Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025 meeting of the Arlington County Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Tenley Peterson, chair. Tonight, the commission will discuss and vote on the following items. Anformational item regarding the performance parking pilot, the North Highlands neighborhood plan, a local historic district designation for the happiness nest, and Jennine Park, as well as the green building incentive program. 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 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 off your camera. If you are dialing in by phone to join the meeting, please press star six to unmute. Public speakers will be called upon by the clerk at an assigned time. Pre-registration with email confirmation is required to speak at tonight's hearing. We are not able to accommodate additional speakers. All speakers, virtual and hybrid, will receive two minutes to comment as an individual. Only representatives of a county 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 speakers in person will follow the timer stationed on 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 are unable to see the screen, we will provide you with a 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 has been provided on the planning commission's 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 Bios 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 sub is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requirements. I also want to acknowledge that we are joined this evening virtually by Commissioner Nia Bagley. Um so Madame Clerk, can you please call our first item?

Sure.

Um there seems to be a little confusion. Let me just start off with the agenda for the evening online if anyone is is watching as well. The order of our agenda is as Madame Chair has mentioned it and our first item for the evening is the performance parking pilot. That is anformational item. The third item is the North Highland neighborhood plan. The fourth is the local historic district destination. The fifth is the Jenny Park and the sixth is the green building incentive policy. Thank you. All right, so I made it down in time then. Excellent. Sorry about that. Um, let me share my screen and then we can get going. All right. How's that look? Good. Terrific. All right. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Melissa McMahon. I'm parking and curb space manager with Arlington County and I'm here to bring you um updates on the close of our performance parking pilot and to share with you what we've learned and where we're headed next. This is a discussion item. um interested in input on the project um input on our next steps and of course um any questions that um or ideas that you can add that can take this project forward. The project timeline slide um covers a lot of ground. We've been doing this project for almost 3 years now, 2 and a half years with um a start that was just the installation of our technology and then a year and a half of operations of the project under a temporary ordinance which allowed us to administratively change the prices at meters based on performance data. And at this at the close of this summer, we entered a key round of engagement with the community

on the data that we have from the project. And now we're into our winter period where we synthesize the data. We're doing a road show on our results, but we're also taking recommendations forward to the board here. And I know I provided um some slides ahead and information, a lot more information than I'll cover in this in this live update, but this slide covers a lot of ground to try to show just how much outreach and engagement we did during the course of the project. Um, we engage the community passively in many ways by providing QR codes on all of our meters, decals, windshield flyers, sidewalk stickers, intersection signs so that people could reach out to us through a QR code, understand what the pilot project was about. We also um engaged hundreds of people on online feedback forms and thousands of people through direct intercepts with folks as they were parking out in the community. So, one of the key challenges with engagement on this project is that a lot of the people affected by it don't actually live in Arlington. It's just the parkers at our metered spaces. So, doing direct mailing is not as effective as actually being out there on the street where folks are parking. The next several slides will go over highlights really of what our data is telling us. Now, many parking spaces on the curb are much more valuable to parkers than we previously understood. There's growing awareness of the project which has come about, our understanding of that comes about through a combination of our sources of outreach as well as the data. But more time is needed to get people truly familiar with the fact that there's a variety of prices on the street and that they have more choice than they've had before in terms of where they can park for what price according to their need. Um even though through six price changes, six quarterly price changes over a year and a half, we've raised the price at

several spaces during peak hour demand time, there are nonetheless lowpriced spaces highly available throughout the corridors. And I'll sh I'll show you what that looks like. I'll also talk a little bit about stated preference versus demonstrated preference in this pilot project. And there are some slides that I'm not highlighting but are in the packet that you received and you can ask me questions on it on ADA analysis and RPP RP parking analysis as well as some payment compliance information at the end. So the big takeaway right now is that over a year and a half of price changes, we're only seeing very marginal shifts in demand at our highest demand locations. The orange boxes are our high demand spaces. Those are the spaces that are very high occupancy, especially during peak hours, but sometimes all day. The blue boxes are the more regular demand spaces. So, we've targeted price increases in those high demand spaces. And we're seeing this minor minor shift, but really nothing substantive at this time. And there are many possible reasons for that. Latent demand, so spaces where even if people are shifting out of these locations to cheaper locations, there's more demand in these locations than there is supply. There are other parkers searching and they're able to park and fill up space. So, a straight up occupancy analysis isn't going to capture a shift that is sort of masked by latent demand. But there's also other factors that will that will um decrease price sensitivity. One of those is um low payment compliance. And I'll talk about that a little bit later. We are able to see in our data um our first sort of gauges of summer highs and winter lows. So, seasonality in the way that people park here. Here I'm just highlighting that in last January and February we had a couple major snow events and we can see it in our data. We can see that when we have a big snow event we don't plow the spaces out. There's a period of time in which parking behavior is a lot lower and we

see that here. We also see in our data that dwell time is lower in higher priced areas. This is intuitive on its face even before our project might have begun because the places where we've increased the price are the places with the highest demand and those kinds of the commercial activities around them can create lower dwell times. So we aren't certain that this is because of price, but we see a trend um that shows the relationship between the two things. And we with more time and more observation, we may be able to see if changes in price can actually cumulatively decrease the dwell time, which would be effectively um a process improvement for the experience of parkers in these in these high demand areas. This map is showing what I was speaking about in terms of um retaining parking options throughout the community. So again, through this project, we have intentionally increase the price during our highest demand times and at highest demand locations throughout the community that reach a certain threshold, but we've also decreased price in a lot of places where we're trying to draw demand to those locations. All of the yellow blocks on this slide are spaces that never exceed $2 an hour at any time of day. And the walk sheds that we're drawing around them are an indication of all the places you can reach from these blocks. In many instances, the spaces that are highest price. A good example will be a handful of blocks um in the center of Boston. They they reach our highest parking price that we have out in the street today, 475 an hour during peak hours. However, those blocks are within a block and a half of the Boston garage, which offers three hours of parking for a dollar and one of the cheapest parking options in the entire um region. So, we know that one of the keys here is being able to communicate options to folks, being able to help them understand the

feasibility of those options because getting people to spread their demand from the highest demand spots to the lower spots is going to make the whole system function better. in our data. This project is somewhat unique in that instead of only being able to do outreach and ask people through through surveys and engagements what they think about what we're doing, we actually have demonstrated preference data, too. And what we mean by that is we've been changing the prices of spaces on the street and people are parking in those spaces and they're paying those prices. So what we have is a coup a couplet of data types. The stated preference of in this instance over a thousand respondents who provided us information on a ranking question about what their priorities are when it comes to making a parking decision. Do they want to be close? Do they want the parking to be easy to find? Or do they want it to be cheap? And it turns out that these are absolutely evenly split. So out of those thousand respondents, a third of them picked cheap as the most important thing. A third of them picked close as the most important thing. A third a different third of them picked easy to find as the most important thing. And what this tells us functionally is that we need to have a system that provides the ability to solve for each of these options depending on each person's travel and activity need. So each one of us probably has a different priority depending on what we're doing, who we're traveling with. So if cheap is the most important thing, we provide cheap and we let people walk a few blocks to get to where they're going. If close is the most important thing, we can only assure you that you can find parking close to where you're going. If we raise the price enough and we give people the information enough to spread the demand out of those close spots because otherwise they're always full and you'll never get close to where you want to park. So this is sort of that stated preference is reinforcing the principles

of the project that we're undertaking. The demonstrated preference of over 13 million parking instances just in the sample up to when we stopped um doing our price changes is that people still choose to park all over uh including in the places where we've increased the price substantially from past experience. And and functionally this tells us that people are willing to pay a lot more than we used than we thought they were. And there are likely more people looking for parking than there are spaces at busy times and locations. We also think that this demonstrates there's low awareness of our lower parking price options because we aren't necessarily seeing the shift that we want to see yet out of our high-priced areas. And we do see that low payment compliance um exists across our network. And we think that that contributes to a reduced effectiveness of our price increases in shifting demand. This slide, which is my last data slide, um is highlighting several of our payment compliance insights. So you can see in the top graph that we're really hovering throughout the course of a year and a half of data collection at 35 to 40% payment compliance. That means of all the parking instances that happen in these spaces only 35 to 40% of them are have a corresponding payment transaction associated with them and the other parking instances do not. Um this is low um but it is not uncommon based on what we hear from other jurisdictions and have read in the literature. However, it does mean that there's a dulling effect on the places where we've we're changing price. Whether we're making it lower or making it higher, if people don't aren't even in the habit of paying, they're not necessarily going to notice and have that be able to change their behavior. We also asked ourselves, does raising the the prices on the street have the potential of decreasing

payment compliance in those prices in those areas that are more expensive? And we do not see that at the at this time. That's the bottom left graph. What it's showing you basically is that generally speaking, the higher levels of payment compliance, and this is again relative, none of it is very high, are in the areas where our prices are actually highest. And the lower levels of payment compliance are in the areas where our prices are lowest. Um, our hunch about that is that the areas where we've made it cheaper to park are also areas where they're a little more off thebeaten track. it's a side street or it's one street back and people may perceive that it's less visible or less likely to be enforced. We also see from our data that the average compliance compared to dwell time um does show a relationship. The the areas where um the trips are are shorter. Those short pickup of a coffee or a lunch um have the lowest payment compliance in our data set. And the peaks of of payment compliance are in a typical parking instance that's 2 hours. So a normal person having a lunch and then we the payment compliance level drops again for those really long stays. So this brings us after a year and a half of price changes into a phase where we need to go back to the board to request an ordinance update. Our ordinance sunsets at the end of February. And so without an update to the ordinance, the ordinance language will revert back to what it was in the past. And what that means essentially is that for a 2-hour space, there's just a set price and that price was 175 before. For a 4-hour space, the price was 150. And it's codified and hardcoded in the ordinance. Um the only way it was changed in the past was by taking a budget item to the board on a typically an annual basis and it was either considered for increase or decrease

based on strictly budgetary reasons. What we propose is to actually continue what we're doing with very little change um to continue performance-based management of metered spaces. Um, and that is the program by which we can use our data to change price, provide better information, and ultimately make better management decisions to improve parking options and choices. The ordinance proposal that we're bringing forward maintains all the same functionality we've had for the last year and a half. It does differ from our current ordinance by removing reference to a sunset date so it won't expire. Removing reference to a geographic restriction to the pilot area. So instead of just being limited to the Rosland Boston corridor and the Route One corridor, we want to open it up so that when we have data in other parts of town, it could be in Sherlington, it could be on Langston Boulevard, it could be on portions of Columbia Pike, we have the ability to do performance-based pricing and information in those areas, too. It removes reference to frequency of rate changes. And this is primarily for simplicity because even the quarterly rate changes we did during the pilot were about they were the the most frequent we could possibly manage because we're not doing this automatically. There's no like flick of a switch and a computer making a decision. We anticipate we actually won't be recommending any kind of changes at a frequency more than once or twice a year. So it would be less frequent than it has been during the pilot. And lastly, we are recommending that the maximum possible rate per hour be increased from $5 per hour up to $7 per hour. Today um only about 1.5% of all metered hours have um applicable the highest rate we have on the street today. And that means that that lo at those locations during those hours they received up to six price increases which

brought them up to 475 an hour. That's the highest price we have on the street. Um, we don't see price increases in the near term in these really high demand areas being our first tool because we're also working with our data set and with our um our colleagues in enforcement to work on the ways that will raise the awareness of the price options in order to start shifting demand in those ways first. But without any wiggle room on the upper end of the spectrum, we also can't acknowledge later down the road if we have stickiness in demand inelasticity that could yet be influenced by a different price. So what we are asking for is the flexibility to consider prices that are above $5 per hour um when it comes to those types of analysis which would again under our under the way the code is written be um referred up through the manager and approved in that way and that is the end of my presentation. Thank you very much for the presentation. So we can now have a discussion amongst us. There is no um voting on this item since it's anformational item, but this is an opportunity for us to ask questions and um provide feedback on the presentation. Commissioner Lelman.

Yeah, thank you. Um of course, I heard heard this at Transportation Commission a couple weeks ago, so thank you for doing it again. Um and I'm not sure we raised this at TC, but um parking enforcement continues to be an issue in the county. Um, and it isn't just for um the metered parking. You know, the neighborhoods are always complaining that there aren't enough people enforcing the the the RPP program. Um, but it carries over to this, too, because if people aren't getting a tickets, they're not going to be incent they're not going to have the incentive to actually put money in the meter. Um, do we know or do you know how much the cost is for a parking ticket? Uh, I think it's around 40 bucks

because I wonder whether people don't mind running the risk of that because $40, you know, that's like a day's parking in a in a an office building or, you know, in a garage. So, you know, why feed the meter if only once every two weeks you're going to be getting a ticket? You know, it's it's might be cheaper to pay the tickets. So, you know, I would wonder whether you it makes sense or I think it would make sense to at least evaluate whether we're charging too little for our parking tickets and whether it would make sense to get more parking enforcement staff and and it should be dedicated staff. There's no reason why our police department should be dealing with that at all.

Um even if it means over you're working in the evenings. Um because a lot of neighborhoods now we have parking meters going to 8:00 at night which is good. Um but that means somebody has to be out there giving tickets. So that's my feedback on this. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Bagley. Thank you Madam Chair. Um I am following up to Commissioner Lantelmy's comments. How many uh enforcement staff do we have at this time?

Oh, I apologize. I don't have that number because the enforcement team is not under DOT. It's with the police department, but they they have been staffing up. um they hit a low in the um in the occupancy of their of their positions back in I would say last winter and then through the spring into the summer they've done a huge push on recruitment and I know they've recruited at least half a dozen folks but I think they still have vacancies because what essentially they experience is the work of a parking enforcement person parking service aid the PSAs is I guess I would just say not the most fun and not glamorous and across the country very hard to fill these positions. Um and they've and they've struggled with that. But they are making progress and we do um we think there's some evidence in the in the most recent compliance data that these increases in personnel just the the hard numbers of humans with boots on the ground is having an incre a small incremental effect. But what we also think is that we we can't win this with um with staff strictly with human power. We actually can only win the enforcement game with technology. Um and we're doing various things to try to increase essentially the reach of our enforcement effort through better technology solutions.

Um thank you. Can I also ask um since um unfortunately people are not paying and risking getting a ticket, is there any way to post someplace along the line that you know what the ticket would be if somebody is um just maybe a visual reminder somewhere or something if they Yeah, I don't know where you would put it, but it just occurs to me. I I live very close to Metro and I have RPP in my neighborhood. Um most of my neighbors will call when there's like just too many people parked here for the little space that is available. But like Commissioner Lantel said, um you know, a lot of people are going to chance it like how many times will you know, if I park here and I will say that cars that we've seen parked in the neighborhood when they do get a ticket, we don't see them come back. Um, so but I'm just wondering since people are evading the fair, so we so we shall say, is there any way and I know we don't really have them the meters there anymore, but is there something that we can put someplace communicationwise to sort of like in a nice way threaten them or at least inform them what the consequences might be? And um is for this whole project is this is the intent of this to maybe break even with some finances or um you know where does the money go? How are we you know are we underperforming? Is there a goal that we're trying to get to? Those those questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Those are great questions. The project has never from its outset had a revenue goal. Um the goals of the project were established around improving the performance of the curb because for years dating back to when the master transportation plan was last updated, the community has expressed these challenges and and we've talked about them a little bit here with um with curb the their their experience on the curb. Can I find a parking space? How far do I have to go? how long does it take me? How how are people misbehaving when they can't find a parking space? So, it has been um narrowly focused on our ability to change the experience on the curb and make it better for folks. Um the question of of revenue like so, we don't have revenue targets. Um however, the county also has an obligation to make sure it's only making as much money as it really costs to manage the asset. So, we're always looking at that nexus. Um, and and and frankly, like there's there's a lot of costs associated with with managing the curbs and and managing this this giant transportation asset. Um, but the but revenue is not a goal fundamentally in the project.

Thank you. Y

um I have a question that I wanted to follow up on which was when you were here last time I had asked the question about I I like the program overall. I like that it's going to make parking available and accessible to more people, especially people who really need it at that moment. But I had a concern that, you know, all of us as taxpayers are contributing to the maintenance of the streets. The parking helps with flow and it helps with, you know, the maintenance. Um, but for our lower income neighbors, it kind of has the potential of taking away parking as an option for them. And when you were here last February, I'd asked about um possibly uh having an exemption to the per to the parking pilot program. So they would just pay the regular rates if they qualified for SNAP benefits. We have a precedent of um offering that for Metro Bus. We have a precedent of offering that for Bike Arlington. Um and so I had asked you to look into that to see if there was a partnership with Park Mobile or whatever service people are using to pay for. So is that possible? Did did that lead anywhere? Is there a way to give folks who qualify for SNAP benefits um make sure they're not paying $7 an hour for parking when they need to bring their kids to the doctor's office or something?

Yeah, I appreciate that. We did um so I want to say this is a work in progress. So um it hasn't been dropped. Initially after your request, I did um probe with Park Mobile as someone as an entity under contract with us what's possible here. And what we learned is that Park Mobile has had a precedent in other jurisdictions, I think Miami Beach is one of them, of distinguishing between participant types. So they didn't specifically note an instance of providing um an economic like a lowinccome advantage program but they were they have implemented a resident non-resident program and the example of the program established that they they it's possible for them to make these distinctions through a qualification process. However, they did not state that they were willing to do that for us. They essentially said it's a service that they are discontinuing in their ongoing evolution of the kinds of services they're providing. Um, but the reason I say we're not done with this is that we've learned a lot of things about what is working and not working for for the community members who use Park Mobile. And right now all we have is Park Mobile. So we have there have been discussions but not yet action just in terms of time frame on expanding the marketplace of the payment providers that people can use. And our hope is that with a competitive process, we could we could talk with other entities that might be more open to establishing a program like that. And all we need is one because if we have one and they're willing to let us register low-income folks for these particular qualifications, then we can start to open the doors for doing that for community members. Okay, thank you. And I see Commissioner Patel has raised her hands.

Um, so I think you may remember the last time I had a um I had a lot of questions about this parking performance pilot. I'm actually um not as excited about this as my colleagues and I think that I continue to have the same concerns that I had the last time this presentation or the last two times the this presentation has been provided to us. Number one, I just want to start from the top. I I remember very um acutely I guess that this was not supposed to be a revenue um you know project. And so I to the extent that we are operating off of a um understanding that we're trying to do this to make sure that cars are moving along the curb uh and that spots are available for people that people are not just holding up spots. I continue to believe that there is a design flaw in this parking performance pilot program because changes in in how much it costs to park is not it it it's not the only variable that gets you to understanding how why people park and whether they're going to comply with parking rates. So, the parking ticket is $45. I know that because I have a parking ticket and it doubles $90. I don't think you need to put a sign out there that says, "Hey, by the way, you might get a parking ticket." The same way you don't have to put a sign out that says, "Hey, if you speed, you might get a speeding ticket." People are aware of that. But as Commissioner Lentel said, people are going to do what you what they believe they can do. And if there's not a kind of concurrent compliance effort, it doesn't really matter what you want to charge in a particular zone because people aren't going to pay it. If they know nobody is going to come by and put a ticket on

their on their dash, they're not going to comply. And I don't know why. I mean, DC is a perfect case study. They have enough parking enforcers. They are, you know, two and a half times our size. They they have different um parking rules including you're allowed to park during certain times. There's hourly restrictions. You can't park in a specific zone more than a specific number of hours. There's rush hour restrictions and park and the parking moves in that space because there is enforcement. I don't think I I just don't understand the study and why we continue to spend all of this time and effort when there is not the like there's not as another part of this which is where's the enforcement if until you can get enforcement under control. doesn't matter what the price is going to be. And the the fact that it's not about changing the price structure in a particular zone to make it higher or lower based on when people are parking there and whether you can afford to park there. I actually think the the equity argument is a bit of a red herring, which I almost fell down that trap, too. The issue is compliance. It's always going to be compliance. and compliance is you can only achieve compliance when you've got somebody out there writing a ticket. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, commission.

Yeah. So, I want to associate myself with uh Commissioner Patel's comments as well. I think and Commissioner Peterson's I think we have a a real issue here of of potentially having more of a what is it more of like a sales tax as it were? sort of an unequal or regressive tax if you will on the sort of parking here. Um but I wanted to have my question is could you go to the last slide that we were just on. Um my question is more on the sort of the parameters of what you all are asking for this time around. Um particularly the sunset date from my read and and I could be wrong but my from my read here is that there are still things that you all are still trying to figure out. So even though we've kind of moved out of the initial pilot phase, there are still pieces that are still uncertain. You know, we're potentially talking raising up to $7 as a maximum instead of five. And so there still feels like there's this element of experimentation going on with this. And I and if I were the the board, I would be concerned about just saying, "Okay, go go nuts. You know, don't you know, uh you won't have to check back with us again. You won't have to get this re-uped in a few years." Um, and I just I'm a little concerned of the sort of performance management um, of this. I think you all are finding out a lot of interesting phenomenons. Um, particularly the fact that there's not a lot of movement in the demand with these parking spots, particularly in the high demand areas. Uh, even if you increase the price. Um, I just think that, you know, for my own sake, I'd be interested to hear about this again in a couple years. And um and I just think it would be good and again this I'm just more of a recommendation than a question um of really revisiting that as that aspect of maybe this should have a sunset date for now because we're still experimenting. We're still kind of figuring out what this is going to look like and I don't think this is quite done. Um and I don't

think we should remove any sort of sunset um until we know kind of what our final findings are. Thank you. Um I'm just cognizant of the time. This is our first of five items tonight. Um so if you have a quick response, uh we'd love to hear it and then hopefully we can move on to the next agenda item since we're not doing a vote. Or Commissioner B. Okay. I'm sorry. Commissioner, uh Patel has her hand up as well. Okay. Did you have a quick response to M. Well, why don't we take all of our comments and then you can provide a final note. Is that okay with everyone? Okay. Commissioner Berkie.

Okay, I'll try to be very quick. Um, I definitely agree about compliance, but I'm gonna ask about another aspect of this. To me, what what is so striking is that so much of this is really about like psychology essentially. And uh, two quick examples. So like um, Columbia Pike, like Penrose Square like battled for years of where people would would park illegally. was an issue. I think finally we sort of resolved it and a lot of it was reconfiguring that street. But I would say even here, I won't take a poll. I thought about taking a poll. There's a surface slot that I know a lot of people use that you have to pay to park in till 8:00 p.m. if you drive, but you can park for free after 5 in the garage. A lot of people still prefer to use the surface courthouse lot. That psychology is fascinating because to me the garage is very easy to get in out of. I know where to go. But if you haven't been right, it's a different paradigm. And so when I see you talking about the values of is it easy or is it close to me so much of this riddle is like figuring out that psychology. So I I do have a question. This is very hard, but like have you thought about that in any way? Like are there studies that other jurisdictions have done? Because so much of this is like getting into the psychology of people who are like, "Okay, where do I go?" Because you see service parking, it's there. The garage is a great unknown, isn't it? Even if you're told it exists, you know, two blocks away and it's way cheaper.

Yep. We've definitely discussed the psychology of this in depth. Um, I can say that our project has scratched the surface on the integration of street assets and off- streetet assets, most of which we don't own and don't control. Um, but that Boston example is a really good one, where we have a large, largely available off- streetet asset that's very, very cheap and yet people aren't using it. They're using this really expensive street space that's just a couple blocks away or less. Um but we we are optimistic that one of the one of the opportunities of having multiple prices on the street and having technology tools that both give us real-time data about changes in behavior can integrate with our uh transaction data and can integrate with direct customer communication information. our online tools um uh tools that can let you navigate directly to a parking space and so on that we have the opportunity to continue to evolve through the in the input that we get the ways that we're helping people think about their choices. So there's psych there are some people who don't like garages, right? But that means it's in the on the choice spectrum. Then there are people who just don't know where they are. But now we have digital signs in the street in 10 locations across the community. Some of which actually point to garage entrances because those are the best parking opportunities in that particular location. So we're using um this this project as a jumping off point to address the psychology of how folks are making these decisions.

Yeah, if I could real really really fast, I think that's great. Um you know, I think Commissioner Patel brings up a lot of valid points, right? This is very difficult. What I really like about this effort, even at a minimum of like how effective it may or may not be in changing the psychology right now, is you're collecting a lot of data, which I'm hopeful we can use in the future when we make other decisions about site plans and other planning efforts that this data will be valuable in a lot of ways for us. Thank you.

I agree. And and to to speak back to Mr. Striner's um comments about um sunset and experiment versus not experiment. I will say our big picture um perspective is that what we know is that the data allows us to create more choice on the street for folks and we don't think that we we will want to go back from doing that. So, um, offering to the board something that doesn't sunset at this point doesn't say that we're going to get maximum effectiveness at a price of $7 an hour somewhere, but it's acknowledging that we know we are now giving people places to park for 75 cents an hour and 150 an hour and also $2 an hour and also 375 an hour. So that as we work these other pieces in, which are not directly the price, but those supplemental behavior change elements, we allow the community to take advantage of those priorities that they've communicated to us and operationalize them. And so if if we asked for um an extended sunset, we we could it wouldn't be the end of the world if the board chose to say, "We're going to give you three more years and then come back again." It also wouldn't be the end of we plan on providing updates to commissions like yourselves, the board throughout even when when or if they decide to choose to make this without a sunset date. So there's flexibility there, but we do think there's just fundamental value as well.

Okay, I'm going to give Commissioner Patel, who has her hand up, the last word, and then we'll move on to our next agenda item.

Thank you. I you know I think I mentioned the last time I think the value of this study is simply to find out where we're parked where are the places uh in the county that we are parked over you know I I know on this commission when I first started there was this constant theme about us you know we have too many parking spots available we there's you know we could be using space in a very different way that's what I think this study provides as a value I just simply do not understand why we're hot laning parking. And you know, to to Commissioner Berkey's um comments about the garage right here at 2100, that parking garage has I mean, there's so many issues. That parking garage has lots of blind spots. It has narrow spaces. People may not want to park in there because they know their car is going to get dinged. I mean, there's a whole host of reasons why people don't view that particular parking garage as a functional um option to the the surface lot that exists right outside the building. The other part is, you know, Commissioner Berky, the reason why that parking lot is always full is because a lot of people who live in the in the buildings around the courthouse um park there overnight. um because you'll see those cars staying in the in the surface parking lot all night and then leaving in the morning at around 8 o'clock in the morning. So, I actually think this study is in terms of valuable data is just to see where people are parked in the times that they're parked. I just don't understand this this notion of let's up the price at this time and let's decrease the price at this time because it's going to allow us to modify people's behavior. I I mean price of parking is price of parking. People don't usually think that that's negotiable. the question is whether they're going to pay or they're not going to pay. And that decision is is fully like causally connected to an enforcement mechanism. So, um I continue

to have lots of concerns about this study and if we were voting on this, I would not vote to recommend this. Um I would not I would not vote along this proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I appreciate you coming today and for your presentation and for answering our questions. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Um, Madame Clerk, can you call the next item, please? Yes. Thank you. Our next item is the North Highlands Neighborhood Plan. We have our uh neighborhood services staff, Na Martinez, to present this item this evening.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Na Martinez, neighborhood planner with the Arlington Neighborhoods Program. Tonight, members of the N Tonight, members of the North Highlands neighborhood are here to present their first neighborhood plan, which was approved by the Arlington Neighborhoods Advisory Committee in November. With us tonight, we have Robert Middleton, who is the secretary of the North Highland Citizens Association and the editor of the plan, and Ben Keaney, who is the president of the North Highland Citizens Association and a planning committee member. With that, I will pull up the presentation and hand it over to Robert to begin. Uh, hello. So, I'm Robert Middleton. As Nudy just said, I'm the secretary of North Highland Citizens.

Excuse me, Mr. Middleton. There's a button on the microphone. If you could just press that black button, it'll turn red. That mean it's hot. It is. Oh, closer. Okay, there we go. Ah, sorry. As I was saying, I'm Robert Middleton, uh, secretary of the North Highland Citizen Association. I'm here tonight uh with Ben Keiny, our president and uh as Nudy was saying we're here presenting our plan. Happy to be here. Thanks for having us.

Uh so first of all question of course is where is North Highlands? So for those of you who are not aware, North Highlands is a neighborhood uh very close to where we are now here in Courthouse. Uh it is effectively uh north of Langston Boulevard and south of Spoutrun Parkway. Uh so a bit of an awkward position, but the we'll get into this in a little bit more detail here in a moment, but for the most part, everybody who goes in and out of the neighborhood must come through Langston Boulevard. Uh so from east to west, uh the mo eastern most point starts just past the old uh Keybridge Marriott. Uh on and on the west we pass just uh after Spoutrun Parkway uh where I66 crosses Langston Boulevard. So next slide please. All right. Uh so points of interest in the neighborhood. Uh so for those of you who aren't aware uh one the we have a do the Dawson Terrace Community Center is in the neighborhood. Uh this contains the oldest known uh structure still in the county dates to about the mid 1800s. Uh, and that's attached to a uh extension of the community center in the back. Uh, got a park a park next to the community center as well, which is widely used by neighborhood uh children and families. Uh, and in the uh neighborhood as well, we also have uh the Custous Trail that uh goes and ties the neighborhood together as well as several retail opportunities. Uh so with the Lion Village Shopping Center uh right near uh the westernmost edge of the neighborhood uh along Spout Run Parkway and Langston Boulevard. So in terms of housing types, uh there's many different housing types in the

neighborhood. Uh a lot of it is apartments and uh duplexes. Uh but we also have a number of single family homes as well. Uh so according to the census approximately seven 70% of the residents live in apartment buildings or are renters. Uh so very reenheavy neighborhood. Um and in terms of the population uh there's approximately 4,500 people in the neighborhood as per the uh some of the most recent census data that we have. In terms of of the plan development, we started uh this plan in fall of 2024 uh and formed our committee in January of 2025. Uh so what did we do in order to uh ask people about what problems they have in the neighborhood? Uh basically distribute a bunch of surveys to people via either email or postcards or flyers. uh put up signs throughout the neighborhood uh requesting people's uh responses as to what exactly the issues are that they have in the neighborhood and what they think can be improved uh within the neighborhood. And so we reviewed the plan and had a community meeting back in May of 2025 and that was where the first uh iteration of the plan was approved by the neighborhood. So uh so what are some of the key themes and findings that we have found? Uh the most uh pressing issue that everybody has brought up would be pedestrian and traffic safety. Uh, as you may be aware, uh, Langston Boulevard, as I mentioned, goes, uh, you need to go AC across Langston Boulevard, either if you're walking or if you're driving. Uh, and along I think uh, and along the entire

uh, length of Langston Boulevard through the neighborhood, it is uh, three lanes in each direction there with an occasional turning lane as well. Uh so for example for me walking here tonight I had to there's of course signal lights but I did have to cross seven lanes of traffic uh walking. Uh in addition to that uh mo also street lighting concerns. Uh but otherwise the pedestrian traffic safety is the is by far the highest concern that we have uh in terms of our neighborhood. So uh next slide please. Uh so what that leads to our four neighborhood goals here which is of course uh safety as we're just saying you know uh pedestrian safety uh with both street lights and sidewalks uh green development which is basically preserving and enhancing green spaces canopy and storm water infrastructure. Uh in terms of green spaces, I mentioned the community center. Uh right behind the community center as well, uh butdding up against park service land. Uh there'd be the uh Fort Bennett uh park and Palisades Trail. Uh it's a small uh trail that goes through the forest along there. Uh so preserving that green space is important for the residents of the neighborhood. Uh we also want to have some friendly development. So, making sure that we have the ability to uh uh have to communicate with all of our neighborhood neighborhoods and make sure that we have a sense of identity uh given the large number of uh renters that we have. This is a can be a difficult proposition at times. Uh and finally, smart development. So, making sure that we can have neighborhood informed and environmentally responsible growth in the area.

Next slide, please. All right. Uh, so what are our priorities and primary recommendations at this point? Um, establishing our neighborhood identity and connection. So, developing our neighborhood signage. Uh, as Nudy briefly mentioned, we don't ha we this has been our first plan uh in a number of years. And so making sure that everybody knows that they're in the neighborhood and is able to uh properly bring up their concerns and everything uh can help uh improve the neighborhood uh for safety and any other issues that residents may have. Uh so our primary thing is also traffic and pedestrian safety uh especially along Langston Boulevard. Uh as you can see we have a few pictures down here uh which sort of indicate some areas of concerns that we have um down on the left there that is just at the easternmost edge uh where the Custous Trail is coming up out of Roslin. Um that was over the p several years ago the Langston Boulevard was slightly narrowed there down to two lanes from three. Uh but there still can be a dangerous intersection there. Uh in the center we of course have where Langston Boulevard meets Spout Run Parkway. Very wide intersection right here. Uh there's actually a person biking in the middle of the road in this intersection. And so there's certainly concerns of safety in that regard uh due to ped uh not just pedestrian safety but also bicyclist safety uh given that there can be high traffic speeds and dense traffic along Langston Boulevard. Uh and then there are also a few places that we recommend included into the public spaces master plan. Uh these are spaces that we identified that are in fact county-owned properties or uh parcels of land rather, but they're not actually uh part of parks at all. So,

uh, so finally, we just like to recognize all of the volunteers that made this possible, uh, with Jolie Pillsbury, Robert Middleton, uh, Ben Keaney, uh, Mary McCutchen, and all the other board members that we've had throughout the years. So, all right. And so, that's it from us. Uh we do we have also recently launched our website in order to help uh with community outreach for the neighborhood uh which you can see there uh if you are interested. So uh thank you uh if you have any questions.

Great. Thank you very much for the presentation and for all of the uh hard work that you guys did over the past year and and before that. Um, questions from the commission about the plan. Commissioner Berkkey. Yeah. How'd you get this done in six months? That is incredibly impressive. Yeah, it it took a lot. A lot of late nights, but we had we had a a strong surge of volunteer effort. And um I mean, quite frankly, it was one of those things where we were really trying to just find that sense of community and just get people motivated. M

um after CO was over, a little time passes and I'm talking to people and I'm like, "So, where do you live?" And they're like, "I live in Roslin." Like, "No, you don't. You live like right there. That's totally not Roslin." You know, and and just trying to figure out like, you know, the the idea of just building the community and one of the things that we really wanted to focus on with this administration was was developing the plan. So, very happy to be here.

I think it's great. I have a few comments. Um lovely neighborhood. used to live off of uh North Cleveland Street many years ago. Uh Dawson Terrace is a gem. Uh it's fantastic. Um the sidewalks um I I applaud the effort to make that happen. Um hopefully maybe that's a project that you all can consider or something else. Um but this is really great. I the time frame that you did this and how you pulled this together is very impressive. So uh really happy to see it. and Commissioner Berkkey did the neighborhood plan for his neighborhood and presented to this commission on it several years ago. So his uh compliments

we were still very in a virtual phase back then uh that they gave me a light touch. So yeah, no this is it's great. This is a huge lift if you've ever done one of these plans. You're doing all the study working with staff. You're you're surveying your neighbors. you're synthesizing all these diverse viewpoints and trying to figure out how to make it all stick. So, congratulations. This is a a huge accomplishment and now you get to spend those points and try to pursue some projects for the neighborhood. So, that's it's a really good good thing. Commissioner Steiner.

Yeah, I just I want to echo what Commissioner Berky said as well. And I want to add on top of that that the pedestrian safety concerns are something that we've heard about on a number of different items in in different site plans and all that that have happened around uh this neighborhood. So I I continue to see that as as one of the chief issues with North Highlands. Um and and you know going forward you'll have you'll at least have my support on trying to uh tackle some of those problems. So great.

Well I think I don't see anybody else. Oh sorry Commissioner Lantel. Welcome. Um, thank you for the work and your findings are very consistent. As Ben knows from working on Plan Langston Boulevard, there are no surprises in your findings. Um, these are consistent comments from North Highlands citizens. So, you know, I'm glad to see that this continuing. I'm also thrilled that North Highlands has come together. Um I I'm in line village and was active in that for years and North Highlands always had this sort of brigadeunlike existence. It would when there was a project they'd come up and they'd be active and everything and the project would be done and it would sort of disappear for a while. Um my hope is that the work you've done will resonate with the rest of the community and it will take and you'll be an active civic association going forward all the time. Um, so this was great. I'm I'm thrilled to see it. Um, it's a huge amount of work and thank you for everything you did and um, Julie did a great job.

Great. So, can we move to motions then? I think. Okay. Commissioner Lyn, tell me, do you have a motion for us? Yeah. I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt the attached resolution to accept the North Highlands Neighborhood Plan subject to staff comments specified in the plan. Do I have a second? Second. Commissioner Strider seconds. Introduced by Commissioner Lantel. Any discussion on this item? Do you have did you have a discussion point or a comment? No, I just I have to say I go to the Italian store all the time and I didn't know you were there. So, it's very exciting. Okay, great. Then we will go to a vote. Commissioner Lantel.

I. Commissioner Patel. I sorry. I I Okay. Uh, Commissioner Steinberger is not here. Commissioner Bagley, I. Uh, Commissioner Gvar is not here. Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Steiner, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Torres, I. And I will also say I. So that passes unanimously. Thank you very much for your time and all of your work. Pardon? Oh, and thank you to staff for the supportive role that you play uh throughout this process. So, thank you. Uh Madame Clerk, can you call our next item? Yes.

Thank you. Um the next item is our local historic district designation of Happy Nest located at 412041st Street North. We have Lauren Ferris, our um historic preservation staff to present this item this evening. And we also have Mr. H. Hardley. Mr. Hanley. Mr. Hanley from HRB.

Hi, good evening. I just need to find my presentation to share. So bear with me one second. All right. Good evening everybody. Again, thank you Jazelle for that introduction. My name is Lauren Ferris. I am the historic preservation program supervisor for the county. And tonight I will be um presenting to you the local historic district um nomination for happiness located at 412041st Street North. Um this local historic district nomination was submitted by the property owner Pierre Kosard who has been working with the staff throughout the process. Um as it is our practice we present LHD nominations to the planning commission for your consideration before it goes to the county board u for the nomination. So on the screen here is um a map showing the local historic district boundaries. As you can see, the local historic district overlay would only apply to the lot at 41204th Street North and would not apply to any neighboring properties. Um sorry, hold on a second. I'm toggling between presenting and going to my presentation not so I apologize. I'll I'll get it down. Um so for tonight I'm covering the highlights of the property's history and more detailed history of the property is included in the designation report. Um so during the early mid 19th century the property was undeveloped and was eventually owned by Gilbert Vanderwarkin. Vanderwarkin, who owned and operated the Vanderworkin Company omnibus line in Washington DC, owned over 10,000 acres in Arlington. The map on the screen shows a portion of his

land holdings. The red circle marks the approximate location of where happiness was eventually constructed. Um, no evidence was found to suggest that Vanderwarkin developed the land on which happiness was built. Upon his death death he left uh 125 acres of land to his daughter Emma Juel who upon her death left the land to her husband Thomas Juel. So around 1920 Thomas Juel and his second wife Florence constructed a house on the property. This house, which was noted to be a bungalow, was located to the south of where happiness was eventually built. The Jewels continued to live in Washington DC and used the bungalow likely as their summer home, which was common during the early 20th century. In 1922, the Jewels sold 3.4 acres and the bungalow to Lena and J Grafton Poor. The Pors lived in the bungalow that the Jewels built, which was located at 4015 North Randolph Street. The plat on the screen shows the land that was sold to the Pors. The red circle again marks the approximate location of happiness. In 1929, the poor sold 1.5 acres of property torren Mackey, but they retained the remaining property of land which included the bungalow. So in 1932, Fanny Foy and David Ballard purchased the undeveloped 1.5 acre lot from Crannle McKay. Um it was under the Ballard's ownership that happiness was built. In January 1933, Fanny Foy Ballard submitted a building permit for the construction of their home, which they called Happiness Nest. According to the permit submitted, the Ballards were requesting the construction of a two-story dwelling comprised of brick with six rooms and one bathroom. Valet Engineering was the builder. Unfortunately, we don't know who the architect was. The description of the house on the permit and the plat that

was submitted as part of this permit application matches the description of the northernmost portion of happiness which indicates this is the oldest and original part of the house. So about 13 years later after the house was built, David Ballard passed away as a result of injuries he sustained from falling off the roof of happiness nest while doing work on the exterior. Fanny never remarried and continued to live at the house and raise her son. So here I want to show you some maps. So the map on the left is from 1935 and shows happiness outlined in red. To the southwest outlined in blue on the slide is the Pors house which was the bungalow that the jewels constructed around 1920. The map on the right is the sandborn map from 1936. The map notes that it was a tile brickfaced dwelling with a one and a half stories, a roof clad um in either slate or metal and a frame attic. The frame attic is a reference to the second story of happiness which is clad in wood siding. So just to talk a little bit more about the history. So around 1960 the Ballard Mrs. Ballard added a hyphen and rear edition to Happiness Nest. The rear edition is visible on the 1962 area of the house, although I feel like we're really challenging people's view of this image on the screen. Um, but um, and it was also again noticeable in a 1962 aerial. According to the current owner of Happiness, an older couple lived in the top floor of the rear edition during the Ballard's residency. The couple was a black man and woman who had worked for Mrs. valid for several years completing housekeeping, gardening, and other tasks around the property. Unfortunately, the names of both individuals are unknown at this time. The couple resided in the uppermost room of the addition, which

was small, and only had one room and a closet. The space had no bathroom, which required the couple to use a bathroom in the basement of the original portion of Happiness Nest. It should be noted that no census data or other records suggest that other people aside from the Ballards resided at Happiness. However, it is not uncommon for written records to lack central information about domestic workers. And there was also a systematic underrepresentation of minorities in these records as well. Further research should be completed in the future to learn more about this couple and who lived and worked at Happ. And then lastly, in 1980, Fanny Ballard sold happiness to the current owner, Pierre Kosard. So now, let's talk about architecture. So, Happiness is a tutor revival home known for its adaptability and distinctive design. The styles popularity stemmed from its versatility and asymmetry um which allowed for easy additions and integration of the natural surroundings. Unlike typical tutor revival houses with timber and stucco upper stories, Happiness features stepped wood shingles, giving it a rustic character that sets it apart. Although there have been changes made to the property over the years, the house has several original features on both the exterior and the interior. And the biggest change to the house was the construction of the rear edition and hyphen around 1960. And so now you probably want to see what the house looks like. So, here are a couple photos of the property. The view right here shows the um um historic the most historic part of the house. The entire house is historic, the oldest, but then you also have that middle hyphen and the 1960 rear edition and a couple other angles of the property.

So now we get to talk about the historic significance. So historic preservation staff and the historical affairs and lame review board also known as the HRB find that happiness meets designation criteria BG and K as listed in section 11.3.4 A.4 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance. A property must meet at least two of the 11 criteria to become a local historic district. So criterion B applies because happiness, the earliest surviving home of 41st Street North, reflects the unique early 20th century development history of the chainbridge area in Arlington County. Criterion E applies because happiness is a great example of tutor revival architecture distinguished by its unique use of stepped wood shingles and a design that reflects the um rustic character and adaptability of the style. Um criterion G applies because happiness varied materials and design and distinctive details such as stepped wood shingles and dovecots create an architecturally significant dwelling that reflects the area's design history. And lastly, criterion K applies because the house has a high level of architectural integrity and has been well preserved over the last century. So when we um study a local historic district, we also develop design guidelines. So, um, design guidelines help the property owners, staff, the HRB, um, to understand how best to preserve the historic character and ensure that any changes, um, are respectful and complement the district's architectural integrity. The happiness design guidelines provides guidance on routine maintenance and takes into account possible future changes. and guidelines provide at least the design guidelines for happiness. We counted that there was at least 13 certificate of

appropriateness standards that will require review by the HALRB, but we at least also identified nine administrative certificate of appropriateness standards for staff review. And that usually helps the property owner um go through a more streamlined process when they want to make smaller changes or very general changes to their property. Now, next steps. Um, on October 15th, the HRB voted unanimously to favor uh in favor of the designation and adoption of the proposed design guidelines and directed that the nomination be submitted to the county board for consideration. So, tonight the HPP staff, we seek support of the designation by the planning commission. After tonight's meeting, the designation will next be considered by the county board at their December meeting. If the county board votes to approve the designation, Happiness will become the county's 44th local historic district. That concludes my presentation. I am here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madame Clerk. Are there any public speakers? Uh, we have no public speakers. We just have Mr. um Handley here from HRB. Okay. Uh, please um if you want, you can sit there or you can come up to the Oh, this is fine if you don't mind. Yep, sure.

Thanks. I'll make this quick because Michael's done an excellent presentation as she always does at our board. My name is Gray Handley and I'm a member of the Arlington County Historical Affairs and Landmarks Review Board, uh the Halrab as we call it. I'm very pleased to be here representing my colleagues on Halb to speak in support of designation as a local historic district of the property identified as Happy Nest at 412041st Street North. At our October meeting, board meeting uh just a couple of months ago, following thorough staff analysis and careful consideration, the Halrab unanimously voted in favor of this designation and adopted an adoption of a related proposed design guidelines. It also directed that the nomination be submitted to the planning commission and the county board for their consideration with a recommendation for approval, which is why we are here with you tonight. The HRAB considered this LHD designation at the request of the property owners who are eagerly seeking this designation. During its analysis and deliberation, Halrab found that the property met four of the 11 criteria that are required to be designated an LHD. In conclusion, we found that Happy Nest is a significant tutor revival style house which contributes to the architectural heritage of the county and of Arlingwood, the airing the area near Chainbridge in which it is located. However was pleased to receive this request and considered it exemplary that happiness nest property owners themselves had sought the LHD designation. And we would very much encourage other property owners to do the same because there are many historic properties in Arlington County that deserve and need to be declared historic districts. With this background in mind, we request that the planning

commission recommend to the county board that it designate Happy Nest as an LHD and adopt the proposed design guidelines. Thank you very much for your time. Okay. So, we will go to um the the uh commission discussion. Commissioner Lantel. I actually just have a couple question. This is great. I'm definitely voting in favor of it. It's a wonderful house and I think actually a few years ago a house like two lots up the hill was also designated a local historic district. Um so this neighborhood seems to have a lot of those type houses. I think the Hermitage might be

Yes, that was the one. Yeah, which is also a really nice house. Um first of all, does this mean that this cannot be torn down for McMansion?

Well, it would be rather challenging for that to happen. A local historic district does have uh extensive protections, but there is still a possibility that a property could be demolished even though it's a local historic district. Even though it's a very strong tool, it's not as strongest one that we have in our tool belt, but um there is a possibility that that could happen if somebody wanted to make some changes. Maybe if they maybe if somebody actually did want to go and propose to demolish a property, um there are certain processes that somebody would need to go through in order to get that one, they would need to put it up for sale for a period of time. That's all um in the ordinance. It can all be found there, the details. So, it doesn't take it away, but it makes it a bit more challenging.

Okay. The house itself, I noticed it looks like there's both casement and double hung windows. Are those original? Um, a lot of the windows um are original. Yes. Oh, cool. And does this only affect the outside of the house or does the inside have to stay as is? Um um it only affects the outside. We do not um we do not have any perview over interiors. Okay, great. Uh those are the only questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Baggley online. Thank you. So, um what a charming name um and charming history. It's it's so nice um with all the things that we hear from time to time to just stop and take a look back at some things. Um, I also live in a local historic district, so I will be supporting this and I hope other folks who see this um take the time to think about perhaps the interesting history of um their property and also follow suit to do same. So, thank you for everyone's work on this. I think this is awesome.

Thank you. Um, I just have one question. Um, our representative from HLRB mentioned that there are lots of more properties in Arlington that would be eligible for this historic status. Can you briefly just tell us what you do to um conduct outreach or encourage people to explore this program to see if it's right for them?

Well, we um we definitely have an outreach component to the historic preservation program. Our historic preservation specialist will um um respond to any presentation requests that people may have to want to understand how to become a local historic district. For example, um we just did a similar presentation in Cherryale after we ended up having the Brennan House um designated um earlier in the spring of this year. Um, so, uh, we always are very enthusiastic when we get people who are interested and we usually instead of going as proactive as maybe as we would like to be, we tend to have a lot of people who are waiting. We always have had a list of um, local historic district suggestions and from property owners or people who live in Arlington who want to see other properties designated. So, usually we are trying our best to get through that. Um, in the past we've had a bit of a backlog. Um, fortunately once we are done with this process, we will be going right into the next one and we will be at this point up to date which will be really nice. Then we'll be able to take a more proactive approach to our local historic district portfolio. Great. Thank you.

I'll just add that within the board among the board members in the past several board members tell me that before my time on the board that they did those sorts of outreaches into the neighborhoods. uh many neighborhoods are quite interested in this as a neighborhood interest as well as individual property interest and I think moving forward now that the staff has caught up a little bit for the time being hopefully we'll be able to look for other opportunities to describe to residents of Arlington all of the tools that are available to them to try and maintain their communities and their properties uh in both a historic and highly livable uh condition. uh this county is under as you all know unending pressures and one of the one of the areas that does yield to those pressures is often historic uh the historic considerations. So we're very concerned just as you are and as a board we we hope to be able to do even more.

Great. Um, if I can recommend, if you're not already doing it, I think a a field trip of a historic home tour, a little bus ride around Arlington might be a nice thing to do just so we can all learn and continue to benefit from this homes that we have preserved. So, but with the historic society in Arlington, those kinds of things happen all the time. So, get on their mailing list is all I would say. Okay. Well, thank you. Commissioner Amado, just have a quick question. It's very close to the PTOAC. Is it an RPA? Is it the um resource protected area? Is it? Um no, it's No, it's not in I don't It's like a flat zone like Are there any water management requirements for it? Not that I know of. It wouldn't trigger anything.

No, you are lucky. Okay, great. Can we move to motions? Commissioner Berky, I think you have one. Yes, I do. Um, so I uh move that the planning commission recommend that the county board adopt the attach ordinance uh attachment A designating happiness located at 412041st Street North as a local historic district as shown in attachment B and adopting the happiness historic district design guidelines at attachment D. Second. Okay. Introduced by Commissioner Berkkey. seconded by Commissioner Striner. Um would you like to speak to your motion?

I'm very happy to support this. I think this is a wonderful option for property owners who are blessed to have such properties and uh very happy to support this. Thanks. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay, then we'll move to the vote. Commissioner Lantel I. Commissioner Patel, could you say that again? I didn't hear you. volume all the way up. I think you hear me. She said I I Okay. Uh, Commissioner Baggley, I. Uh, Commissioner Berkkey, I. Commissioner Shriner, I. Commissioner Robertson, I. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Torres,

I. And I will also say I. So that also passes unanimously. Thank you very much for your uh work tonight and for your volunteering. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Uh, Madame Clerk, can you call our next agenda item, please?

Yes. Our next item is for the Genedine Park. Uh, 5A is GP-370-25-1 amendment to the GLUP. 5B, Certification of Transferable Development Rights. 5 C R E ZN25-00007 resoning and 5D ordinance of a vacation. We have Emily Garrett and Michael Cullen to present this item this evening. Great. Thank you. Um I'll introduce us while we're getting situated. Um we're here tonight to talk about Jenny Dean Park phase 2 improvements. Uh my name is Emily Garrett. I'm with the planning division and I'm joined by Tina and Maxine with the real estate bureau as well as um other staff from DPR and CPHD to help answer questions.

Oh, I think so. These are the um action items that we'll be going over today. So the first is a general land use plan amendment to change the land use designation from service industry to public for two parcels. Um a reszoning from M1 light industrial to S3A special district for three parcels. A certification of transferable development rights for the purpose of preserving open space on three county owned parcels and a vacation of a portion of 27th Street South. So just to provide some background um the four mile run valley park master plan and four mile run valley area plan were adopted on September 22nd 2018 and November 17th 2018. The park master plan study area includes Jennedine Park, Sherlington Park and Sherlington Dog Park. Genedine Park was originally established in 1949 and in 2019 the county board approved a glove amendment, MTP amendment, TDR certification, reszoning and vacation to implement phase one improvements at the park um which you can see in the aerial image on the right. So the phase 2 site area that we're talking about today includes three parcels acquired by the county since 2019. Uh this acquisition to expand the park was envisioned by the formal run valley PMP area plan and the PSNP. So the new amenities in this phase will include additional casual use space, a lighted basketball court, and conversion of the existing basketball court into a second tennis court.

So the first action item is the glove amendment to change the land use designation from service industry to public for two parcels located at 3520 and 3522 South 4 Mile Drive. The general location for open space triangle will remain at this general location to reflect a future land use vision for open space on the remaining privately owned parcel. And this is consistent with the plan. The next item is the reasonzoning from M1 light industrial district to S3A special district for three county parcels to facilitate construction of this park expansion by right uh which is consistent with the public GUP designation. And this includes the two parcels in the GUP amendment and um the former WEDA site located at 3620 27th Street South. Um the third item is the TDR certification. Um, so DPR is requesting the county board to certify up to 70 thou 73,380 square ft of GFA for the three Genine Park parcels, an associated rideway proposed to be vacated that are proposed for reszoning from M1 to S3A. So the table on the right, you can see the total site area and how we got to that development potential. And just a quick overview on the TDR policy. Um, you can find this in the appendix of the GLU booklet. It was initially adopted in 2008 and it allows unused by density of ascending site to be transferred to a receiving site um through the site plan process for a receiving site. So, it must further county goals um

including open space, historic preservation, affordable housing um and community facilities and recreation and pertaining to the Jennedine Park phase 2 proposal. Um this includes certification of the existing M1 density prior to reszoning to S3A. um as well as certifying unused density as a sending site for the purpose of open space and community recreation. And the TDR is not finalized until a future site plan for a receiving site, which is not yet identified, is approved. Good evening. My name is Tina Chapetta. I'm with the real estate bureau and um this um part of the project is a proposed ordinance of vacation to vacate a portion of 27th Street South. It um is a little difficult to describe because it runs from the prior vacated area to um the part of 27th Street South that will remain to service the parking lot and um the other commercial property that still exists. if you could.

So, the county board acquired title to the abuing parcels. So, the vacation will not result in any um property being disposed of by the county and the vacated street will become part of the proposed Jenny Dean Park or the proposed addition. So throughout this whole process, there's been extensive public engagement uh beginning with the development of the four mile Run Valley Park master plan in the area plan um which included approximately 65 total public meetings. Um, regarding phase 2, DPR staff held an online engagement process from October 7th to November 7th, 2024, um, to gather input on a draft concept plan for an expanded Jennedine Park, receiving 140 responses in total. Um staff provided a memo about the proposed glove amendment to the long-range planning committee on October 27th, 2025. And staff presented on the proposed vacation to the transportation commission on November 20th, 2025 um which they unanimously determined that the proposed vacation is consistent with the comp plan. So that leads us to our recommendations. um shared a few proposed motions with you all, but um to implement phase 2 improvements at Genedine Park, we're hoping that the planning commission will recommend that the county board adopt the resolution to amend the GU designation for two county owned parcels from service industry to public. Find that the proposed vacation of a portion of 27th Street South is in accord with the comprehensive plan. Adopt the resolution to certify 73,380 square feet of transferable development rights for the purpose of open space and

approve the application to reszone three county owned parcels to the S3A special district. Well, that's it. Okay. Thank you so much for the presentation. Uh Madame Clerk, are there any public speakers? No speakers. Okay. And do we have any commissions to speak to us tonight? Uh, no. Okay. Is there a transportation commission report? Uh, yes. This was o the only part of this before the transportation commission was the vacation and that was passed unanimously 90 with no discussion. Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Bagley, is there a PFRC report?

No, this was not involved in that.

Okay. So then we can open this up to uh discussion. Let's start with clarifying questions and then we can go to um any comments. So does anybody have clarifying questions about what we are Yes, Commissioner Torres. I feel a little silly asking this, but um I'm glad that you're adding another tennis court because there used to be four and now there's only two at the Barra, but I'm wondering if there's going to be a wall added back because that's one way that people can actually practice tennis without another partner. So, I don't know if you know that much detail or not, but it was taken away and I would like to see it back. Could could I ask a clarifying question uh in response? So when you say wall, could you be a little bit more specific?

Yeah, there used to be a separate area where you would have like a CMU wall with a line and so people used it to practice and strengthen their their their hit and you didn't have to have another player with you and it was part of the Barkro um community center area, but that was renovated and removed. So, and it's actually very hard to find that in Arlington. I vlogged.

So, what I can say is now we're still in the final design phase. So, I I don't know if we know that exactly. Um, that will be wrapping up fairly soon. Um, and we would we anticipate a a second community engagement when at that time. Um, so yeah, we I'm I'm sorry we don't have a great answer for you right now. No, it's completely fine. I just wanted to bring it up. Thank you. I see somebody has raised their hand in online. Is that a member of staff that can respond? Yeah, this is uh Jeremy Smith with DPR. I'm the landscape architect and project manager for this. I can probably answer this. I think uh you're talking about a wall at Barcraftoft. Is that correct?

There used to be one. There is one. So, um I I don't know if we're going to be adding a wall back at Barcraftoft. I do not We're not planning on adding a wall here at Jenny Dean. I don't think there was one here at Jenny Dean before and that wasn't called for in the park master plan which we are uh sticking with. Thank you Commissioner Patel. Clarifying questions. Yes. So just a well is engagement a clarifying question um Madam Chair? Sure.

Okay. So I just want to kind of understand when we talk about the the robust engagement, what specific engagement was done with the green with the Green Valley neighborhood, particularly the residents um there, not just with the civic association, but of course with the civic association, but what other intentional um outreach was done with the residents of Green Valley? Sure. I can uh probably answer this as well. Uh so for the formal Run Valley Park master plan again there was extensive engagement with uh all the with the civic association with the residents with the uh the business owners from Green Valley Sherlington and and that set forth this uh this plan to um to expand Jenny Park and and what elements would be in in the plan. Um and then as we've progressed and we went through uh phase one, we did extensive engagement with the community. Uh got that built. We've now moved on to phase two and we've done um online engagement more confirming that the uh that the plan we had from the park master plan is still uh viable and what we want to go with. We went to the Green Valley Civic Association uh presented that plan and we've heard from them that uh yes to move forward as as fast as possible in getting phase 2 done in accordance with the parkm plan. So, I just um I want to, you know, I

don't want to open up any old wounds here from the hotel Pentagon site, but I will elevate an issue in particular when we're doing things around Green Valley. I think we have to be more intentional around what that outreach looks like um beyond just going to the civic association and presenting there. So, you know, Green Valley is a very, you know, it has specific um characteristics like all of our neighborhood associations do. And I just want to make sure that when we are doing engagement or when when the county is doing engagement um around um development or amendments um that we're not just like that four mile run um PMP is old. I mean, it it it happened some time ago. And so, I don't think online engagement just in and of itself for matters that impact Green Valley um is is where we want to be. Uh I'm not saying that I wouldn't support this this uh matter or anything like that, but I just want to be I want to raise this issue for any further matters that come that are touching Green Valley because um you know, Hotel Pentagon is a is a big change and this we always want to make sure that everybody who is living in that neighborhood um has ample opportunity to engage and that means meeting them where they are. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate that feedback. Tell Commissioner Striner and then Commissioner Berkkey.

So, first I'd like to second what uh Commissioner Patel said on engagement in Green Valley. But second, I want to also double down on the wall piece. Um it's it's minor, but it's one of those one of those pieces that makes the park a little more livable, a little more friendly if you're just there on an afternoon by yourself, you have a couple hours to kill, that kind of thing. Um it doesn't change the footprint of the tennis court at all. you just put a wall up on one one of the walls of the tennis court and it provides an opportunity for individuals to play on their own. And I think that's it's minor, but it it it makes a it makes a difference for people to live in there. Um, okay. So just so I'm clear like um the vacation is basically like that street will remain there's a parking like if you're going you know from uh like if you're going onto it on the left you've got the parking lot right it's going to remain and then on the right there's like a couple commercial businesses I think like Arlington Heating and Cooling and then basically it will just terminate right and then the rest of the rest of what is exist right currently now street will become part of phase two of the park, right?

Correct. And they pulled up the slide where you can see it's the red area that we vacated. So the street to the east will remain.

Right. Um so yeah, my understanding is that this is uh this was in the plan like this was envisioned to occur now that Weta has uh vacated and the county um uh has uh control. Um, I think it will be likely welcome not to have, you know, vehicles right adjacent to the playground and for it to be integrated into more of a park um as was envisioned by the plan. Um, so thank you. I have a clarifying question that was um brought to us by the civic association um which is is it possible are we able to limit the transfer of development rights to other M1 areas of the county um that was something that they were interested in since the location of the transfer of development rights isn't specified at this point. So I can maybe start with an answer and it might be up to my colleagues in CPHD to kind of carry to its conclusion but you know we're making the requests for the transfer of development rights. We're we're requesting certification. So this isn't actually the transfer. Um we have to to request this now. Um because if we don't do it now then we kind of lose the opportunity to like acquire that tool. Um so uh you know we do have a a TED policy in place. You know, again, I don't know if CPHD wants to speak to that further, but um there are restrictions on um how those transfers can be made. It does have to be as part of a site plan um or I believe a form-based code. Um so there are, you know, limitations and I I know there was sort of one concern in in the letter that um in in terms of being able to provide input on that future action and because it's part of a special exception approval, there there will be future opportunities should that arise. Okay, Mr. Feifer, does anyone from your team can can they limit where that TDR

takes place? Uh,

I I can take that. Um, Matt Lad with the planning division. And so we the county has a TDR policy document that was adopted when the TDR tool was created uh back in 2009 or 2008. Um, and and that does it, right? It talks about what's an eligible sending site and this is obviously an eligible sending site and it also talks about what could be an eligible receiving site and per that policy is really intended to be development that's happening in the two metro corridors Roslin Boston and the and the Richmond highway corridor um and also for um for zoning districts that have a special exception site plan option. So for the specific question of you know could this density be transferred to another M1 which is industrial zoning uh it per that policy it it couldn't be because it's again really intended to be within our metro corridors and for um site plan zones.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any comments on um what the project that we're talking about right now? We asked our clarifying questions. Mich tell me. Oh, I I had I wasn't negotiating myself with your comment.

I have a follow-up question. Um, aren't there still some remnant M1 parcels in Crystal City? I think we had to get rid of one a few years ago. I mean, they're really tiny and weird, but they're they might still exist. And could that be used then in Crystal City? I I think again in in I I don't know if there are M1 remnant rem M1 parcels but assuming that there are uh you know hypothetically um again that if there was a project that was currently zoned M1 in Crystal City we would look to the Crystal City sector plan and is it intended to be zoned for some other use. Um again M M1 is a byight um zoning district and so the TDRs are really intended for um for site plans.

Yeah, this they're really tiny. The one at least the one we saw back then was a really tiny parcel. I'm not sure you could do anything with it.

Yeah, Commissioner Lynn tell me. Um I I'm aware of those those very small parcels which are actually remnants of uh previous zoning. I think specifically the Crystal Plaza 1 block are where those are located, at least some of them. Um I think in in the scenarios Matt said, um in in that scenario, if there were a site plan that was looking to uh develop those sites, they would simply reszone those sites to another zoning district that was more in concert with the plan. But could they use to get even more even after the reszoning or once it's reszoned the M1 is gone and you can't use a TDR?

Yeah. So it wouldn't as Matt said it wouldn't the mechanism wouldn't be through the M1 it would be through some other zone the reasoning site plan. So they couldn't keep that little M1 to add a whole bunch more onto the site even if they resone everything around it. No, you can't use M1 for TDR. Yeah, you can't use asking if they can. They want it to be for M1. I got it. Okay, now I understand. Thank you for correcting me. Okay, then let's go to a vote. Um, Commissioner Baggley, do you have motions um that you can do? If not, uh, Commissioner Lel has them. No, I don't. So, Commissioner Lantel, take it away.

Thank you, Commissioner Baggley. Um, okay. Um, I move to recommend that the county board adopt the attached resolution to approve general land use plan amendment GP 370-25-1 to change the land use designation from service industry to public for an area located at 3520 and 3522 South 4 Mile Run Drive RPC number 29-022-00004 and 005. Okay. Introduced by Commissioner L. Tell me seconded by Commissioner Striner, would you like to speak to your motion? No. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, let's go to a vote. Uh, Commissioner Lantel. Hi. Commissioner Patel.

Commissioner Patel, we will come back to you. Commissioner Baggley. I. Uh, Commissioner Berkkey. I. Commissioner Striner. I. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Amado, I. Commissioner Torres, I I will also say I. Uh, Commissioner Patel, would you I'm sorry. I I couldn't unmute myself. I No worries. Do you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can. Okay. So, that passes unanimously. Uh, do you have another motion for us, Commissioner?

Yes, I do. I move to find that the proposed vacation of a 5600 5676 square foot portion of 27th Street South running from the eastern boundary of the westerly part of lot 9 to the point that is 12.51 ft west of the eastern boundary of lot 23 lots 1 to 39 reubdivision of lots 1 to 17 green valley and subdivision property of WS Hoge Jr. Trustee DV720 PG242 and that's RPC number 29-00002-00006. then south 20 ft to the western boundary of the east half of park lot 30 to the point that is 21.12 ft from the western boundary of lot 19 section 1 green valley subdivision DB 131 PG 190 corrected DB575 PG 399 RPC number 29-00002-00001 is substantially in accord with the comprehensive Thank you for that motion. Commissioner Lel, do I have a second?

Second. Seconded by Commissioner Striner. Would you like to speak to your motion? No, I do not. Is there any discussion? No. Let's go to a vote. Commissioner Lantel. I. Commissioner Patel. I Okay. Commissioner Baggley I. Commissioner Berky I. Commissioner Striner. I. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Amado. I. Commissioner Torres. I. And I will also say I. That passes unanimously. Do we have another motion?

Yes, we do. I move to recommend that the county board adopt the attached resolution certifying 73,380 square ft of gross floor area as transferable development rights on county-owned property located within Jenny Dean Park, the sending site for the purpose of open space and developing community recreation facilities. Thank you for Commissioner Lantel. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Shriner. Would you like to speak to your motion? No, I do not. Discussion. No. Uh, Commissioner Lentel for your I. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Baggley. I. Commissioner Berky. I. Commissioner Striner. I. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Amado. I. Commissioner Torres.

I. And I will also say I. That passes unanimously. And we have one final vote. Yes, we do. I move to recommend that the county board approve application REZN25-00007 to reszone property located at 3620 27th Street South and 3520 and 3522 South 4 Mile Run Drive RPC number 29-00002-001 29- 022-00004 and005 from M1 Light Industrial District to S3A Special District. Thank you for your motion, Commissioner Anton. Do I have a second? Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Shriner. Would you like to speak your motion? No. Discussion. No. Okay, let's go to Commissioner Lantami for a vote. I. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Baggley. I. Commissioner Berkkey. I. Commissioner Striner. I. Commissioner Robertson. I. Commissioner Amado. I. Commissioner Torres I. And I will also say I. That also passes unanimously. Thank you very much to staff and um our commissioners and any volunteers and members of the public who have gotten engaged with this process. We really appreciate the work that you do and look forward to seeing um an expanded Geneadine Park.

And Madame Clerk, can you call our final agenda item for the night? Yes. Thank you. Our final agenda item for the evening is the green building incentive policy.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. Um, good evening, Chair Peterson and members of the commission. We appreciate the opportunity to be here again tonight to provide further details about the proposed updates to the green building incentive policy. I'm Jason Papacosma, chief of the office of sustainability and environmental management. And I'm here again tonight with Steve Burr program who manages the Arlington initiative rethink energy program as well as Paul Roman, our green building program manager. And I'm going to turn over to Paul to lead us through our brief presentation.

Great. Thank you, Jason. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, good evening, commissioners. It's great to see you all again. Uh, consistent with our November presentation of theformational item, we'll begin with the bottom line up front. Uh so during that briefing we walked through version two of the green building incentive policy draft uh including the background and historical performance of the GBIP, the public engagement process for versions one and two, the refinements informed by that engagement and the proposed new construction pathway and accompanying pilot programs. Uh since then, staff has completed the final draft proposal, the new construction pathway, included as attachment one of the board report, and released that attachment on November 19th as a courtesy to stakeholders ahead of the full report's publication. Uh this evening, we will provide the new construction pathway summary, review the baseline prerequisites and extra list items, outline the timeline and proposed effective date, and then address any questions you may have as we seek your recommendation for approval. Uh to reorient us uh this slide reiterates the highle structure of the proposed policy. Uh the updated policy maintains additional density as the primary incentive and establishes the US green building council's lead version 5 as the principal green building standard uh with the international living future institute zerocarbon certification available as an alternative option with supplemental incentives. The framework focuses on the most impactful opportunities uh while balancing ambitious outcomes with development feasibility and aligns proposed baseline prerequisites and extraist items either through LEV5 or existing county processes. And lastly, while the board outlines uh while the board report outlines proposed pilot programs for past pass feasibility assessments and for existing buildings, these elements are not part of the current proposed policy and do not represent a request for board action at this time. Uh as noted earlier, the pilots simply signal intent uh and any future implementation would depend on budget approval. Next

slide, please. This slide summarizes the proposed framework presented in attachment one of the board report. The policy streamlines the GBIP structure to three F tiers and applies lead version 5 across all tiers. At the 0.35 and 045 F tiers, applicants may alternatively pursue ILFI zerocarbon certification paired with supplemental incentives in addition to the bonus density. Uh, and regarding the passive house feasibility study pilot noted on the prior slide, uh, and contingent upon budget approval, the county would provide up to $25,000 per project to support the consulting resources needed to complete the FIA feasibility study and associated energy modeling. Next slide, please. Uh moving on to the policy's proposed baseline prerequisites. Uh in total we're proposing eight baseline prerequisites either through leveraging the lead version 5 certifications prerexs or credits. Uh we're updating and keeping as is. Uh the prerexs that are being leveraged through the lead v5 certification uh are refrigerant leakage, renewable energy and bird friendly materials. Uh and the prerequisites that we've either updated or kept as is energy star appliances, water sense fixtures, EV charging and EV ready, energy benchmarking and light pollution reduction. Uh and noted at the bottom of the table, uh we've removed two existing baseline prerequisites. Uh those being diversity, equity, and inclusion, uh and biofilia or human interaction with nature. Uh these two existing baseline prerequisites uh are now being implemented through existing and more expansive county regulations and programs. Uh first, diversity, equity, and inclusion is implemented through the board's April 2024 resolution adoption of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's uh regional principles for equitable development and biophilia is implemented through the county's biophilic design narrative uh which references and ask applicants to strive to incorporate as many feasible patterns as possible in relation to the tarap and bright greens

patterns of biophilic design uh which some of those patterns include connection with natural systems, biomorphic forms and pattern patterns and thermal and air flow variability. Next slide, please. Uh proceeding through these next two slides, we're looking at the baseline prerequisites, the integration method for the desired outcome and the integration into the 2025 policy. In the interest of time, uh I won't walk through each item. Uh but I will highlight a few that warrant additional explanation. Uh so beginning with refrigerant leakage, the lead version 5 fundamental refrigerant prerequisite aligns with the current 2020 policy requirements for this GBIP baseline prerequisite. Uh and developers pursuing lead certification will already be required to meet it. Uh but in in addition to the documentation submitted to USGBC, the county will require project teams to provide supplemental testing reports including pipe pressure, vacuum, and charge confirmation. Next slide, please. Uh, another example is the bird friendly materials baseline prerequisite. Under this proposal, project teams would be required to meet the conditions of option two under the leadv5 biodiverse habitat credit, which uh, where applicable calls for bird friendly glazing from grade up to 50 ft with a maximum threat factor of 30. Uh, for context, the current policy requires glazing from 8 to 36 ft. And I'm highlighting this considering the retail transparency discussion from the last policy adoption. uh and that in developing this updated requirement uh we coordinated with our colleagues in CPHD uh and do not anticipate any conflicts with the retail transparency guidelines. Next slide please. On the last example of the baseline prerequisites uh we've revised the current EV charging and EV ready requirement to be a county defined standard rather than relying solely on lead. Uh this slide shows a comparison table with the current GBIP policies lead v4 requirements, lead v4.1 requirements, excuse me. the new lead version five requirements and our proposed county defined baseline

prerequisite. Uh for the county defined requirement, property types are categorized as commercial and residential. And as you'll see, the proposed standards go beyond lead v5 and surpass what many peer jurisdictions are doing uh based on one of our benchmarking reviews. Uh and finally, as part of this standard, we are defining EV ready infrastructure as a minimum 20 amp circuit uh to accommodate lower capacity level two electric vehicle charging. Uh but the county encourages managed charging solutions and other EVSSE technologies uh to minimize electrical capacity and cost requirements while meeting the standard. Next slide, please. Moving on to the policy's proposed extra list items. Uh in total, we're proposing seven extra list items either through leveraging the lead version 5 certifications prerequisites or credits. Uh we're updating and keeping as is. The items that are being leveraged through the LEV5 certification are envelope commissioning, renewable energy, energy optimization, building life cycle impact reduction, no combustion in domestic hot water, and no combustion and ventilation. And the items that we've kept and edited the current language for is renewable energy plus storage. Next slide, please. Uh similar format to the baseline prerequisites. Uh provided in the table is the extra list item, the integration method for the desired outcome. uh in the 2025 policy integration. Next slide, please. Uh the same approach applies to this slide. Uh as mentioned, most items were updated to align with the lead version 5 language. Uh but two changes are particularly noteworthy here. Uh one for renewable energy, staff has added tier 3 renewable energy as an option. Uh whereas the current policy only allows for tier 2 for off-site renewables. Uh and second uh for building life cycle impact reduction projects will now be required to demonstrate a 10% reduction in global warming potential uh for a whole building life cycle assessment compared to the current 5% requirement. Next slide please.

Uh and finally uh provided is the remaining timeline and proposed effective date. Uh we do not have a confirmation yet on which December date for the board meeting. Uh but regarding the effective date, we are proposing for the policy to be effective immediately. Uh but site plans but site plan projects submitted to the county manager before March 31st, 2026 uh may continue to use the 2020 version of the GBIP and any site plan projects submitted on or after that date must use the updated policy and associated criteria uh as this timeline aligns with the prior timeline in the 2020 policy. Uh, and with that, I want to thank you again, commissioners, for your time this evening. Uh, and we look forward to answering any of your questions or comments.

Thank you very much. Uh, madame clerk, are there any public speakers? No speakers. And do we have any commissions to speak to us tonight? No.

Okay. And the transportation commission did not see this. We did receive a letter from C2E2. Um and we do not have a committee chair or do we have a committee chair report from um no. Okay. Well then we can open it up to discussion. Let's start with clarifying questions and then we can go into comments. Um do we have clarifying questions? Okay. Well I have a couple. Um, one is, um, I remember at one point in some of our discussions it being mentioned that, um, bird friendly glass was very expensive and because it didn't have a direct connection to um, specific notes in the community energy plan, we were going to lower some of our requirements for the green building incentive program for bird friendly glass while also strengthening other aspects of the program that do have a more direct correlation to the C, but here it seems like it's it's actually stronger than the current program. So, I just did I misunderstood or was there a point at which we were considering lowering the bird friendly glass standard?

So, if you remember in version one of the draft, it was originally proposed as uh 8 to 70 ft or 75 ft above grade. Um it based on version two and kind of the public engagement feedback that we received. Uh it was still our directive or uh prerogative to include bird friendly glass as the baseline prerequisite as it was included in the 2020 policy. Um but I think in terms of aligning it with the lead version five standard uh and being in coordination with our colleagues in CPHD and uh discussing the retail transparency guidelines uh and making sure that you know this prerequisite can still meet the county's guidelines. Uh that was you know our idea moving forward in the proposal um for you know both uh to keep this in uh for you know this to be an impact area uh as well as for projects to receive credit uh through the the lead certification standard.

Thank you. Um and I also um I recall from the report and your uh presentations that um one of the reasons to uh revisit this program other than to just do it periodically because that's a good idea um was because we were seeing less um interest in the program and we wanted to make sure um our applicants were taking advantage of the program so that we could see the benefits of it. Um, and so I'm wondering, do you have a hypothesis of the it's the new program takes starts being implemented on March 31st um, for future site plans. Do you think we'll get a bunch of site plans put in before the 31st because they want to be under the old program or are people going to wait until after the 31st because the new program is so much more desirable? I'm going to direct part of that question to my colleague at the end of the table in CPHD in terms of the number of projects in the pipeline. Um but I think we might be able to expect uh what we've seen last time uh during the 2020 policy. Uh again I think it depends on the number of projects and uh you know with their willingness to you know opt in. Obviously lead version 5 is a new standard uh and the sunset date for lead version 4 and 4.1 from USGBC has now been transitioned to June of next year. Uh but we as staff felt as that was too long. Um so we you know made the uh effective date in terms of alignment of the 2020 policy for March 31st. Um but again I will direct part of that question to my colleague at the end of the table. Thanks, Paul. Um, I I recall in 2020 that we did see a similar bump to what you're describing uh of applications that were submitted before that implementation date. Uh, I think it remains to be seen. I mean, you know,

there are a lot of other factors such as market conditions, whether something similar would happen this time around. Uh, but, you know, in in previous iterations of uh this policy, standards have been raised incrementally with the market and that's I think what we're seeing here. So, I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary with past practices. Okay, other questions. Commissioner Amado

um uh with the shift in the um you know from energy based to um ec ecological um emphasis is there still a way for is there an incentive to still treat the um the canopies the the landscape not as an afterthought but as part of the architectural um incentive through structural loading. you know, there's waterproofing, drainage. These are all things that need to be in integrated early on in order to get those energy points. And so, I don't know where it leaves that conversation.

Yeah. And I I can kick that off on that response. I think one thing that we're focusing on is that, you know, lead does have points in that area and and and the opportunity to look at that and have that more, right?

It it is. Yeah. it would be that um and and and so I think that that's you know rather than just focusing just on EUI or something that we've seen in other benchmark that we did want to still retain lead where it would have that more holistic view of sustainability and other bofilic items um as well. So, you know, still optional, but but it's still in there and and something that, you know, is part of the framework and and could be pursued particularly for the higher levels of um just to you know to the incentive to do it early on rather than as an as an afterthought. Yeah. No, that that's definitely a point well well taken and I think one of the concerns. Yeah.

Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Then let's move to comments. comments about the policy, responses, feedback. Okay. Um well then um we can move to motions. Here I have a motion. Okay. Thank you. Uh, I move that the planning commission recommend that the county board recommend that the county board amend the county's green building incentive policy for site plans to evaluate special exception site plan requests for bonus density under the Arlington County zoning ordinance section 15.5.9C. Thank you for your motion, Commissioner Robertson. Do I have a second? Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Striner. Would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, I think the the GBIP and the Arlington the the air program are probably the two most important sustainability initiatives that the county has. So, I recommend its adoption. Great. Thank you. Uh, any discussion? No. Then we'll go to a vote. Commissioner Lantel. I. Commissioner Patel. Oh, sorry. She had to leave. Uh, Commissioner Begley. I. Commissioner Berkkey. I. Commissioner Striner. I. Commissioner Robertson I. Commissioner Amado I. Commissioner Torres I.

And I will also say I. That passes unanimously. Are there any other motions for this item? No. Okay. Um well, thank you very much to staff for the hard work that you've been doing on this project. Thank you to any members of the public who might be listening in on their work and involvement. Um so we look forward to seeing the benefits of this project once it's uh starts being implemented um on March 31st. Um so great. Thank you. Um so I think madame clerk that takes us to the end of the meeting for tonight. Yes. And we are in recess until tomorrow. Thank you very much. Thank you.