one you showed, even with all the concrete necessary for it, because it would then make a way for people to go up. A good design could make it quite biophilic. Um, yeah, it would be concrete, but it would also, if you have a good design, it could be reasonably biophilic, and that would avoid having people actually go on that really steep sidewalk that shouldn't even be there on on 15th Street Spur. Um, using the north, I mean, the south um existing sidewalk is a no-go simply because there's two garage active garage driveways there. With the slope, it just it would not be a good a good thing to do to spill people using that. um um that green ribbon up to Lind Street. So um again, respectfully, I disagree with saying that the proposal with the extra switchbacks just is too much concrete. I think it's a practical matter. It's something we just need to suck it up and do.

I'll just also add that I I don't think what was just proposed as being the green ribbon, it doesn't look like the other green ribbons that are around the rest of Pentagon. um city it, you know, around the rest of the city there's so much greenery and plants and that mostly just looked like concrete with some trees that were next to it. So, it already kind of looks like a lot of cement. So making it ADA accessible and making it so that you can actually if the point of the green ribbon is to connect people um through uh Pentagon City in a verdant way. I don't think this is able to do that if it's just going to bring you to the top of a very steep hill which then a lot of people won't be able to actually get to where they're trying to go. Um so I think it's Commissioner Steinberger. I mean, if you want to throw up the visual of all the switchbacks that you said is too concrety again, you can. I kind of feel like you picked a design element there that you intentionally wanted it to look really concrety and I don't really think that's authentic. I think you could do a lot more as you were saying, make it more biophilic, make it look better. It doesn't have to look like utilitarian ramp just like that. So, I don't feel like that is an authentic answer. Bill, can you speak to the amount of concrete and run that we

I think there are design choices that could be made that would make it look a lot better and fit better and be a better alternative even if it's not the one that you guys prefer. Sure. I I I do I do think it's important to mention the numbers and and and how long and how much concrete that that does end up being and then I think also to talk about the trees and green space that then get removed as a result.

Yeah. So I can um chime in and Rob's diagram is good. Um it's great you brought up commissioner the um comment about how long that yellow line is. So the yellow line on Rob's diagram is actually equivalent to the length of the ramps if we were to do this do the switchbacks. So what you see in that yellow line is a little over 1,000 ft. And the number of switchbacks to make that 53 foot grade change is also over 1,000 ft. So it would be equivalent to laying that line and switchbacks um one on top of each other to make that grain change. So while I agree the example image is not ideal, that example image is actually about 5 ft shorter uh in height than we what we have to achieve and the amount of space that we have to do that is extremely limited. Al also with that uh following the sector plan guidance there was a strong preservation or you know guidance to preserve as many healthy trees especially along this edge of the riverhouse site and so laying in additional ramps and modifying you know these ramps that we have here. We've looked to save as many trees as we can. Um lading in those additional ramps will remove 12 healthy trees in that sp in that space. We understand there's a lot of invasives and those will be removed and remediated with the um improvements, but we're trying to prioritize saving as many healthy canopy trees in the space as we can. So, there will be at least 12 healthy canopy trees, if not more removed, um laying in those switchbacks.

But then how many are going to be removed by the switchback that we're proposing to do anyway? um you know that's you know 1 2 3 four five six switchbacks or I guess it was what it's in addition to the ones that are being removed. So we're already going to be removing a bunch of them for a switchbacks that are going to essentially be unused. I think we're only removing a handful with these. We've been really mindful to place these ramps um to respect as many existing trees as we can. A lot of the first about half of that um ramp occurs in the existing parking lot and then the second half of it is in the tree forest stand that exists today.

But but I think for I'm going to so question for staff. The point of this green ribbon is to connect people up the hill to South Lind Street so that you know South Lind Street is connected to kind of lower Pentagon City, but it's not actually going to do that for anybody with accessibility issues and for anybody that might have trouble walking up a very very steep hill. So is there even a point to having this if it's not actually doing what it needs to do for a large number of people? So, the Green Ribbon is both part of a transportation network, but it's also supposed to be a destination in its own right. And I just kind of want to bifurcate things here because I think there's not really any objection, unless I'm misunderstanding, to what's occurring on the property in terms of like these viewsheds that are being created that we've worked for two and a half years to try to correct.

And so, the idea is to is to be able to see this line of sight. You they've installed benches, etc., So you can look down, you can see Virginia Highlands Park. It's essentially a it's essentially a biophilic, you know, uh, street for pedestrians and bicyclists that could hypothetically get you from this point all the way down Hay Street to the metro. Um, and we have other diagrams that could show that. I think the the issue at hand, right, is what's occurring on the 15th Street spur and, you know, possibilities to consider how could this tie in in a way that could make it accessible for those who who wish to use it. um while still providing that permeability because as as I think as Mr. Gibson alluded to there there are permeability and and options for uh ADA access at other places too even though noting that this is technically ADA compliant point taken about the difficulty of traversing the hill can't solve the topography on the site but we want to make sure that there's still a connection for those uh who want to take it which the existing sidewalk could provide.

So it's more your perspective at this point is that this isn't necessarily supposed to connect people from point A to point B. It's more like a viewing platform. Walk up the hill, see some nice views. Hey, if you turn around behind you, you can keep going up the hill if you're willing to do some challenging hikes. I'm I'm saying it's all of the above.

I'm I'm saying that this alignment came from started from the livability 22202 framework which the community adopted which informed the alignment that was then adopted by the county board and the sector plan. Uh, and so what we're trying to do is simply implement what the county board has adopted in terms of its policy. Okay, Commissioner Bagley has had her hand up for a while. So, Minburgger and Commissioner Burky.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I I appreciate um Commissioner Lental's in-depth uh concerns and thoughts and I'm I will be curious to hear the motion that he's proposing. And I appreciate both the applicant and the staff's response on this, but at the end of the day, I honestly don't feel at the moment what I'm hearing is that this is really going to be safe. And I I would never be one to say not to follow the sector plan, but maybe the sector plan has this part wrong. I'm not sure. But from what I'm seeing now, we haven't adequately addressed this for the safety, for the parking, for the accessibility. Um, and in the spirit of trying to do everything to uphold all the things that we're trying to accomplish here, including the sector plan, I'm not feeling really confident about this part of it right now. So, thank you. [clears throat]

Thank you, Commissioner Steinberger, and then Commissioner Berkkey. and then we'll move on to the next topic.

So, I think staff and the applicant have hit on something that's really important by the use of the word hypothetical multiple times. It we're not talking about something that's going to be useful like this is not creating connectivity as Commissioner Peters um as Chair Peterson has has addressed. I I'm I'm really struggling with what the hell we're doing here. Um and I don't think I'm going to get past that. So, if we can't fix this, I will struggle to vote for this period because I think that we are creating a bad precedent, bad design, and as Commissioner Lantel has said, we're going to spend a lot of money creating something for a visual that won't do Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Berky.

Yeah. So um I think I'm going on a limb to observe this is this is a really steep area. Um we just we're dealing with the topography as it exists. Um so maybe this is question for Mr. Whitmore. Um so you have alluded to the significant cost in concrete were uh a design a sec a second switchback design be pursued here like have you has the applicant done any type of analysis? I'm not looking for a specific number but I'm looking at this grade uh I'm somewhat familiar with the site. It seems to me this would be a significant uh engineering project uh potentially. Um can can you speak to that? Do you have any analysis you you've done maybe of what you know a project like this could possibly entail? Because I'm asking because um I think a lot of very reasonable concerns are being raised here. I think it's helpful to understand what a project like this may entail were the county to insist on it.

Yeah, I I can jump in there and if we could pull back up the graphic that Robot, that would be great. But um as Belle alluded, you know, the switchbacks were designed with that, you know, taking that into account. Um the point where the arrow is the terminus is essentially almost vertical. It's one to one slope, which is a very challenging construction maneuver. You're essentially building on a shelf. You'll have to clear more than you're thinking about. Um, and you're going to have to, you know, shore, excavate, build walls. It it's it's not going to be a safe, you know, practice up there. Again, we're a civil engineer, not a contractor, but you know, we took that into account portion where you see the 75 uh foot elevation marked, you know, the up two switchbacks until you see that kind of dash switch back. That is a decking material because there was again very steep. So, we're going to use a deck and just pile drive into the ground. We thought of that similarly up where the arrow is, but based on feedback, you know, asking other peers and contractors, you to get an equipment out there, to get a pile driver out there, you know, needs to be on a flat surface. It's it's really just not ultimately too feasible. So, when you're at a onetoone slope, again, that is 1 ft by 1 ft. You're almost vertical. You can't really set up equipment to be constructing there to begin with. So again, thank you for bringing that up. When we designed the switchbacks, we did try to take that into account. How do we get construction vehicles out here? How would we ultimately build it?

Uh, thank you. Okay, so uh, Commissioner Lel mentioned that he will have a motion later. So I think we do not need to talk about this topic anymore. Anything else related to transportation though? Um, excuse me, Madame Chair. I think staff has a comment. Go ahead.

No, I just wanted to just make sure that it was it was clear. So, this is going to take about 8 to 12,000 square ft of of ramping and steps. Right now, the the plan is about probably half of that. Um, and it takes up about 30% of this hillside roughly, just eyeballing it. So, in order to do the the full thing, you're you're looking at um now you may have space in between ramps for for plantings and things. Uh there may be ways to to make it more biophilic, but it will have you know a 70% of this hillside would be associated with the the ramping and stairs for for the 50 ft of grade change. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Stein Shriner or Commissioner or former Commissioner Weir, did the Disability Advisory Commission um speak to this uh topic um at any of the SPRC meetings? Were they participating in the process?

They're on the SPRC. I don't recall them chiming in on this issue. No. Okay. So, then quick response from

Well, we've Thank you. We we've been chatting over here. Um, one potential alternative that could be considered and and I'm hopeful that whatever motion goes forward will allow some opportunity to to consider uh how we can we can do this in a way that makes sense um is to potentially eliminate or reduce the number of switchbacks in the existing condition um given that there's ADA access uh from another location um that might I think split the baby and solve some of these issues um that that you've brought up uh Commissioner Lantel while still uh keeping the spirit of trying to comply with the sector plan. So that's something we we've kind of been discussing here and I think might make a lot of sense given the comments we've heard tonight. Commissioner Steinberger,

when could that be presented so that we could see that? I think we can show you what we would do here on a map right now. Would the green ribbon go all the way up to Lynn Street? Then can we bring up uh maybe Mr. Gibson's drawing here? And could some mock-ups be ready for the county board to review? Absolutely. Okay. Can they be shared with the planning commission before the county board hearing? Sure. Thank you.

Can definitely do that. So I I what what I'm suggesting is in the existing set of switchbacks, we could continue to be ADA compliant while removing the majority of the switchbacks and still having only the first switch back up to the landing and I believe the top switch back. Is that right? Just the first one.

Yeah. So it would be just the first one to serve as a connection to that prospect um connection that it is serving the the larger amenity need that uh that prospect view is accessible from that point. Um but then the connection the rest of the way 15th Street spur would only be through stairs. And I I think that mitigates some of the concern we heard of, hey, somebody who who doesn't have the best mobility may think that this is safer than it is if they if they have this full set of switchbacks versus um it primarily being a stair connection after that first switch back. I would agree with that, but I would also want to make sure that at the top the sidewalk, not eliminate those parking spaces because if you're eliminating all those switchbacks, which I think is the right thing to do given that they don't take any anybody who's mobility impaired to anything other than higher up, uh they'd have to come right back down again. Um, but you could add that sidewalk without taking the parking spaces, without eating into the green space that otherwise would have been used by those switchbacks. So, you're not having a net loss of green space

or parking spaces, right? I I think if you brand that top platform as a viewing point, I think people would need the ramps to get all the way to the top because I think if if it's properly messaged at the bottom that this is not accessible to Lind Street, but there's an awesome viewing platform at the top and you'll take pictures and you'll see nice views of the city, then I think then get rid of the platform. Then get rid of the viewing platform. Okay. Ding ding ding.

Okay. Any final questions or comments on this topic? Okay. Okay, then let's move to other transportation issues. Okay, then public spaces. Commissioner Torres. So, I keep looking at the site plan and trying to figure out if I would make a trip to go here and just sit, walk, and the only thing is the green band. And honestly, um, if I walked from one side of the green band to the other, I'm faced with streets, cars, and so I think there's a missed opportunity to make this 36 um acre jewel that could be a jewel encapsulated with more green space and pathways and places that people can walk in. But I'm also concerned about um there's tennis courts that are no longer that at least I don't see them that are gone um that you know people could use. I don't see the pool back. I don't know if that's going to be inside a building or not. So I'm a little bit worried about if I'm not willing to go there, are people going to be happy living there? Can you answer any of that and whether or not that's going to come back? the tennis courts, the pools, and things like that.

Sure. Uh good.

Sure. Um really good questions. Um so so none of these uh tennis court areas are going to go away until the development begins, right? So that that's going to be a little while. Um I think at fastest for the for the town homes, probably the end of next year, and that's going kind of lightning speed. So, they will be they will remain until that time and accessible and usable until that time. Um, in terms of the pool, that's not going to go away until later. Um, and that will be replaced by another um pool in one of the new buildings, additional amenities. So, um, that that's how we're going to deal with the the amenitized areas. We also are adjacent, luckily, to Grace Murray Hopper and Virginia Highlands Park with some really great recreational amenities there as well, which will be expanded with this the later phases of the project. Commissioner Giver.

So, as the rest of my commissioners probably know by now, I am not someone or density for density sake. Um, I think it we need to have um, you know, a sort of phased approach. Nevertheless, for this project, in this instance, and because of the proximity to the metro, I do think it's a good use of the space to have more density. And while um I I can understand the desire to have the tennis courts and the pool there, I would argue that um actually there's a beautiful county facility near Boing that has beautiful pool that is underused. Not enough people know about it. And I think we should h encourage residents there to attend there and then instead, you know, do some of this utilizing some of the space there that's right next to the metro to actually increase density. Um, so that's all I'll I'll say for my perspective on that. So the reason why it's concerning to me is if you increase density, there are lots of pools in the county. Yes, you can go to the school, you can go to the, you know, but those are already going to be um hacked. So, you're taking away amenities that are there and you're not replacing it with something that this community can use. So, it just means that the other areas are going to be um used more and you're presenting a problem for the rest of the county when you can resolve it. I think there's enough space.

Okay. And and just to be clear, that the initial phases, those three final site plans are not going to remove the pool. So those are the future buildings uh in the PDSP that aren't being approved yet. Okay. And we those will come back to us um uh if and when they are moving forward. Was there somebody over public spaces? Well, I just want to add you you know because the public space piece is going to have a separate process like you said. is going to come back to us. So, if we want to bring up the pool conversation, you know, we can we can have that conversation then. But I I align myself with Commissioner Gavar on this one.

Um I wanted to add just for the park in front of N1. Um I think there's been some improvement since the last uh round of feedback. Um in that round of feedback, people called for more mature trees, more natural green spaces, and reduced hardscape. Um, I think there has been improvement on those areas, but I think you can do even more. Um, right now it still looks like a lot of hardscape and if there's any way to make it uh feel greener um and less uh concrete, I would appreciate that. Um, also just wanted to know if you can pull up a picture of the proposed design, the interim condition. um since there is that back and forth ramp, I'm worried that a lot of people won't want to use it and they'll just go for the direct path, which is to walk kind of on the other side of it um through the parking lot and up the hill. And I just wanted to see if safety issues have been concern considered for that.

So with respect to the to the initial phase having stairs that get you um in addition to a switch back down at the joy street level getting you stairs down there. Guess that's also something that staff has has asked. Um I think it's it's I'll let the applicant respond to this. I think it's been a challenge to um accommodate all the things that folks want to see occur uh in this space and also have it be a space that's designed to essentially tie into twothirds of it in the future. Um so I'll I'll let the applicant respond to that, but yeah, we would welcome any addition of of steps down to the Joy Street level as well.

Well, I think Mr. Watson answered the question pretty well that you know it is difficult to include all of the the things in be it tree space be it accessibility into the space. Um and so we we've done our design as we can with with what we've got there. I should also note you know we're constrained by the existing parking. Um and that's the reason that the uh boundaries are where they are of the open space. Um I don't know Belle if there's any other design elements we want to talk about how we responded to the uh park master plan process and and how this matured throughout the SPRC process.

Yeah. So with the change changes noted uh yeah we increased the canopy coverage and the shade and vegetation opportunities within both it both interim and the full buildout of the space. But as nobody we've explored adding the stairs. Um we did hear the response and the request to connect from South uh Lynn to this interim space. So those stairs have been added. Um they are um you know a smaller scale because once again we're trying to sort of not send the Green Ribbon population up there but be responding to our neighbors uh directly adjacent to us. But in the exploration of adding the stairs and the interim condition closer to South Joyce, it would impede the circulation and parking uh for our neighbors and the existing condition.

Okay. So, we should just I guess be prepared for people to be walking through the side, walking through the parking lot and up the hill um because that'll be the fastest path for um able-bodied people. Any other questions? Commissioner Baggley. Yeah. Would this be where I would, Madam Chair, would this be where I would ask uh in a followup to Dr. Burn's concerns about uh native trees and plants versus cultivars? Sure.

Okay. Great. So for the applicant um and again thank you for the common milkeed but for the um are you or will you be considering native trees and plants and could you reconsider I guess your current proposal for cultivars?

Thank you. Uh so all the trees on the property being proposed are native uh to Arlington County and have been reviewed by urban forestry to meet the urban uh those requirements. Arlington County requires it. Um the understory planting material um is all once again native to the area, but we do use a mix of cultivars. It's not just for the show. It's about septide requirements, crime prevention through environmental design. We want to create a safe space for everyone. And so a lot of those cultivars um are tried and true that they maintain sight lines. So we are creating a safe space. And so we're only utilizing those specific cultivars when we're in right next to these pedestrian circulation routes. We want to keep everyone safe and feeling safe as they're moving through the space. A lot of straight species grow 15 20 feet tall and that'll be perfect hiding spaces and we don't want that in Riverhouse. But we do want to increase the bofilic nature. Um we did make a significant change for the secondary green ribbon route along that western corridor. We are only using straight species and no no cultivars to create that pollinator corridor that goes the whole north south route um at least through that n naturalized woodlands area. So a big sign significant portion of that we have made for that pollinator corridor.

Thank you. Thank you for that response and also for calling attention to making sure people feel safe when they are walking through a space. Uh any other comments, questions about public spaces? Then we will go to our final item, community benefits. Commissioner Berkkey, try to make this brief. Um so there's going to be this is for the applicant. Uh I believe uh 12 on-site committed affordable units. I think I have that right. Um so typically we see so that's the base contribution right so typically you know we see contributions the affordable housing investment fund or um that that's typically what we see um do you mind just walking us through the the uh the thinking behind the on-site a lot of folks are always interested in on-site and uh I'm I'm glad that you done so here but can you just walk us through um how the on-site fits because you know typically we have all these uh commission meetings and we always see the contributions for the base uh uh contribution and uh and so we're always asking right and so to get it is great but what makes this project different?

Sure. Um and and a big part of it is the sector plan requirements, right, that talk about affordable housing being provided for bonus density once that base level has been exceeded. Um because this site is so big, 36 acres, we do not yet exceed that that base density. Um, and so you're right that we are only in the in the base, so we would have the option of either providing these units on site or contributing to to the AHF. Um, we decided that it would make sense to have units on site. We we would like to deliver some at some point here early in the process. Um, and as a result, we agreed to go ahead and and always provide those on site rather than taking having the option to to buy out of that contribution.

Okay. Thank you. Other comments or questions on community benefits? Yep. Commissioner Ael, given the increased density, I was hoping that JBG Smith would then be open to supporting the development of the excuse me, [clears throat] the Crystal City Underground on 1800 in South Bell Street because they need to be entertained. Well, this there's there's a um an idea of developing a performing arts center and I think all those people are directly connected to that site and I think they need to be entertained.

Staff want to speak to that as far as the community benefits package and how it relates to the sector plan. I I appreciate the comment. We we can take it back and consider it. I'll just say that the the community benefits to be delivered on Riverhouse are are prescribed in the in the sector plan and the applicants, you know, overachieving on delivering some of those uh in the near term. So, appreciate that. We'll we'll take it back and uh consider it further, but um again, we're we're really looking to to follow uh what the county board has uh adopted in terms of its direction for county benefits on the site. So, thanks.

Quick clarifying question. Are the community benefits overachieving because they're front-loaded or for the entire project when it's done they will also be going above and beyond?

Uh uh the answer is frontloading. Um I I think whether they go above and beyond the ultimate we just we don't know. We we'll we'll we will wait and see. I mean everything that's everything that is in there I would say that you know you could make the argument that because we're not hitting the absolute maximum density here of 150 units per acre. we're not ultimately going to be achieving the full amount of calves that could be on site. Um, which was obviously a topic of discussion throughout the the public review process, but I would say otherwise, yes, we are we are hitting all those and going above them in terms of uh the public space dedications and easements um that would be dedicated. So,

okay, thank you. Um, are we ready to move to motions, Commissioner Shriner? Okay. So, I've got two uh one on the affordable housing um on the committed calf units. Could you just for the record here break down how those 12 units are going to be split? Are they all going to be in the N1 building? Are they going to be any C1? Uh what's the sort of unit mix? That kind of thing.

So, I should start by saying that that what we have in the conditions is a square footage, not a specific uh number of units. So, so and that and that's a result of the formula that we've got here. Um, so the way the conditions are written currently is that it may be in either of the N1 or the C1 building, whichever is constructed first, first of those two.

That's right. I'll sound like a broken record, but family size units, larger units are ones we generally tend to prefer. Um, and the second question is on [clears throat] the utility side. I know at the SPRC we had discussed um some utility undergrounding particularly in Lambeay S and then also we had a little bit if if my memory serves right over on Lind Street. Um I just want to see if has any progress been made on those fronts? Has that been followed up on at all? Uh because I know where there was some discussion but it kind of got buried in some of the larger uh topics we've been discussing tonight.

So the project does not include undergrounding of those utilities. Okay. Um, one of the things that staff considered in in reviewing that is that a lot of times that utility undergrounding is concurrent with frontage improvements along that frontage. Uh, and effectively the way this site is laid out, there are not frontage improvements proposed along the east side of of Lind Street. And so we found it appropriate to to keep the the minimal um you know the the Lin Street aerial utilities um are not significant from 15th to um Army Navy. They actually are are pretty limited. Uh and so that was part of the the consideration also that it didn't that it wasn't about necessarily the robustness or or resiliency of the overall grid network associated with undergrounding those utilities.

Got it. So it was a little bit off off the properties kind of and and it wasn't significant enough to it on it is on the property but it is not on a frontage that is is seeing um improvements. Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. And I think our last comment or question is from Commissioner Gavara.

So, ever since I started on this commission feels like a long time ago, but uh not as long as I'd think um when we first start when I first started, I think when the conversation was, you know, typically the applicant gave gives to the AHIP fund. Um and we sort of started continue the conversation of we want on-site affordable units. And I think with different projects you've brought forth, you've been really open to that idea. I know there's philosophical debates about which one's better than the other, but um I do appreciate seeing that and in this case um I think the next iteration of our conversation that we've been pushing is with um Commissioner Strer to ensure that and since right now you don't you just have committed to square footage to consider building you know larger units um that can potentially be um uh committed towards affordable housing. So all to say thank you for the progress you've made um and look forward to seeing you guys evolve um in this topic.

Okay. Well, thank you commissioners for that robust conversation. I think we are ready for motions. Um why don't we start with Commissioner Lantelm's motion on the um the spur and then we can go to the additional main motions.

Okay. Um, I move that the planning commission recommend that the green ribbon segment that terminates at the end of the 15th Street South Spur be continued from the planned switchbacks up to South Lind Street and the plan for a north sidewalk on 15th Street South Spur be abandoned. colon. Alternatively, eliminate the switchbacks above the first switchback and add a north sidewalk to 15th Street spur and preserve the existing street parking. Commissioner Steinberger, I'll second. Okay. And now we would you like to speak to your motion?

I think I've said enough on it already. Okay. I'll just say I am a little uncomfortable advising to remove switchbacks because I think it would be nice if we are going to brand the top viewing platform as a viewing platform and a destination in itself. I would want that to be ADA accessible but the first part um I support. I just I'm okay supporting the motion as is, but I don't like the alternatively section of it. I wanted to give flexibility.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Are we ready for a vote? Commissioner Berkkey. Commissioner Robertson. No, I'm just kidding. Um, uh, I'm going to be abstaining from this motion. Um, I just wanted to briefly explain why to know me is to know I I abhore abstensions. Uh, but I'm going to be abstaining because I think it's really good that Commissioner Lentel has surfaced all these issues um in a thoughtful manner and I think it's really productive that we've had this conversation. I think this is pretty much why we exist. Um I am abstaining because I just I'm very uncomfortable making a recommendation this specific from the dis without getting more information especially when it concerns um pretty substantial engineering proposal from the applicant. Um I think they've broadly tried to describe it. Um I can only think of it's not the same scale. Um, but if you've been near the Pentagon recently and and seen the reorientation uh, you know, of of everything [snorts] over there, you know, it would be a substantial, it's not that size, but it would be a substantial engineering project that we're proposing here. And I think if we're going to do that, we would need more information, but um, certainly folks should should vote as they see foot, but I personally will be abstaining. Thanks,

Commissioner Patel. Thank you. Um, Madame Chair, I first apologize that my camera is not working. Um, but I also want to align myself with Commissioner Berkey's uh comments because I do believe that there has been sufficient back and forth. While I while I understand what Commissioner Lyn tell me is uh where the concerns lie and I I agree with those concerns, I am nervous to um you know support the motion without additional information about what the where the possibilities might lie here. Thank you. Thank you. Are we ready to vote?

Oh, Commissioner Shriner. Well, okay. So on this idea, is there a way that we can modify this motion to be less prescriptive and just sort of direct staff to draw up alter certainly open to ideas? Yeah, I mean I I I don't I'm not generating the exact wording in my mind, but if there are concerns about this being too prescriptive without enough information, something to the effect of we direct staff to investigate alternatives because we don't support what is proposed. I think something along those lines. I just don't want people to have us approve the existing plan, right, which is flawed without having something

other than just saying study it and then it disappears, right? That's that's a concern. That's a downside. Yeah. Okay.

Uh can I suggest on that point I I think I understand your your position there, Commissioner Lantel and yours as well, Commissioner Striner. Um maybe it's uh the ability to say something to the effect of um the this that you recommend approval with some revision right to that spur to that area to address you know the specific concerns that that you all have brought up to allow there to be flexibility to address any kinds of physical issues that that we may not have you know surfaced right in here but still ensure that you're not uh stamping and your approval on the existing design because I I hear you that that is the the goal of the motion is to not do that but but to still allow some flexibility that it can be addressed in a way that that makes the most sense and takes into account some of the other issues that we may not be seeing here.

Commissioner Patel, I see you still have your hand up. Did you have um something else you wanted to say?

Thank you. I I appreciate the the attempt to try to revise the language, but I think even the even the proposal that's been made by by um the applicant is it just subsumes the entirety of the approval because we would that flexibility just essentially takes over. The problem is it actually probably needs to be the inverse, you know. Um, the reality is there needs to be more information presented, uh, more more data that's been presented and I think Commissioner Steinberger said she would like to have had that information before the planning commission before this matter went to the county board. It looks like it would be the opposite saying that

I think yeah I think that we've given a lot of information from the day is here tonight plus we have all the information from the uh Pentagon rich condo association that sent numerous letters on this

um and that's a lot of it's just simply factual um I think that if we go ahead with this and I I hear the concern of it being too prescriptive but it is a recommendation rather than a requirement. Um, I think it puts us on record of what we see as the concerns are and that will be in the record, too. And I presume the county board will be looking at what what we're saying. Um, and then they ultimately can decide and give direction on which way to go forward and that gives another couple weeks for everybody get their ducks in line um, as far as information goes and presenting things. So, I think that this is probably good enough to at least put us on record about what the concerns are and some ideas for solutions.

Um, Madam Chair, I don't know if you could hear me. I I know Commissioner Lel started speaking while I was I thought I was speaking, but I don't know if you could hear me. I apologize, Commissioner. I don't think you could I don't think you could hear me. I think that may have been the problem. Yeah, the volume is very low. Okay, I'm I'm going to try to see if I can turn it up even higher. It's all the way to the end. Um, is that better? Yes.

Okay. Um, I I think what what I was saying is I think that unfortunately the proposal that was that was presented by the applicant really just kind of kind of subsumes the motion and it may even be the the opposite. It may end up being that um we would have to reject the motion because and outline the reasons why because of the issues. You know, uh um Commissioner Lami, I um always value your expertise in these in these spaces uh you know, the expertise you bring, but I I do feel uncomfortable without the information and a and a full presentation on the issue. Um, I think Commissioner Steinberger had even asked if this matter could come back to planning commission with some additional data before it went to the county board. And so, um, if this is the if this is the problem, then I think that we've now unearthed the problem and need some more information before we can move forward. What about like a sense of the commission that the status quo is not acceptable and needs to be addressed and

too fuzzy? Commissioner Steinberger, I didn't think any other commissioners were going to be feeling this way, so I was not going to raise this, but I'm wondering if what Commissioner Patel is getting at is that this should be deferred the whole project. Yeah. Oh gosh. for a for a for 50 feet of green river. I don't think anyone else is going there. I'm not gonna go there. Okay. Well, you're of course welcome to that. I understand. But is that where other commissioners are at? I mean, is that Commissioner Patel? Is that No.

So, my my um it's not so it's not like a deferral because we think the project is bad, but we're constrained by what it is that we can do to help formulate the answer here. And I feel like it's more of a a procedural no than a substantive no. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's basically saying um yeah, we're denying the motion based on x, y, and z. And I also thought about the sense of the commission issue uh madam chair that you were raising as well that it is a sense of the commission that this project is overall one that has the support of the planning commission. Um and and but that would have to I believe has to come after a deferral that you we're deferring this because of this issue and it is the sense of the commission that we would have approved it had we had sufficient information.

Okay. So why don't we go to this motion that commissioner Lantel has put on the table and has been second in. We'll vote on it and then depending on how that pans out we can decide on next steps. Could we read it again one more time? Just Yes.

I move Yeah. To repeat the motion on the table, I move that the planning commission recommend that the green ribbit ribbon segment that terminates at the end of 15th Street South Spur be continued from the planned switchbacks up to South Lind Street and the plan for a north sidewalk on 15th Street South Spur be abandoned. Alternatively, eliminate the switchbacks above the first switchback and add a north sidewalk to 15th Street South Spur and preserve the existing street parking and that has been seconded by Commissioner Steinberger.

So to discuss this, and it's a little hard to edit without seeing something in writing. I I So I think we just want to vote on this and see what happens. Okay, then I'm withdrawing my second because I think there's more discussion that should happen. I will second. Okay, Commissioner Garc. Okay, so we will vote and then if it fails, we can have further discussion on it. Okay, Commissioner Lel I. Commissioner Patel. My mic doesn't abstain. Commissioner Steinberger pass. Abstain.

I don't know. That's called abstain. Okay. I'm marking you as abstain. No, I kind of want to know where this gets to and then if I my votes needed to pass it or not. I literally want you can't do [laughter] that. You can skip or not option. Okay. I'm writing abstain back. Commissioner Bagley. I. Commissioner Gavara. I. Commissioner Berkkey. Abstain. Commissioner Striner. I Commissioner Robertson I Commissioner Amado I I need more information. So abstain. Yeah. Okay. Uh Commissioner Torres. Nay.

And I will say I. So that's one two three four five six I's. So that passes. That's okay. So it passed. So, do we have any additional motions to discuss other than the motion on the table? Did you want to change your motion or your uh Sure. [clears throat] I'll be an I. Okay. If that's allowed by Robert's rules, we'll mark it as seven. Um Okay. Any other motions other than the main motion?

I I would like I don't know how to do a motion, but I would like to go back to the mechanical issue. So, I would like to have something stipulated because I don't want to be asking for forgiveness. Okay. So, you want to move that the um rooftop HVAC,

it has to be an acoustical study of something. I know that they're going to go through the permit process. I'm familiar with that. I understand all of that. But there might still be a way. This is about being a good neighbor. And there might still be a way to address the neighbors that are directly affected by this in a more precise way. And so I would like to see that because I do hear them and I do and there's it's not just during the day, it's at night also. If you open your windows, um it's I think there's a responsibility there.

Okay. Um I suppose this is more for uh staff. I know you mentioned that you know people would have to file complaints and um potentially call the police support the zoning ordinance. Um since these are mechanicals with you know units would they call it on the mechanical unit? How how would that work? I I I guess I'm just sort of understanding what you're saying. Right.

Right. I mean, I do appreciate the point that this condition exists all over Arlington currently. And so does at least with the Hold on. Oh, your microphone on. Sorry. at least with the neighbors that seem to be more directly to push. Maybe there's more room. I don't know. I haven't studied the plan. Um maybe there's a way for those people. Are you

It's not a visual issue. It's a noise issue really. So they wouldn't be able to do a study in two weeks, but you I guess well you could say do a study or you could say change them from the rooftops or ensure a they need an MEP to do that and I know that that's what what's going to h I mean I get the process but okay um well if you want you can think about a possible motion that you want to do. We can move forward with other possible motions. So, Commissioner, I'm going to second her motion and say find a way to relocate it because I think this site has buildings that are already there that are taller. They're not going to change.

Well, we need a motion on the table to second it. So, if you want to figure one out, but Commissioner Steinberger, do you have

My suggestion would have been to do a motion to add a slight plane condition that such a noise study would be done. I don't feel as strongly that the personally I don't feel as strongly that the units cannot be on the roof, you know, with appropriate shading and such, but if the concern I think you're you're highlighting two different concerns. I think yours is a location visual concern, right? And then I think there's the noise concern. I think those are both concerns. I think they're different concerns. I think you could the one concern with regards to noise you could do a site plan condition for, which would be to say that it's like, you know, they will do a noise study as part of the site plan conditions. I think that would be allowed. I don't know how to fix your problem.

Okay. So, why don't we move on to main motions and then if you want to jot down what you want your motion to be, then we can introduce that at the end. Does that sound like a good approach? Okay. Any other motions other than the main motion that is ready to go? Okay. So, Commissioner Striner, could you take us through the main motions, please? Yeah. Um, if you would like, I have them right here. Yeah. Yeah. Send them my way. Oh, wait. No, I have. You got them? Okay. Yes. Okay. [clears throat] A through F. Uh, we'll do one at a time, please.

Okay. All right. Saddle up. Um, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board approve um, uh, the reszoning from R27 to family and townhouse dwelling district and C co CO2.5 mixeduse district to RA6-15 multiple family dwelling district for portions of properly located of property located at 1111 Army Navy Drive, 1400 South Joy Street and600 South Troy Street. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Lantel. Any discussion? Okay, then we will go to a vote. Commissioner Lantel, I. Commissioner Patel,

I. Commissioner Steinberger, I. Commissioner Bagley, I. Commissioner Gavara, I. Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Striner, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Torres. Okay. And I also say I. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. That passes 10 to zero. Okay. Next motion.

Motion number two. Uh, I'm I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt a phase development site plan for existing and new infill development totaling up to 4,46166 residential dwelling units and up to 19,923 ft of non-residential gross floor area for the site as a whole with modifications of zoning ordinance requirements including additional density, reduced parking, increased compact parking, off-site parking, loading space, reductions, altered dimensional parking standards, density exclusions, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the the proposed phase development site plan for the Riverhouse site located at uh 1,11 Army Navy Drive, 1400 South Joy Street, and 1600 South Joy Street.

Okay. Introduced by Commissioner Striner. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Gara. Any discussion? Okay, then we will go to the vote. Commissioner Lantel, I. Commissioner Patel, I. Commissioner Steinberger, I. Commissioner Baggley, I. Commissioner Guvara, I. Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Striner, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Torres, I abstain. And I will also say I. So that passes 10 to zero. Okay. Um, the third main motion,

number three, I moved that the I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt a site plan to construct a mixeduse development, a mixeduse building consisting of up to 509 residential dwelling units and up to 14,793 ft of non-resident residential gross floor area with modifications of zoning ordinance requirements, including additional density, reduced parking requirements, increased compact parking, parking for off-site use, ES density exclusions and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan for the river site built riverhouse building and one site located at 1,100 at 11 um Army Navy Drive and 1400 South Joy Street.

Okay. Introduced by Commissioner Shiner. Do I have a second? I'll second. Seconded by Commissioner Lantel. Any discussion? Okay. Then we'll go to a vote. Commissioner Lantel. I. Commissioner Patel. I, Commissioner Steinberger, I. Commissioner Baggley, I. Commissioner Gavara, I. Commissioner Brookie, I. Commissioner Steiner, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Torres, abstain. And I also say I. That passes 10 to zero. Um, another motion.

Number four. Um, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt a site plan to construct up to 132 residential dwelling units consisting of town houses and multif family stacked flats with modifications of zoning ordinance requirements, including reduced parking requirements and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan for the Riverhouse Land Bay Site located at 1400 South Joy Street and 1600 South Joy Street. Okay. Introduced by Commissioner Steiner. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Gavara. Any discussion? I pay. Commissioner Lantel. I. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Steinberger.

I. Commissioner Baggley. I. Commissioner Gavara. I. Commissioner Berkkey. I. Commissioner Striner. Hi. Commissioner Robertson. Hi. Commissioner Amado. Hi. Commissioner Torres. I. Okay. Uh and Commissioner Peterson says yes. So that is 11 to zero. Okay. Number five.

Number five. I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt a site plan to construct a multif family building with up to 102 residential dwelling units with modifications of zoning ordinance requirements, including reduced parking requirements and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan for the Riverhouse building C1 site located at 1600 South Joy Street. Okay. Introduced by Commissioner Stiner. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Guavara. Uh any discussion? No. Then we will go to the vote. Commissioner Lel I. Commissioner Patel I. Commissioner Steinberger I. Commissioner Baggley. I. Commissioner Gibbara

I. Commissioner Berkkey I. Commissioner Steiner. Hi. Commissioner Robertson I. Commissioner Amado I. Commissioner Torres abstain. And I will also say I. So that passes 10 to zero. And the final main motion.

All right. Number six, uh, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt a site plan for three existing multif family buildings totaling up to 1,676 residential dwelling units and up to 1,130 square ft of non-residential grow gross floor area with modifications of zoning ordinance requirements, including reduced parking requirements, reduced loading requirements, altered dimensional parking standards, and other modifications as necessary. to achieve the proposed development plan for the River House existing buildings Ashley PTOIC and James site located at 1,111 Army Navy Drive, 1400 South Joy Street and 1600 South Joy Street.

Second, Commissioner Steinberger gets the second. Okay, fastest in the West.

Madam Chair, just real brief. Um, I just want to take this moment uh to thank uh former Commissioner Weir for joining us and presenting and uh Commissioner Lentelme uh for shephering this early on and then Commissioner Striner for all of his work, especially reading the motions tonight. Uh I just I'm very excited about this project. This is a long time coming. There's a lot of us who've worked on this for a long time, former planning commissioners, county board members. Um, a lot of uh improvements have been made. Uh, and I know what it feels like to come to a to a county board or planning commission meeting and know that it's probably not going to go the way that I want it to. U, but still show up and testify. So, I really appreciate everybody who came tonight, sent emails. Um, I read all of them. I believe my colleagues did as well. There's a lot. Um, there was a robust discussion about the spur. um we have some differences of opinion, but I hope you feel like you were heard even if we didn't come to the same conclusions on some of that stuff. Um so I just really appreciate all of that and I think this project is is for the better for all of that discussion that we've had. So anyway, uh I just really appreciate it and I'm happy to support this. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Berkkey. Uh we will go to our vote then. Uh Commissioner [clears throat] Lantel, I. Commissioner Patel, I. Commissioner Steinberger. I, Commissioner Baggley, I. Commissioner Guvara, I. Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Striner, I. Commissioner Robertson has stepped up. We'll go back to him. Commissioner Amado, sorry, I I still get to do my motion afterwards. Yep. Okay. I uh Commissioner Torres, same. Okay. I will also say I and we will hold the vote open for a second. Been three hours. [laughter]

Okay. So, we'll count it as an abstain. So, that passes nine to zero. Okay. Any additional motions that you'd like to add. Commissioner Peterson, Chair Peterson, I think you have to count that as a not present. Oh, okay. I don't know what the difference is between that and obstain, but I will we will note that for the record. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, any additional motions?

I move that the planning commission recommend approval of of N1 with a condition that prior to county board consideration, the applicant provide a stamped acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the noise ordinance. If exceedences are identified, the applicant must revise the mechanical design, including relocating rooftop mechanical equipment further away from adjacent residential buildings or enclosing or consolidating equipment to ensure full compliance before board action. Okay. I can revise it if we don't need to have a stamped. Okay.

Do we have a second? Seconded by Commissioner um Torres. Discussion. Mr. Burki.

Yeah. Um, I really appreciate the concerns that have been raised about this particular issue and I thought we had a pretty good discussion about it and I think staff explained um, you know, the scope of the applicant's obligations here which is to comply with the noise ordinance. So, um, I'm not comfortable supporting a motion that I am concerned may kind of may exceed our authority. um as far as you know we we have latitude in providing recommendations but um I don't see anything that the applicant has done here where they haven't complied with you know the obligations they already have in front of them. Um if we want to ask them to do things I think that's something that we can always do and and we certainly do typically right we ask for more affordable housing and other community benefits. So, um, but I I think requiring something like that, um, I I I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know that I can support it. Thanks.

Happy to rephrase it, but Commissioner Lantel and then Commissioner Giver.

Yeah. Um, I concur with Commissioner Berky. Um, I agree with the concerns. We've allowed a number of other buildings to go through with the same situation with all the units on the top and we haven't said a word. So singling this one out I think is sort of unfair at this point. Um it is a larger issue that maybe we as a body could end up discussing at some point and give some idea what to ask because I think the idea of having guidelines for what noise these things should be making and whether they should even be allowed that's a larger issue but I don't think it's right at this point to single out one specific building where we've done it all. We've allowed so many others already. But have the other buildings been so close to and existing? And

a lot of them have been they're in the they're in the corridors. They're in the the metro corridor. So they are close to others. Commissioner Gar, I'd like to associate myself with Commissioner Berky and Commissioner Lensel. Um I think we're so far along in the process. one, but I do understand the concerns that, you know, the neighbors have uh raised and that obviously some of our commissioners here um are concerned about. Um, you know, just adding it at this late phase and when we have allowed others, I just don't think would be very fair across the board.

I just know what it's like to conform as an architect and still make people very angry. Okay. Are we ready? I think it's late once it's built cuz once it's built, you can't. But okay. Are we ready for a vote? Okay. Commissioner Lantel. Nay. Commissioner Patel. Nay. Commissioner Steinberger. Abstain. A real abstain. [laughter] Commissioner Baggley. Nay. Commissioner Gvara. Nay. Commissioner Berkkey. Nay. Commissioner Striner. I Commissioner Robertson.

No. Commissioner Amado. Yay. Commissioner Torres. Yay.

And I will say nay. So one, two. So it does not pass. Okay. Any additional motions? Okay. There are not any. So I would just like to say to everybody involved in this process that has been years, thank you so much for your involvement. We have come a long way. Um there have been a lot of improvements to this project uh because of everybody's involvement whether it was the applicants flexibility, whether it's through staff's hard work and diligence both on this project as well as the Pentagon City sector plan. For everybody who participated in the SPRC process, whether you were a member or a member of the public who was writing letters and emails and organizing your friends, you have all made a tremendous difference in this project. We are seeing more community benefits than we would normally at this point. We're seeing them earlier. Um I'm really excited about um being able to see this first big project of the Pentagon City Sector Plan um taking, you know, happening. Um there is a lot more work to be done. We will have more SPRC's for this kind of second phase of the project that will take place in the outy years. Um, but right now I think we have some on-site affordable housing to look forward to. We have um the start of a new park. We have the green ribbon. We have hopefully even more improvements to the green ribbon at the 15th Street spur. Um, so thank you to everybody who has been invol involved. Um, thank you for all of the consensus building and um, thank you to all of my colleagues for staying here until 11 or 10 almost 11 o'clock. Thank you to everybody here that is still here at 11:00 and please come back uh, tomorrow and on Thursday because we have so many more fun things to discuss. So, I will um, call this meeting to recess for the night and see you all tomorrow.

Well, that's Thursday, but tomorrow should be faster and Thursday should be faster.