County Board - Regular Meeting

Hi, welcome to the Arlington County Board meeting. We're so glad you've joined us. Before the meeting gets started, here are a couple of things you can expect. The Arlington County Board meets monthly with the exception of August. Meetings are typically held in two sessions. Saturday regular meeting and a Tuesday recess meeting. These meetings are where the board makes decisions, hears updates, and receives public input on community issues. Today's regular board meeting includes three parts: public comment, consent agenda, and regular agenda. Public comment is for new business. These are items that are not already on the agenda, items that have not already been heard, and items that do not already have a future scheduled hearing. Public comment begins at 9:30 a.m. Speakers are limited to two minutes with one speaker per topic. Opposing viewpoints are considered separate topics. Following public comment is the consent agenda. These are non-controversial items voted on as a group such as board minutes, grant applications, use permits, or advertising future hearings. There is no public hearing for these items. If you'd like to speak on a consent agenda item, please notify county board staff as soon as possible. They will be located outside the boardroom and are happy to assist you. Hi guys.

Some items may be removed at the request of a resident while others require board approval. Removed items are scheduled for the Tuesday's recess board meeting. Regular agenda includes staff presentations, public hearings, and a full discussion from the county board before a vote. If you are signed up to speak, please note your speaking category. Individuals may speak for two or 3 minutes, and representatives of civic organizations may speak for two, 3 minutes, or 5 minutes. Remain seated until your name is called. The clerk will call the current and next speaker. When called, come to the podium and use the button on the right to adjust the height. You can also adjust the microphone. A timer will be visible on the podium. Please stay within your allotted time so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard. For virtual speakers, keep your camera and microphone off until your name is called. When acknowledged, turn on your camera and unmute. Your timer will appear in the team's meeting and will begin once you're recognized. If you need a reasonable accommodation, please speak to county staff outside the boardroom or the clerk at the dis. If you have any questions, staff are happy to assist you. Thank you for being here and sharing your voice with the county board. Have a great meeting.

Good morning. Welcome to the uh May 16th, 2026 county board meeting. All board members are here. We have uh I'm chair Matt Dante, vice chair Morin Coffee, board member Julius JD Spain, senior board member Susan Cunningham, and board member Takus Karanus. Thank you for joining us this morning. Appreciate you being here. Before we begin, I want to make two highlights. One is uh between speakers, we ask that you stand or use the sign the sign language sign for applause in order to indicate that you agree with someone. That's the one piece of the video that I particularly want to highlight. It's important. And then I would like to take a moment, as is our custom over the last year, to highlight resources for our federal workers and immigrants. And I believe Mr. Clerk, if you could pull up that slide, that would be great. As I've said before, if you yourself need these resources, if you need someone, the key services on the um on the side, that list is also important to note, but those two links will help us. and you can also find those by doing a search on your internet browser. Thank you. Um, these links are have much more information and they're worth doing. If you want a copy of this page, go to Mr. Kushner here, our clerk, or Mr. Davis just outside to ask for more information. With that, we'll now begin with public comment. Mr. Clerk, please call the first two speakers.

Certainly. Just a moment, please. Right. Our first speaker is Audrey Clement followed by Wilson Bender. Miss Clement,

welcome members of uh I think the mic.

Welcome members of the board and the county manager. I'm Audrey Clement, independent candidate for county board. Governor Spanberger's recent approval of a bill allowing by development of church and nonprofit properties into apartments is a big boost for the yes in God's backyard or giggby movement and a major defeat for everyone else. According to Arlingtonians for upzoning transparency, this legislation quote allows faith institutions and other taxexempt nonprofits to construct multiplexes by right on their properties to create supposedly affordable housing, thus bypassing neighbors inputs that otherwise would be considered in a site plan review. End of quote. The only constraint on development is building heights limited to those permitted within 500 ft of the construction site. Thus, plans to demolish Clarendon Presbyterian Church for a new six-story 92 unit senior affordable housing project, which were thwarted by community opposition in 2025, will likely go forward. There may be greater height limits on construction in other neighborhoods, but there's no limit on density. So though these neighborhoods can expect more congestion, runoff, heat islands, overcrowded schools, and reduced tree canopy in the name of affordable housing. 2026 Arlington profile indicates that Arlington has 127,000 housing units for 120,000 households. This does not take into account 9,200 new residential units the county approved in 2025 alone for what amounts to a glut of future housing. Yet less than 5% of the new units will be lowincome affordable and thus the demand for Yiggby housing, 60% of which must be affordable to those under 80% of AMI. The upshot will be more affordable

housing and a lower quality of life for everyone near the 300 taxexempt sites across Arlington that choose to cash in. Thank you, Miss Clement. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Wilson Bender, followed by Sam H. Mr. Bender. Hey, what's up?

So, I wanted to come actually, you know what? I'm going to heed the advice of Mayor DeFranty from uh last month and start with a positive antidote because four years ago, actually before I ever spoke to county board about bike safety, it was actually before I started riding my kid from Penrose to Westover on a bike for three years. Um I actually picked up an old bike that I had stored and I was going down the hill with Rosland past Sushi Rock and somebody was parked in the bike lane that was only painted and I crashed right into them. That was my That was actually my very first bike ride in Arlington since I had gotten a bike. People at Sushi Rock yelled at him. I was more embarrassed than anything. Um that's actually a dangerous little curb cuz somebody did end up dying on a scooter. Same uh that that same curb. Now it is actually a protected bike lane with concrete separating it. So, you know, very good on the bike lanes. Also, you're about to widen the Custous Trail. When you guys think about that, I think you guys should have vision of envisioning what it's going to be like transportation in the future. Like the people who said demanded we shouldn't have a street car didn't envision that most people will be riding around on ebikes in the future and having a 30 mph road with sidewalks with random sidewalk poles in it isn't conducive to how people are getting around. My suggestion, very much like the segment A, the federal project of the Columbia Pike W uh realignment where they have a separate bike lane and a separate place for pedestrians. If you need any room, you can take room from, you know, the cars or the travel lanes or the street parking because I I don't care about street parking at all. I know y'all's job is mostly listening to people complain about street parking. I unequivocally do not care. So, um that's it. I'll yield my time. Oh, yeah. Also uh me and our little group too, we also want to state that we stand with Arlington for Palestine. Like thank you, Mr. Bender.

Our next speaker is Samir H, followed by Brendan Dresnner. Thank you for your support. Mr. Smear,

Samur, go ahead for the record. For over a year, Arlington for Palestine has been pushing the Arlington County Board to adopt an ethics policy that benefits all Arlingtonians rather than businesses and entities with no real interest besides increasing their profits at the cost of literally anything else. Arlington for Palestine is made up of individuals such as the audience here today. We are not representatives of massive multi-billion dollar companies. We are not hellbent on turning Arlington into another soulless corporate hellscape. We are residents of this community, members in your mutual aid networks, young Arlingtonians, old Arlingtonians, and everyone in between. My message is to the people of Arlington. This county board cannot be trusted. Trust is important in civics, and ethics is a bedrock foundation of trust. You know what else? Ethics is foundational to human rights. Remember that in 2024, this board voted to dismantle the Human Rights Commission. People of Arlington, do you think a board that voted to dismantle our human rights commission is capable of trust? Do we trust the board to act ethically in its business dealings with major companies in Arlington such as Loheed Martin and Elbid Systems? Companies that are guilty of crimes against humanity. These are our representatives. wishywashy unethical individuals behold them not to the community but to their donors. What is one way we can hold the board accountable through an ethics policy? What Arlington for Palestine, your fellow community members have been demanding for over a year now. I call upon the people of Arlington to work alongside Arlington for Palestine to pressure this board to adopt an adequate and timely ethics policy. And for more information, please check out arlingtonapartiddivevest.com.

Thank you, Smer. Next speaker. Yes, our next speaker is Brendan Dresnner, followed by Mr. Brandon Hamel. Em,

is this thing on? All right. Mhm.

Hello. And uh thank you for giving me a chance to speak to you again. Uh, this is my second time here. Well, a different building. But last time you said you'd take a few minutes to answer public comments, but you board members did not uh answer my question. In fact, you ignored all of us that asked you to cut ties with the genociders. The Virginia Israel Advisory Board, it's our tax money funding a genocide. This is a valid grievance and I expect each of you to address it today. Now, I don't want to be unfair. You know, maybe you thought my question was rhetorical or that none of us really expected a response. Uh, so I'll restate my question in another way. Let's say that your neighbor has been borrowing your lawn mower for years. Let's say you get along really well with your neighbor and that you get together every now and then to play cards or whatever. Uh, now let's say one day you discover your neighbor has been a serial killer this whole time. You notice the smell, you found the bodies, the whole nine yards. Incontrovertible evidence. Not only that, but your lawn mower was the murder weapon. Would you still give your neighbor the lawn mower the next time they ask for it? Now, this little metaphor doesn't even come close to describing the true level of violence and depravity. This story finally made it to the New York Times the other day. Maybe you saw it. Israeli prison guards raped a man to death. It was caught on security camera. They were initially charged, but last March the charges were dropped. I wish I was making this up. I wish this wasn't real, but it is. The evidence is there, and it is undeniable. Using rape to torture the minds and bodies of Palestinians, it's our tax money propping this up. So, I I know I'm out of getting close, but I'll repeat my question to the to the board. Would you, knowing what you know, having seen the evidence, continue your happy relationship with this neighbor? And a follow-up question, uh, what about this doesn't apply to ending ties with VAB? I understand that VAB is a state

funded board and Arlington does not have the power to defund VAB. However, uh, can't you at least cut ties with them? Like, can't you at least stop listening to them? Is that Thank you, Mr. Bender. I mean, excuse me, Mr. Dresnner. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker, yes, is Mr. Brendan Heml, followed by Dixie Duncan.

Mr. Heml. I am Brandon Heml, president of the Glen Carlin Civic Association. Glen Carlin supports the mission of expanding behavioral health care in Arlington. We recognize the value of this unmet need in the community. At the same time, supporting the mission does not mean approval of the current VHC Health Hospital site plan without meaningful changes. Throughout the years, we've raised serious and repeated concerns about safety on South Carlin Springs Road, one of the most dangerous roads in Arlington. We have misgivings on the impact of this site plan on natural resources, storm water management, as well as light and noise pollution. We are concerned about the northward orientation of the building and the added access point at Fifth Road that was not in the originally submitted site plan. I urge VHC Health and Arlington County to revise this plan. of revised plan should reduce unnecessary and impervious surfaces, improve pedestrian safety, preserve natural buffers, minimize light and noise impacts, avoid creating new access points into residential neighborhood. This community can support the need for care while still expecting a safer, greener, and more neighborhood friendly design. From yesterday's All Now article relating to the Civic Federation's candidate forum, when asked about the site plan, Matthew Ferente, you said, "The facts that concern your neighbors have not been addressed yet." is enough to drive you crazy. Urging local residents to ask inconvenient and tough questions. I'm asking the board why you're leaving it up to us residents and not you leaders to ask these tough questions. So the takeaway from Glen Carlin is clear. Advance the healthcare goal but change the site plan. The wellness hospital may be good for Arlington's plans, but it must fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods, schools, and parkland. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Heml. Next speaker. Our next speaker is pardon me uh Dixie Duncan followed by Suzanne Smith Sunberg. Mr. Good morning board and thank you for your service. I need a second Miss Duncan. Oh, I'm sorry. Just the topics here. I think you've talked with our clerk, but just let's they are separate and distinct. Got it. Thank you. Go ahead.

Okay. Good morning, board. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your time. I know it's a difficult job and difficult times. I'm here to go back over the most dangerous road in Arlington. And some of you may look at the statistics and think it's not the most dangerous road. However, the uniqueness of the road does classify it as the most dangerous. Having three schools within 610 of a mile and 2,000 students that commute daily, that right there makes it the most dangerous road. If you go to any other school in Arlington County, which I did, I rode by all of them. There are not three schools. So, this road needs dire attention right now. I'm coming to you today to figure out one solution. I gave you seven, but one solution that I'd like to lead and find out how to change the name of the field, which is a very easy solution that will take the soccer and any other athletics off of Carlin Springs Road and put that traffic on Fifth Road. It's a very easy change. I talked to the school board on Thursday night and I would just like to know how to proceed to get this one implementation done. And I would also like for you to consider putting in speed bumps, which I know I've heard that's, but for now, it's a cheap, easy solution until we can do other things. So, please give your attention to this road. And I didn't mention the public safety for us who live in Glen Carlin. Our roads dead end into the park.

So, you can't get to us in case of an emergency. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. So since our roads dead end into the park, if the police or the fire department try to get to us, it's going to be a public safety issue based on traffic. The next time I address you, I will bring some pictures, but I don't have time. I'm too busy, but I'll bring you pictures and show you if you don't understand what that means. I've also talked to the fire chief and the police chief about an emergency situation for us. Thank you, Miss Duncan. Next speaker I believe virtually.

Uh yes, Miss Suzanne Smith Sunberg. Although she had indicated that she may not be able to attend this morning, I do not see her but to call just the same. Suzanne Smith Sunberg going once, going twice. We'll move on then to uh Mr. J. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton, do I have your slides? Give me just a moment.

Good morning. Um, I'm representing actually I was volunteered for neighbors for neighborhoods a couple months ago and we just produced the part two of a report I introduced in the town hall. Um, and I first slide everyone get out their phones and and you know hit the QR code and um it's a comprehensive report. Part one is all about affordability um and the before and afters which we now can see with EHO. We have actually buildings that have gone on the market. we can see the prices that they were, you know, bought for, the prices they were sold. And, you know, one of the issues in part one was all about the affordability issue with the EHO. Part two, we go into a little more depth about some of your goals, particularly Metro Access, uh, sort of the concentration of the permits that been approved. Um, and then the, uh, size of the lots. And we have a sideby-side comparison on uh 7th Street South where the developer originally wanted to put up two uh sixplexes pivoted into two single family homes. You can see the lot sizes are much bigger for the EHO properties. Um I understand that some of the board members went on a tour with the Yimi group. Um we want to invite you all to come on a tour to actually meet the neighbors, not the residents. I think there are a number of students on 14th Street North. I'm not even sure they're residents or even paying their rent, their students. So, we have actually neighbors that uh want to discuss this on the ground and also give you a tour so you can see how EHO is fitting into the neighborhoods. So, that's that's sort of one ask. And the second ask is we'd love to go into a deeper dive and have meetings. I think they're two on two meetings which means there's a fifth person that may get their own meeting. Um so, we want to do personal briefings on our report and uh we've emailed it to all of you this morning and really appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Is that the last speaker, Mr. Clerk? Are there others? I believe so. One moment, please. That is our last speaker for the morning.

Thank you. As is our practice, I'll provide brief responsive remarks and colleagues at the end will have a chance to um to share those uh remarks, your thoughts on each of the speakers. First, Miss Clement, um, thank you for coming in, sharing your thoughts. Uh, I just two thoughts. The details of the, uh, legislation I think are very important because there were some changes in the latter part of, uh, adoption of that legislation that, frankly, I am still working to, uh, fully consider and the implications uh, I want to think through. I think that may be true for colleagues. Second, I think it's important to note that in every affordable housing project that I'm aware of in Arlington in the last few years, you also have to finance that project. And so, I'd suggest I understand why this may concern some. Uh I definitely feel that those earning between 50 and 80% of area median income uh are neighbors that we we have more units there than lower incomes. But I do think uh that is a a a piece of the market that our investments are also important. So we would need to invest in any case uh for any project to move forward. I I both think it's important to look towards the future and think about what will happen and I also hope that we all can approach such projects with a sense of um curiosity in addition to uh if we have any worry about future pieces broadly. Um, faith in housing is a piece if the details are right, I think there are uh, significant benefits at least from my perspective. Mr. Bender, thank you for um, first I am decidedly not the mayor of Arlington. Uh, it's uh, there's a chair role that we rotate and uh, but I am in that role right now. So, thank you for starting

with a positive. Um, and um, thank you for your advice in the second part of your comments. I think Mr. Bender is still here or did he Oh, okay. Then I'll keep my comments just succinct and say

there's a lot of detail that's in this um work that we're thinking about as far as the Custous Trail that we need to work through. Uh Summer, um thank you for coming and sharing uh your uh views and your concerns. heart strongly felt and I will just say that both with respect to AED and also with respect to the board our ethics policies and approach are still under review and we are thinking that through with respect to uh we have to work through that process uh I cannot say where that process would end but any ethics policy would need to be consistent with all applicable laws the same I believe applies to Mr. Dresdner, your comments. Um although on the separate topic of the Virginia Israeli Advisory Board, I appreciate you coming in and sharing uh the concerns and the world is certainly um in many respects the example that I had not been aware of the example that you cited. Um there uh the world is certainly uh broken in many respects. that doesn't abdicate responsibility, but it's also, I believe, the case that um we both have to absorb the responsibility we have and we cannot fix all problems for certain. Um so doing those two things together is our ongoing charge and responsibility. Mr. Heml, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I actually wanted the chance to clarify my remarks. Um, with due respect to uh the the Arl now article that I think you're citing from, I actually had a lot of other context to what I was saying uh in the sense that I do believe that I understand why it uh the to the specific individual who asked the questions. Um I understand why the process can drive you crazy, but the process is still ahead of us. And so I do believe that we'll address some of the many of the concerns, not promising

that we'll address all of the concerns with respect to the VHC site, but actually I believe the person who asked the question is just behind you. And I think she might say that I had more than just um u you know a statement that we I do think we've been being diligent and colleagues will speak to this. I'm not the primary liaison in this respect, but I do think even though you might be frustrated the process hasn't worked to this point, let's not prejudge the rest of the process to try and work on and and listen to all of your concerns. Um, Miss Duncan, thank you for coming in with respect to the road. You emailed me and um it took me 48 hours instead of 24 to get back to you. Um, I think you mentioned a lot of stakeholders that are worth checking in on this. I also think there's sort of a planning team perhaps I don't know whether it's department of uh environmental services or community planning housing and development that we need to touch base with and that was sort of what I was alluding to in my email to you yesterday. Um so we have work to do uh give us a little time and you know if we can do this and if it uh can lead to different traffic I'm interested. Uh there's detail there that I would rather not fully overpromise in that regard. Mr. Hamilton, thank you for coming in. Thank you for your comments um and for the report. I would say that um I think it's um it's very important to share your truths as well as the truths of the res the the Yimi residents because I believe whether I've been in the county 30 years or two, my vote should count the same. that is um very important to me. Um so um you know I think that um we need to listen and engage with everyone. Um I am um

open to taking a tour. I I I think you know by now like the likely like likelihood that I will just change my views not there but it is part of who I strive to be to listen to everyone in our community and ask for grace even when we may disagree. So, uh, open to tour. Um, and, uh, I think I'll look at the email that you shared. That's my comments for this morning. Colleagues, did you have comments that you wanted to add? You are not required to. I suspect that if one speaks, maybe all of us will speak, which is okay. But I also want everyone to have a chance to share their truths as always. Vice Chair Coffee.

Uh, I think for time sensitivity, I will just flag there has been a request to pull an item. Um, and we need a decision on that by 10:00 a.m. Okay. And it is 9:57.

Got it. Okay. All right. Um, so, uh, let's pause on further responses and I, um, I I don't know how best to look through this. I will certainly, um, Mr. Clerk, if you can give me just a moment. Um, let me just pull Uh all right colleagues uh we had a request on the on item 31 which is uh the CMRI and let me see if I understand the request colleagues I'll just share this sort of real time. Um the request is to pull this from consent to doing to next Tuesday and um that is in the area that is uh board member uh consent um for pulling and u Mr. Clerk is there typically a deadline for asking to pull items

by 10:00 a.m. By 10:00. Okay. I did not know that. That's a new piece. Um and so we have a request from a board member to pull. So without have a request from a board member. We do. We do. If you look um there is I believe Miss Cunningham, you would like to pull and it would be pulled till Tuesday. And um I don't know if this would be um so we had the request. It will be till Tuesday. We will hear it on Tuesday. I believe in according to our newest procedures, it would be 6:30 that we would start. No, it would be after the it will follow any regularly scheduled agenda items and then we will hear pulled consent agenda items in the order they appear on the agenda.

Great. We will pull it and thank you. That's uh on the fly. That item is pulled until until Tuesday after our initial uh items. So now, Mr. Chair, yes, you have some comments. Yes. Yes. Uh

no, there the lights. Well, first I want to understand uh uh I know the board members have uh authority to pull certain things, but typically in my 16 months of being here, we this is a a new one and I would like to understand, you know, with 3 minutes left, why are we pulling this when we've already had robust discussion about consent agenda items? I feel this is uh not in keeping with tradition of what we how we've done business. So, I need to really understand how the sausage is made in this one because it feels uh kind of caught off guard. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Spain. Uh, I had not clearly I just admitted I had not known that the polling uh deadline was uh 10:00 a.m. I am not one who and and I'll leave to uh colleagues everyone every each board member has the authority to to pull an individual item. I am not one who believes that endless process we always must comply with the law and provide fair process. I am not one who believes that uh I think there are instances where you process can be your means for opposing the substance that underlies things but in this case we have had the request beforehand I understand the concern uh those are my my take on that item other colleagues who would like to speak further to the polling issue Cunningham. Yeah, I'm happy to speak to it. I I think um first of all, just to clarify, the request to advertise um is is a very preliminary step. So the the bulk of the conversation happens sorry I mean the the initi the uh initiation resolution sorry is a even earlier step that has been newly required uh of this board. It is absolutely reasonable that we would do that without any process. Um, but the chair and I had had a conversation early on given the given the topics here um that if there were any community members that asked for it to be pulled that I would be supportive of doing so. I did not expect that would happen and I didn't expect it would happen with 3 minutes remaining but just staying true to that discussion. Um, you know, the reason we have the initiating resolutions right now is because there have been times where community members felt they did not have enough warning. Um, I don't I think we're working through that uh that situation. I think Tuesday night we can spend a few extra minutes to hear any comments uh that we have on this one. The bulk of the conversation will happen at the public

hearing after the request to advertise. Um, so but I understand the the frustration particularly given the timing because we I only had that conversation with the chair and we thought it wasn't going to be relevant on this particular one. So I hope that's helpful. Thank you. Do you want me to give my comments as well? U let's let's resolve this issue and then go to our comments. Vice Chair Coffee, did you uh Mr. Kronis, go ahead.

I have nothing to add to that. This is initiating resolution, so there is nothing to advertise yet. So this is just saying to staff please look at this and come up with things that then merit and and initiate a public consultation process. What I wanted to say is that if somebody asks and that's for all the public if somebody asks to pull an item u it would be very uh welcome if uh we have some uh you know advanced notice a little bit more advanced than a few minutes and uh and some justification for what the particular issue is that any individual has a a a problem with. uh especially if we are so so early in the process and there's actually no no there there yet. So nothing else on this. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Caronis. Vice Chair Coffee.

Yeah I I think that um I would just clarify that the the timing of these initiating resolutions is such that it comes prior to the initiation of any work on the topic. And so the idea that there will be more to share with the community beyond what is written in the board report I think is incorrect. And um you know I I I also would debate a little bit that this is because there has not been sufficient notice to the community before. And I think that my understanding of why we do this is it is in response to uh the ruling from Judge Shell, not because um of a choice that we have made. And so um I just I don't I don't know what is going to possibly be shared on Tuesday. That is going to elucidate the issue beyond what is in the board report. And I also think that uh it's a pretty rough and short notice to our staff who will now have to um have some sort of presentation for us on Tuesday that they were not planning to give. So um I just those are my comments, but I understand the rules and we'll do it anyways.

Sure. So, let me just I know you'd have thoughts in addition, Miss Cunningham. I I I do recall that we may have talked about this. The detail with which my memory is there is not strong, colleagues, and so I'll just say um for me, you know, uh I understand all the concerns. Uh I'll leave it to our public to to see whether there is a desire for extended discussion on one on something that is really just peruncter. But I uh accept the rule and I accept the authority of of course of of you, Miss Cunningham. I will say that uh it's an open question for me whether uh 10:00 is the right time for us to have that deadline. Um I I would say I'd love to know before we walk in for the meeting. So those are prospective steps taking everyone's concerns about the surprise that's there. Uh those are prospective steps and I'll leave it to Mr. uh Miss Cunningham.

Did you have something to ask? Did you want to jump in on this topic or No. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. I was I was confused. Um I I just want to clarify with the manager. I I think um Miss Coffey's point is well taken. There is not more information to share. So I would not expect a full staff presentation at all. I think we can put the board report up. It really is just if there are one, two, three. If there are community members who want to be heard by this board in a public forum, so so be it. But Sure. So just the question miss coffee vice chair coffee asked is there a public hearing element and I don't know it's official public hearing but posted items there would be testimony allowed correct yes that's the process right and then I I

so that's my intention I I really would not expect any additional work from staff because it actually would violate the principles of the initiating resolution like we've put a couple words on the page of things we want to have like we can hear from the community now and again at RTA of you know what concerns or interest they may have. And that's it.

Thank you. Okay. The item is pulled. We'll mention it on on two. We'll mention handling it. And uh I I I hope that additional context might lead to judicious um it is not our purview, but to judicious use of the public comment on this particular item. And I'll submit that with the hope for grace to Mr. Handler and others who might wish to speak. Any others who might wish to speak, we'll move on. And uh that item will be pulled. I'll mention item make sure that I don't forget to mention item 31 in addition to the other item that is pulled when we get to that point of it. Now I'll turn to I think it's I think it can be to anyone, but I think it's back to you all to respond to public comment and uh I think I'm not clear a little bit. Uh you you are in on the on the polling of the item. I see

Mr. I see uh Mr. Spain and then we'll go to Miss Cunningham. Go ahead.

So we're back to public comment, right? Okay. Go response. I'll make it brief. Um so there's three areas. Good morning everyone. There's three areas within the uh what I heard today that I just want to uh talk about. First uh you know there's been a lot of conversation and I'm not naive. I understand about faith in housing and uh just let the record reflect. I think most folks know that I was supportive in many ways as as well as a lot of folks across the Commonwealth. You know um in this is it perfect? Perhaps not. But look, the Commonwealth has made a a very clear uh decision uh when I say the Commonwealth, I'm talking about the General Assembly, state law, that we're moving towards uh more intentional housing production and affordability uh in the Commonwealth. And with that, I am uh I'm happy. But I I just, you know, for for us at this moment, I think anyone who's asking or or demanding uh about a particular bill, we're still working through a few things here uh over the next several months before this bill becomes law, I believe, to really socialize and let the community knows how these particular bills, not just vaping housing, how it affects us. Secondly, um, with our ethics policy, I think also folks know that I am also supportive of, you know, us reimagining and looking at our ethics policy here in Arlington, uh, within the confines of state and federal law. Um, with that being said, our chair has is has stated openly that we are still working through a few things. So, I'm going to leave it at that. I just just want folks to know that you're being heard. Um, and all things are on the table uh, in that regard. And to Miss Dixie Duncan, thank you very much. We've known each other for many years. Uh, and to the president of Glen Carlin, thank you for coming by. We are definitely looking at uh, that that area uh, and understanding with the soccer fields and

what's going on with the center and uh, the density and traffic. There's a lot moving there and we need to make sure and I think the concern you're addressing to the full board is that uh we you know I used to say this in the Marine Corps right you prepare for war in a time of peace so that we can make sure that uh whatever happens in the area that we are protecting life uh protecting neighbors because uh what you're seeing that's your neighborhood that's our neighborhood uh we need to get out in front of it and so thank you for continue to to be forwardleaning um With that being said, I think Mr. Oh, there was one question. Someone came up. I pardon the name. There was kind of reference of someone made uh went to a missing middle tour. The board was invited. I Yeah, thank you. I went, it was me. Uh I went on that tour and uh I was asked to go and then Mr. Josh Handler, thank you for being here. You and I had a call earlier this week and you asked me if I would go on a tour with you and what did I state? Yes. So, let me know. I'll go tour with anybody here in Arlington. So, thank you for coming out this morning. Thank you everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. We'll go next to Miss Cunningham because I see your light on. Go ahead.

Um, yes. Very briefly on on VHC. Um, I just want to reiterate that we are at the very beginning of the process for the for the actual design, not the not the beginning of the process. There's been many years of trying to get here um for the wellness hospital. And um I think that there is um much commonality in concerns that staff, individual board members and community members have raised. So I do believe many of those will get ironed out. Probably not every single one to your individual expectation, but I I do trust the process and I hear very common themes across. So um stay tuned there. And then just on the faith and housing um item, I do want to lift up, you know, again leading with the positive uh the conversation in Richmond, really focused on uh the the wonderful projects that have taken place either in Arlington or by Arlington nonprofits. Um which I think we should really take as a victory lap to some level of you know we have been getting this right largely. It is very very hard. Um any affordable housing project is like a bundle of magic that may or may not ever come together. It is very tenuous. Um and we have for a long time been working to help faith partners as well as other partners make uh their properties into what makes sense for the fabric of our community and is financable and can therefore uh be productive in the future. So in Arlington, we will continue to do that. Uh the institutional partnerships effort was already part of our housing Arlington efforts. Um I think a number of people people in the community have been asking for the inventory. I think this has accelerated the the production of that inventory. Um and I think as we get into the the summer, there'll be a lot more conversations as Housing Arlington team kind of comes back into the public focus

and and hears from folks about things. Um, I personally, you know, I think as a board our position was, please don't take away local control in general because it's a bad idea for Richmond to try to manage each of the localities. It was clear Richmond was going to go forward on something here. And so, um, in my personal capacity, my efforts, uh, were to make sure that it was, um, less problematic for Arlington. And I I was uh thrilled that the the governor did make an amendment to the bill to make sure that that consideration of height was the by right height, not the negotiated height. Now, that doesn't matter to almost any other locality in the count in the in the Commonwealth. Uh but for us, that has been our secret sauce. And so, um I I am I think we're in a better position than we could have been. I think it won't change a whole ton here because each of our projects are still going to be hard and going to take the whole community to get them right in order to be financable.

Thank you, Miss Cunningham. Uh Mr. Karen Tonus.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um following on Miss Cunningham uh and on the discussion on uh on the uh yes in God's backyard bills uh and all housing bills that are formed the part of the uh affordability agenda of the governor an agenda that I fully support and will continue to fight for. It shouldn't it shouldn't be the product of magic or some source some sort of conjunction of secret sources to produce housing. Housing is a basic deliverable in any civilized society and therefore we should make it as easy as possible. If we cannot achieve that uh somebody who is above us legis a legislature that's above us will eventually hear the voters and actually do the the thing that uh we have neglected doing for many many years uh in Arlington. If there is one tragic event for housing in Arlington the last 25 years was the massive loss of market rate housing. No magic there. No market rate affordable housing. 80% of that stock was la lost and there was nobody here from neighbors for neighborhoods etc to actually point that out and say hey wait a minute something very serious is happening here. They weren't here in 2005 to not here in 2015 when the affordable housing master plan was approved. We were very well aware as a as a community as a society uh of the consequences of not producing housing for all our linkonians all the different layers of Arlingtonians. Um and so we ended up needing to do the magical standings and the financial lasagna deals to be able to produce the the most basic thing. And if that inconveniences a lot of people, imagine the inconvenience for for a working family right now who has almost zero

possibilities to find housing in this community. So um uh that was my my uh uh addition to that. Uh Mr. Chair, I just want to to point out on something that wasn't talked again. I'm absolutely uh appalled by the Supreme Court decision to gut the the the the Voting Rights Act. Uh I cannot everything that we discussed today has to do uh including uh the changing the US foreign policy has to do with our ability to win elections to be able to vote in a fair system and that has been undermined severely this past week for both uh Supreme Courts, the US Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court. With all due respect to these institutions, they are so wrong. I cannot really be silent on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonus. Vice Chair Coffee.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Hmel, thank you for being here. I I know we've had a number of conversations about the VHC site. Um, and you know, I just I would highlight that as as much time has passed, we have somehow just barely begun this process. And I I recognize that from the submission to where we are now, no none of the issues have been addressed, um even though staff and and board members may see them and agree with them, um the SPRC has just kicked off and that is really where we should expect those changes to start to be made. If we are going through the site plan review process and we're not seeing changes, that's where we're going to want you to come back um and make sure that you are escalating that to us because uh the last thing any of us wants with a project that is this consequential um is for it to make it too far through the process off the rails uh and then it gets to us and and we have to find a way to clean up the mess. And so, um, appreciate you with the forewarning and just stay in touch, which I know that you will. Uh, Miss Duncan as well. I know we had a nice convo at Open Door Monday and, um, appreciate the advocacy and and in particular coming with, uh, not one, not two, but seven suggestions for how we can work on this. And, um, I think, you know, it's it's all certainly under advisement and, um, some intriguing ideas that we'll have to we'll have to figure it out. But I think m me and Mr. Defronte are hoping to meet with some of the neighborhood members again. Um we're happy the sidewalk project is in motion. Uh it's not enough and it's not the end- all beall and there's also a transportation um corridor study that will happen. Um, and so there's a there's somewhat also a balance of how much investment to make

before a major study that could have pretty serious both cost and changes. Um, because if we invest in a bunch of minor changes beforehand and then we decide actually there's a lot that has to happen here, um, it may not be the most effective. So, thank you for that. Um, Mr. vendor left, but um I would just highlight in terms of thinking about transportation of the future and I think especially ebikes, the sections of the W and OD trail in Falls Church where we've separated pedestrians from the bikes um fares the best and the safest of all of our bike infrastructure because especially as the ebikes are coming online, um you don't have the the dodging issues the way that you do um the W and OD in Arlington I would say is very narrow um and the custous as well is narrow and very hilly and curvy. And so um I just highlight that for my colleagues that as we think about transportation of the future, ebikes and our bike infrastructure, the more separation we can provide, I think the safer um it will be as an experience. Um I think Mr. Hamilton on uh your comments, I noticed that you said the neighbors and then the residents as though they're two separate groups. And I I find that particularly odd um given that if the residents have moved into the neighborhood, I believe they are neighbors. Um and to consider them so separately. Um I would encourage you to uh try and move away from that because these folks are part of our neighborhoods. They are part of our community and they deserve equal respect. Um, I think we can all have different conversations around the planning and the land use, but at the end of the day, the people who live in all of these places, whether they're living in the brand new McMansions or a

townhouse or a duplex or a unit in a sixplex, um, they're still people and they are still part of our community and whether they have kids, whether they rent, whether they own, they deserve respect. Um, and I really encourage you to to think about that in your future remarks. Um, and then finally on ethics, AED and VIAB, I align myself with Mr. Dantranti, uh, Mr. Spain and Mr. Caronis. I think we are working things through. Um, we are working to comply with all of the relevant laws and we can't say much more at this time. So, thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Coffee. um appreciate all of colleagues comments. I will merely say you know when people don't like what you're talking about they say you're being quote political. One of the best speeches I heard Governor Spanberger say was that and as having taken voting rights in law school over 20 years ago, the voting rights decision of the United States Supreme Court is a threat to our country and it is a deep threat. And so if folks want to find that political, I can dance with that. I can leave lead with that. Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonus, for for highlighting that amongst others and all colleagues for your comments. Uh I think they reveal that we're trying to wrestle with the the hard questions. You may stay, but we are done with responses to public comment. So you don't have to if you don't wish to. Um now we will turn to the consent agenda. There are two items that have been pulled in the consent agenda. Item number five and item number 31. as far as I can remember. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?

That is correct as displayed on screen. Great. So, got it. So, uh I will move approval of the consent agenda. Is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Karen Tonus. All those in favor of the consent agenda without those two items, please say I. I.

Any opposed? That item passes 5 to zero. Now, for everyone in the room, um I will just say that those here, if you're here on uh the Waverly Ridge item, I do not anticipate us getting to that for 40 or 50 minutes. Um certainly not before 11:00 a.m. would be my guess. If you want to get coffee or whatever needs to be done, you need to do, go for it. I'll try to work expeditiously through some comments on the consent agenda. We will hold a public hearing on anything pulled from the agenda consent agenda during the evening segment of our recess board meeting on Tuesday, May 19th. The public hearing hearing will begin no earlier than 6:30 p.m. If you want to speak on one or more of the items pulled from today's consent agenda, you can register on the county board's website or call our office 70322831:30 on Monday. The board just voted to approve the consent agenda. It includes minor site plan amendments, use permit requests, ordinance amendments, request to advertise, and more. These items were put on the consent agenda because they were considered non-controversial, but that does not mean they are not important. So, I will take a few minutes to highlight several items very briefly. I'm turning over the sand timer. 3 minutes is what I'm going to try and give myself. Number one, 1901 Morris Street temporary hotel use. And this will be a little difficult to make the three minutes because I have some comments that I think are important on this item. The board is approving a site plan amendment at 1901 North Moore. that street, allowing up to 125 units to be used temporarily as hotel rooms for no more than 24 months during lease up. When complete, this project will deliver 422 new housing units on the site of the former RCA building. The board supports this request to temporarily use 30% of these units as hotel rooms. In reality, and based upon past experience with this type of project, it is unlikely that all 125 units would be restricted to hotel use for the entirety of the 2-year period the lease up. Through this approval, the board is setting a clear direction for future cases. We will look most favorable favorably on similarly situated proposals limited to no more

than two years involving a reasonable share of units and including strong conditions to protect the community. When done this way, the this approach can support housing financing, thereby helping to grow Arlington's supply of housing. It can also help provide a greater support to local businesses and neighborhoods, innovatively expanding capacity and generating tax revenue. Uh while future CA cases may warrant a more expansive approach, that's the direction and the guardrails that we're we're indicating through this decision on consent. Let me be clear. This board currently has concerns with supporting requests of more than 24 months. We are approving two and that is the outer limit to which we intend to support. This is a balanced approach. We hope it provides flexibility while protecting our long-term housing goals. Next, I

uh Sure. Uh go ahead, Vice Chair Coffee.

Thank you. I I don't usually interrupt on consent agenda, but I just want to particularly express appreciation to Mr. Painter who's here on a completely unrelated issue and um Jag the applicant who I think we had some very direct conversations with about our concerns around this use and um the president said I think you all provided us some very thoughtful information in response to that and pretty fundamentally changed the request as well. And so, um, I just I I think this would not have been on consent, uh, prior to those conversations. And so, I just want to express, um, you know, and as Mr. Dante said, the board remains concerned about some of this type of utilization, but I think, um, in partnership, we have worked towards something that feels like it it best balances all of the different fundamental considerations here. So, just an appreciation for that.

Thank you, Vice Chair Coffee. And perhaps this is a could be moderately precedent setting that we now have a direction and we might not need to spend a huge amount of CPHD's time on this particular item. Uh but thanks is warranted. Item 12 which is the next item on the slides. We approve general obligation municipal bonds. This is how we pay for infrastructure, storm water, utilities funds and out uh other projects uh schools etc. So, we um approved the sale of a series and our experts will help us maintain our triple AAA bond rating, which I think is uh in the top 55 of 3,100 counties in the United States. Next, I is neighborhood miniigrant program. This is uh I I love this program because it gets uh small grants to help government align with the work that um communities across the county are doing. Um, we approved uh 25 to 28 grants for up to $1,000. Next slide. Um, item 16, innovative transportation and technology program funds. Um, this will support the performance parking pilot. Um, and uh, it's going to move into a longer term approach, but I want to make one comment similar to item one which vice chair coffee just indicated. We have had questions about this and it doesn't start until July 1st. So the manager has uh separately assured uh me and I I believe m Miss Cunningham that we would have conversations about this and that we would that implementation of this as we work towards July 1st. We have some work to do on that. Mr. Manager, did you want to say anything to that effect or on this item?

Yeah, I think what you're referring to has to do with the residential permit parking program. This is a related item on funding, but I will I did want to tell the community at least on the residential permit parking program, we are going to be standing up a way for residents to check who's parked in front of their houses and also have a much better approach for handling those people who might not be comfortable with using smartphone technology. Well, not who, but just whether they have a permit. Right. Right. It's a it's a yes or no binary kind of information. Not not who. I should be very clear about that. not stalk your neighbors. We're not we're going to do Yes, we're not be stalking.

Thank you for clarifying that is a it's a different different item, but it seemed like the logical place to work on it. And uh this is example of all of us working together to sort of uh fill in the information that is important. The next slide, Clarendon and House state funding grant. The board accepted and appropriate 134,000 for this program. It is u certainly uh Miss Eric Truman or I believe said you measure people by how they treat folks who are who are most in need in a much more eloquent way than I could. So this is a important investment for our community as we try to serve all of Arlington. We approve next slide. We approve five separate requests to advertise. These essentially are sort of trying to provide notice to our community that there are items that are coming to us. Um there's the Nelly Custous Elementary School Melwood local historic district. We'll take up that next month. The solid waste rate, we'll take up that. That's due to um some a process that we've tried to um work on to make sure that we provide the level of service that our community expects and we needed that extra time. Didn't have the ability to do that during the budget. As well, uh enforcement language on EV charging spaces. Next month, you'll hear several of us very pleased with this step. Electric vehicle supply equipment and um Virginia law changed. So we are all uh pleased to move uh supervision of the independent police auditor from the manager to the board consistent with the history of enactment of that uh particular ordinance um several years ago. So next we'll move on to the next slide which is item 31 um we which has been pulled

which has been pulled. Yep. And then and so we'll have nothing to say on that piece. I think that that is the end of the slides that we intended to highlight. Colleagues, we will now turn to um our first agenda item. Mr. Kushner, if you could read our first regular hearing item, please. Certainly. Just a moment. The first item of the day is item number 33, which is a adaptive reuse site plan amendment. convert two office buildings to residential use with ground flooror retail use with modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse of the buildings located at 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street.

Thank you, Mr. Kushner, Mr. Manager. It's kind of like play ball in the baseball world. It's over to you for the presentation.

Yes. Uh thank you uh Chair Defaranti and the board. Uh before I turn it over to Courtney Badger, I did want to take a few minutes uh to make a couple of comments about where we are with our adaptive reuse policy. And so the board adopted that policy back in 2024. Seems so long ago, but um since then, we've had four adaptive reuse applications come with essentially within the past year after the policy was adopted. I just want to remind everybody why that policy was here is that we are at a time where we have never had this level of vacancy in our commercial office space and through the adoption of those four adaptive reuse plans we've made a significant dent in that issue.

Um and it's still going to take a lot of time from when the projects were voted on by the board until they actually uh the changes take place on the ground. Um so the places where they're happening specifically here in Crystal City and uh and National Landing Area the those urban places have gone through a lot of change and we've addressed a lot of the needs. Not many will remember uh u not many on this board. No one was here on the board back in 2010 when we dropped the Crystal City sector plan. But that was a very intentional way of addressing what had happened with base realignment and closure steps. And it was really focused, the board then was focused on how we realize transforming what was an important part of our community. Um, and realizing that the changes that we needed in that community, which included not just the buildings, but the infrastructure, the civic infrastructure, whether it be parks or libraries or those uh fire stations, could not be delivered solely through what the developers do. So that is a challenge and part of that challenge was addressed by the board back then in setting up a tax increment financing district and that is something that we need to spend more time talking about how that adoption relates to what's going to happen here with the impacts of that. And so we'll have an opportunity to talk about that here also in our CIP that's coming up that I'm proposing on Tuesday. And there have been a lot of changes since 2010. We have a business improvement district that works with us closely. So a lot more to come on that. So I know uh with that appetizer I will turn it over to Courtney Badger who um is going to give us the presentation. Miss Badger.

Thank you. Good morning board members. I'm Courtney Badger with the county CPHD planning division here to present on item number 33. I'm just going to pause for a second while the presentation comes up. While the presentation is coming up, there's one item that I forgot that was reminded. I'd just ask every It's not No, this isn't a grand surprise, although it is important to remember. I'd ask and and Miss Cunningham brought this forward. I'd ask that we take a a year ago, we lost a firefighter right at this time. And so Lloyd Edwards um passed away and this is the uh one year, we're right at the one-year anniversary of his death. We won't take the longest forever, but I do think it's appropriate to pause and have a moment of silence for Mr. Lloyd Edwards.

Thank you, colleagues, and thank you for those in the audience who are just noticing. Back to you. My apologies for the interruption, but you I hope all will grant why it is worth doing. So, go ahead. Thank you. It looks like we're still having some technical difficulties. And give me one moment. Our uh PC is not working correctly. Thank you. Do we have a way of another PC doing the sharing in this case? Absolutely. Not trying to get unnecessarily in the weeds, but there we go. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Uh so this item that's before you today is an adaptive reuse site plan amendment to convert two office buildings in Crystal City to residential. The subject sites are located within site plan number 56 on the JK block in Crystal City. You can see the limits of site plan 56 outlined in white on the map and the adaptive reuse buildings outlined in red. 1800 South Bell, also known as the mall 1 building, is the northwest portion of the block, directly south of the Crystal City Metro Station. And 1901, also known as the mall 4 building, is midblock on the southern half. The site is zoned CO mixeduse district, which corresponds to the general land use plan designation of high office apartment. There is an open space triangle on the southern portion of the block in the location where the 1901 South Bell building is located. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing zoning or GLUP designations. The site is located within the Crystal City Sector plan in the central business district. The Crystal City sector plan calls for redevelopment of 1800 South Bell and it calls for the removal of the 1901 Southbell building to expand center park. 1800 South Bell, as I mentioned, is identified as a redevelopment site in the sector plan, which allows for a 300 foot height at this location and a base density of 4.8 F for residential. The sector plan also calls for active retail on 18th Street, which is the northern side of the 1800 building. The sector plan also envisioned the 1901 South Bell building going away to allow for the expansion of Center Park. The sector plan identifies Center Park as the largest um park in Crystal City with a target size of just over 74,000 um square feet. The sector plan envisioned the removal of this building to be achieved through allowance of additional development and density on other sites where the plan envisions new growth. In 2020, redevelopment of the eastern

side of the block um was approved for the new two new residential buildings that are there today. With the construction of those buildings, the county was able to acquire a 45,000 square foot public park easement for what is existing center park today. In addition, JBG at that time contributed $300,000 towards the master planning effort of that existing center park area and built the grand staircase that leads into that existing park area. To achieve the full sector plan vision of the park, the 1901 South Bell building shown in red here would need to be demolished in that land or an easement for that area be conveyed to the county. JBG's adaptive uh reuse application consists of the conversion of both mall 1 and mall 4, 1800 and 1901 um Southbell buildings um converting them from office to residential with ground flooror retail. 1800 Southbell was constructed in late 1960s and it's currently completely vacant. JBG is proposing to do minor changes to the exterior of the building to facilitate to the conversion to 129 residential units with approximately 5,000 square ft of retail on the ground floor. The 1901 Southbell building is also a late 1960s construction. This building is not fully vacant, but projected to be vacant within the next year. JBG is proposing to convert this building to 186 residential units with approximately 4600 square ft of ground floor retail. So combined, JBG is proposing to remove over 543,000 square ft of vacant office space from the market and convert it to 315 residential units and provide just under 10,000 ft of ground floor retail. With new residential projects, we coordinate with our colleagues and APS staff. They analyzed this proposed development and determined that it was estimated to generate a total of 16 students between both of the buildings. I'm now going to turn it over to our planning director, Anthony Fuserelli, to

discuss the adaptive reuse policy.

All right. Thank you, Miss Badger, and good morning, Mr. Chair and board members. Um, so as noted earlier, the proposed conversion of these buildings are both part of an adaptive reuse site plan amendment application. Um this is a distinct process uh to consider such conversions was established following the county board's adoption in November of 24 of a policy on the transformation of commercial office office office buildings which the manager spoke to uh earlier. But it's worth repeating here that it was adopted in response to the urgent challenges facing the county resulting from the declining commercial office sector and presence of a large supply of obsolete office in the county. So, as outlined in the policy, chronically vacant office buildings put significant strain on our neighborhoods and communities, including negative impacts on local economic activity, declines in neighboring property values, diminishing the overall quality of place and public realm, and also adversing adversely impacting the county's fiscal health. Therefore, a core principle of the adaptive reuse policy is that repurposing these obsolete office buildings is a public priority. While emphasizing the urgency of implementing a streamlined approach for the review of of these applications, it also acknowledges a potential need for policy trade-offs between meeting current standards or visions and ultimate project viability. The matter of how these trade-offs are balancing out overtime with these projects is something that the county will continue to monitor closely over time and to assess whether any future adjustments may be needed in the future. It's also important to note that one of the key objectives of the adaptive reuse policy and associated process is to reduce the amount of vacant office space in Arlington,

thereby making way for other important and productive uses in the county. So looking at office vacancy in Crystal City specifically, as of Q3 last year, the vacancy rate in this sector was 27.7%. The adaptive reuse application approved last July by this board at 2100 and 2200 Crystal Drive reduced the overall vacancy in Crystal City by 3.7% percentage points. If the buildings uh that are before the board this morning are also removed from the office market, it will further reduce Crystal City office vacancy down to 20.5%. So, at the same time as working to effectively bring down the office vacancies in Crystal City and other neighborhoods throughout Arlington, these proposals are helping to grow the number of housing units, a critical need for Arlington in the region more broadly, and with the ability to bring these units online more quickly than with full redevelopment. And with that, I will turn things back to uh Miss Badger for the remaining slides.

Thank you. Um during our review process, staff conducted community outreach to the Crystal City Civic Association, Aurora Highland Civic Association, as well as the National Landing Bid. One of the goals of the adaptive reuse policy was to provide a more streamlined review process to be more responsive to changing commercial market sector. Therefore, they did not go ungo the typical major site plan review process as they're focused only on the change of use of the existing buildings. However, given the trade-offs surrounding Center Park, staff hosted an additional engagement opportunity at a lunch and learn event for the community. At the lunch and learn, there was a lot of discussion about the trade-offs of this proposal with some general support for additional housing and also questions about open space in Crystal City. We went to the planning commission earlier this month where they recommended approval 11 to1 with two motions regarding recognition of trade-offs and adaptive reuse projects and prioritization of county funds. During the review process of this application, staff and the applicant engaged in discussions regarding the potential acquisition of the 1901 or mall 4 site to expand Center Park. And this was not the first time that we've entered into these conversations. When the sector plan was adopted in 2010, it established the recommendation for the creation of Center Park with the target size of 74,000 square ft. To achieve this target size, it would require the removal of that building. and the sector plan envisioned that removal um to be achieved through allowance of additional development or density at other sites. In 2012, there was a site plan for office buildings at 1900 Crystal Drive, which is that eastern portion of the block. And during that time, staff initiated negotiations with Fornado at the time to acquire the 1901 building. Um there was no feasible acquisition beneficial both to the county and in 2012. After expiring, that site plan came back in 2020 for the Grace and Revo residential buildings which are there today. And that's when we were able to get the 45,000 ft² easement dedication

for the existing center park area in that grand staircase built, linking the existing center park to Crystal Drive. When this adaptive reuse application came in, we again entered into negotiations with JBG on the acquisition of 1901 South Bell. However, no mutually agreeable option was found that was economically feasible for the county at this time given the significant site purchase and demolition costs. The county will continue to plan for updates to Center Park within the existing easement area that we control as well as continue to look for future public space acquisition opportunities within the Crystal City neighborhood. Every adaptive reuse project has inherent trade-offs that may cause um plan objectives to be delayed or foregone. and in this case the redevelopment of 1800 and with greater heightened density and the expansion of center park. However, in this case staff pleased that the positive elements of reusing these structures within this uncertain economic climate outweighs the negatives. With this project, we'll be removing 543,000 square ft of vacant unproductive um office building. will be adding a tax positive building to the market, reducing the Crystal City office vacancy by 3.5 percentage points, adding 315 housing units to the marker quicker than a typical site plan process, adding about 10,000 square ft of ground floor retail and activation near the Crystal City Metro and existing center park and contributing to carbon savings by retaining the major building elements. The subject adaptive reuse application for both buildings um is consistent with the intent of the county's adaptive reuse policy which recognizes that repurposing the obsolete office space as a public priority that may necessitate necessitate certain policy trade-offs. Um the proposed conversion from vacant office to residential and retail uses presents an opportunity to revitalize the Crystal Mall block with new housing and retail opportunities adjacent to the Crystal City Metro Station. Um, for all these reasons, staff recommends approval of this adaptive reuse application.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Badger. We will have questions. We now turn to the applicant for the applicant's presentation. Mr. Painter. Yeah, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. And, um, I we were also having some technical difficulties on our end. And so, I think I provided the uh, presentation to Miss Badger and to the clerk as well. So, I don't know if one of them would mind bringing it up. Do you have sharability? We've got you covered. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

All right. Well, again, Andrew Painter with the law firm of Walsh Kaluchcci speaking today on behalf of JBG Smith, the applicant in the case. I'm joined by Dolores Navia of JBG Smith, as well as our project team. Uh Brian Earl with EGF Architects, who is the uh architect team for 1800 Southbell, and Anna Barber with BBB Architects. They are the architecture team for 1901 South Bell. Um I do want to say uh thank you very much to Miss Badger, Mr. Fuserelli, Mr. Shriber, who's not here, and the manager uh on this. We were originally slated to come before you in December of last year. Uh we deferred hearing on this uh to today to allow time for the full exploration of ways that the 1901 office building could be uh conveyed to the county and this site uh prepared for the full uh center park as envisioned by the sector plan. Um Miss Badger did a good job of summarizing the application, but I thought it might be uh good to highlight just a couple of couple of points. Um first I believe that this board is to be commended for the prioritization of adaptive reuse uh both in terms of the speed and the quality of review in the process of converting these obsolete office buildings when compared to other jurisdictions both north and south of the Ptoac River. If we can go to our next slide. Um, we are very excited about this application that does seek to take a major step forward in the realization of the 2024 adaptive reuse policy. Uh, and finally find a workable solution to breathe new life into two 60-year-old obsolete office buildings that Miss Badger mentioned. Uh, this proposal would remove a half million square ft of vacant or soon to be vacant commercial GFA from National Landing's office inventory and convert that space into 315 sorely needed residential units. Um, what is somewhat unique about the proposal is that the average residential unit size in these buildings will be approximately 1100 ft². that is significantly larger than uh the approximately 750 square feet that we typically see with new uh construction and more than half of the

mix is skewed towards multiple bedroom units which as you know is also atypical. But the goal here is to pro provide product differentiation and broaden the type of housing that national landing residents are offered and allowing growing families to stay connected to this community as it evolves into a walkable mixeduse environment. I wanted to show this image on the screen here because in as much as this is a tale of two office buildings, it is also part of the fabric of a larger story about the evolution that has been happening in National Landing for the last 10 years. Uh and that includes more than 1600 new apartments with the Grace and the Reva and the Veilen and the Zoey. Uh and the introduction of 55 new ground flooror retailers, which has tripled the amount of retail that is offered in National Landing. If we can go to the next slide, please. Um, we've also been doing continued investment in open spaces including center park but especially water park which was devel which was delivered in October of 2023 and that has really evolved into the cultural hub of this section of national landing and it includes things that were originally scheduled to go in center park like the performance stage and outdoor seating but JBG has really been investing in highquality spaces that have helped this part of national landing evolve into a a strong misuse center. Um, if we can go to the next slide. And that evolution does continue. Uh, on the drawing boards today about to be delivered or breaking ground 2100 and 2200 Crystal Drive with new apartments and new hotel units. We also have the new Concord Event Center, which is a 12,000t state-of-the-art meeting space that will have a culinary program. And then, as Miss Badger mentioned, I think we're all anxiously awaiting the opening of the second Crystal City Metro Rail Station entrance. And so when stepping back, the changes that have been going on in Crystal City, especially along Crystal Drive, have in many respects exceeded the expectations of the sector plan. And it all builds upon JBG's more than half a billion dollar uh investment in National Landing's remaining office portfolio, but we are transforming the neighborhood into a vibrant pedestrianoriented destination. Uh next

slide, please. And so that comes to these two buildings. Uh for the last three years, JBG has been focused on the best use for 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street. Uh both buildings were originally uh created uh for GSA office tenants. Uh they were both constructed in the late 1960s. Uh as Miss Badger mentioned, 1800 South Bell is entirely vacant today. 1901 South Bell is anticipated to be vacant by the close of this year. Both buildings experience outmoded floor plates and vintage glass constrained 8-foot finish uh ceiling heights outmoded mechanical systems and in neither building uh neither building offers the opportunity for large event uh or office conference meeting space. So they are both functionally obsolete and the prospects for retending that retening them uh really are non-existent. Uh next slide. Uh there was some discussion about the Crystal City Sector plan, which is a broad 40-year plan horizon vision to convert National Landing into a livable mixeduse uh community. Uh in the bottom side of the screen, you can see the land use recommendations. The 1800 office building, as Miss Badger mentioned, is recommended to be redeveloped with a building up to 300 feet in height, while the 1901 office building is recommended to be redeveloped entirely with open space, forming an approximately 27,000 ft² of a larger planned 72,000 ft uh center park. The sector plan also calls for the county to construct this park and it also envisioned the Crystal Mall 2 building which is shown on the right hand side of the screen or if we can go to the next slide uh the right hand side of the screen. This is the large office building that's right there to not have any porocity between Center Park and Crystal Drive to the east. At the back of the Crystal City Sector plan are a series of implementation actions. The 29th implementation action called on the county to finance or to come up with a strategy to finance and acquire the 1901 building and develop Crystal uh Center Park. And so for Center Park to be viable, the sector plan does recognize

that there has to be a strategy for value creation, cost recovery, and the public acquisition of that building. On the right hand side of the screen, you can see what has been developed today. Uh JBG Smith provided a 45,000 foot public use and access easement uh that came with the 1900 Crystal Drive site plan as well as $300,000 for master park planning purposes for Center Park. And then with the Grayson Reva project uh that came online in 2020 or was approved in 2020 uh we introduced the concept of the monumental staircase and a 25 thou 25,000 square foot connecting space that connects Crystal Crystal Drive to the east with Center Park. And that has really changed the orientation of Center Park from being at 18th Street South and South Bell Street to being one that is east west in configuration to direct the energy towards Crystal Drive and has been a success. And all of that ties into the water park to the north uh along Crystal Drive. Uh as Miss Badger mentioned in your staff report notes, we did engage in discussions over the last couple of years with the county to try to find a financially feasible way to demolish 1901 and realize Center Park earlier than anticipated. We proposed a variety of concepts and I think it's fair to say that there are significant fixed costs to the tune of excess of $15 million associated with demolishing the building and preparing it for public park purposes. And as the staff report notes, uh we have not been able to come to terms uh to make this financially viable. If we can go to the next slide. And so that leads to what Mr. Fuserelli and uh the manager were talking about with the adaptive reuse um uh policy and zoning ordinance tax amendments. We began exploring the potential for the residential conversion of both of the buildings as a potential beneficial use. I'm not going to spend too much time on this. It is a public priority and the public benefit of course is activating these buildings and accommodating new residents. Next slide. What's on the left hand side of the screen here uh would be uh the repurposed uh 1800 South Bell Street. On the right hand side of the screen uh

lower right hand side you can see the repurposed 1901 South Bell Street. And we go to the next slide. Um and this really will result in the conversion of two of the office buildings, these two office buildings into 315 uses or units along with some ground flooror retail and retail equivalent uses. Again, there's a focus on multi-bedroom units. There are a series of interior and exterior renovations including window replacement and the addition of operable windows, facade enhancements and repainting, the architectural designation of the new residential entrances, and then replacement of those very large planters along South Bell Street and 18th Street which really cut off uh and don't allow any porocity between these buildings in the public realm uh and the center park. Next slide. And so before I went to law school, I went to planning school and I learned that at the end of the day, land use planning really is about achieving a balance. And I think a balance has been achieved here. Uh the proposed uh the proposal that's before you conforms to the GLUP. It satisfies many of the recommendations of the Crystal City sector plan. It satisfies the adaptive reuse policy. It removes vacant office supply and replaces it with sorely needed housing supply. It generates new tax revenue and it allows JBG to continue the transformation of the Crystal Mall block and focus National Landing's remaining office supply where it can be most competitive. And I think most importantly, it adds housing supply in a transitrich environment. So, we're very excited about taking this next step. Our entire project team is here to answer any questions. We appreciated the conversation that occurred at the planning commission. Uh but we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. painter and thank you for giving us the two steps of your higher education. Appreciate it. Uh next um we will turn to our commissions and advisory groups and we have Tanley Peterson. Miss Peterson here on behalf of the planning commission. Come on forward and love to hear your summary. We have the letter but we'd love to hear your summary and thoughts. Go ahead.

Okay. Good morning. Thank you very much. I'm Tenley Peterson from the planning commission. that we heard this item on May 4th this month. Um so first I wanted to start off by saying um our adaptive reuse policy is something that as a commission we're really proud of. Um it has been one of our most effective tools in the county to address commercial vacancy uh which has been a significant issue in the c community for years as I I know you all know. Um and with this project today uh we are going to see um a decrease of seven percentage points with this project and the projects that have been earlier uh approved. uh seven percentage points in commercial vacancies. So that's that's really significant. Um it will activate the the site. It will bring more people, more businesses, more retail opportunities, converts an unproductive building, a couple of buildings to productive uses. So we're really excited about that. Um in addition to more housing, u more housing near transit and more tax revenue. Um but um as you know um the conversions don't bring our traditional community benefits that we're used to with a lot of these projects. Um and we have often looked at these projects as the the conversion is the benefit in itself. Um from the earlier four projects that we have worked on um we didn't see any issues significant issues with that that trade-off. This project however will result in important community goals for the neighborhood from the Crystal City sector plan not being met. Um these goals were identified by the community and by the county as needs for the for the neighborhood. So the fact that the county isn't going to see those realized, I think we need to look at ways to um approach those maybe not through redevelopment but through possible tax revenue or other ways. Um, we I had actually asked staff to provide a list of the remaining projects that are eligible for adaptive reuse. Um, and to see if they are concentrated in certain neighborhoods so that we can kind of identify now whether there are

neighborhoods that we will likely see a an an uh a disproportionate loss in benefits through this policy. Um, so those were kind of the big picture conversation that we had. Um, we also have um we discussed architecture. Um we have a couple of uh architects on our commission and they did not think that this was the savviest um redesign of a of this commercial space. Um they noted that um the uh the structural grid in the columns um aren't nicely aligned and so we'll have columns like right through the units. Um if they were better aligned we could probably see even larger units. Um one of the benefits of the adaptive reuse policy is that uh we can see the larger size units which we appreciate. We talk on the commission a lot about familysiz units and being able to house children in some of these highrises. So, if the design had been a little bit better, maybe we could see even larger units. Um, we are getting two and threebedroom units with this project, but maybe we could see more threebs and even a couple of four bedrooms. We do not see four bedrooms with this unit. Um, so that is the overall summary. Um, I'll say ultimately we did approve this. Um, we do appreciate the adaptive reuse policy. We appreciate the benefits that just come from the policy itself. Um, and so I'll read our motions. Uh, the planning commission recommends that the county board adopt the attached ordinance for SPLA25-000028 to permit the conversion of two existing office buildings to residential use with groundf flooror retail. modifications for reductions of residential and retail parking ratios, density exclusions, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse located at 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street, Mall 1 and Mall 4, subject to the previously approved conditions of site plan 56 and the conditions of the attached adaptive reuse site plan amendment ordinance that did pass 11 to1 on the commission. Um, our next uh motion was the planning commission recommends that the county

board at the time of the project approval specifically identify plan goals that will not be realized due to the county's adaptive reuse policy for 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street site and future adaptive reuse sites uh and prioritize county resources to support these plan goals uh that passed 10 to zero. And then we had um a third amendment that was very similar to the second amendment and I think that's why it the vote was like a little bit mixed because some people were like how is this different than the earlier one? Um but I can explain uh how the person that proposed it explained their rationale. Um, but the planning commission recommends that the county board direct staff to identify relevant sector plan goals that may not come to fruition as a consequence of the adaptive reuse policy and consider increasing the county's budgetary resource allocation for these initiatives to support the identified goals. So, that passed six to four. Um, again, the four people that didn't support it were kind of like, this seems redundant. Why are we doing this extra one? Um but the six that did support it felt like the this motion was directing staff to do that work kind of a in advance of when the project is being considered whereas um the earlier motion was more speaking to you all and having you uh identify the resources to meet those plan goals. So thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you Miss Peterson on the I appreciate you're giving us context as we read the letter on the last two motions. We may have questions perhaps in particular in that area. the next step before us. I do not believe there are any more any other commissions. I believe we are now to public comment. Yes, sir. That's correct. And Mr. Davis, would you call the first Are there public comment speakers on this item? Yes, sir. There is. There's uh Mrs. Gwyn Giron. Excuse me for mispronouncing it. She is should be in person. Okay. Put the list on the screen here. Here. Yeah, that would help if you're able to put the list. And let me see if I can scroll to this as well. Uh so

looking to see if she's on the uh online as well. She doesn't appear to be on Miss or Miss Chiron. Let's go. We'll go to the next one if it's okay. Chair Mr. Muso who is here in person for three minutes. Mr. Muso.

Uh good morning members of the county board. John Musa, government affairs manager at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Arlington Chamber, I want to express our strong support for the adaptive reuse amendment uh before you all this morning. This really advances uh two critical visions for the county. One, advancing our public priority for reducing the and repurposing chronically vacant office buildings in this county as well as advancing the vision of Crystal City into a vibrant mixeduse um district. Uh first of all, as you all know, the chamber was a very strong proponent of the county board advancing a public priority and specifically declaring a public priority for repurposing chronically vacant office buildings. As we all know, we are still very much in a critical point of office vacancy. As noted in the presentation, we have a 27.7% um vacancy rate in Crystal City before taking into account these adaptive reuse policies. And we believe that this project, particularly in terms of removing two functionally obsolete office buildings and bringing in 315 new residential units, many of which are significantly larger than the average units in Crystal City, greatly advanced that goal while also advancing uh the county's goals in terms of bringing on a greater supply of housing units in transit-rich neighborhoods like Crystal City. Additionally, in terms of our vision for the neighborhood, we are all strong proponents of Crystal City being this um lively mixeduse neighborhood that is attractive to workers, residents, visitors alike. And we believe that adding this and additionally activating the space by the Crystal City Metro, which we're going to see a lot of great um vitality with the new entrance and so many other projects coming online, it would be tremendous addition to our um future in this neighborhood. So, we're very strong proponents of the adaptive readers policy at large. We believe it brings tremendous benefits to the county and we strongly urge you all to please adopt this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Musa. Next speaker. Next speaker is Miss Tarsy Dunlap. Dunlap, excuse me. Miss Dunlap.

Good morning. Um, pleased to be here today and thank you all for your service. Um, we understand that the circumstances change and that adaptation is necessary. We support the economic benefits of adaptive reuse projects, but we object to the lack of community benefits with these projects. With this proposal, the community is again losing the potential for cultural benefits that were called for in the Crystal City sector plan. Restaurants and retail are great, but where are the amenities like a center park, a library, and a theater that would attract more folks to these economic outlets? We call to the board's attention that long-term cultural benefits are again being sacrificed on the alter of short-term economic benefits. With the constant development in Crystal City, density has increased dramatically, but the cultural amenities have not. Only last month did Crystal City see its first small public park opened. After almost 50 years of planning, we are fighting for the quality of life for future and current residents of our increasingly dense and growing area. We also call to the board's attention that five of the proposals for adaptive reuse projects in the county are happening in Crystal City or Pentagon City. Reuse propos continued approval of adaptive reuse proposals without cultural benefits will ultimately lock our community into living with these decisions for the next 30 plus years. We recognize the significant value of this proposal to the county for economic benefits. These properties will be contributing more to the general tax base and to the tiff in particular. So, we urge the county to dedicate a percentage of the Crystal City TIFF to partially compensate for the lack of cultural amenities and contribute to the goals and deliverables of the still valid sector plan. As you approve this project, which we expect that you will, we ask the county board officially acknowledge this decision has real long-term impacts on the quality of life

for Crystal City residents. It is time for the Arlington County Board to recognize as our representative government in a real tangible financial way the need for the capital improvement in project capital improvement project investments to boost our civic assets and deliver public benefits and infrastructure for current and future generations. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Dunlop. Uh I believe that is our last public speaker. Yes sir.

And that puts the conversation with the board. Um colleagues um I the rough categories that I had in mind um are three um uh adaptive reuse policy as a whole. Not you don't have to make up questions in a category. Um we'll get started. Uh it's not a game show. Um, office vacancy is the other next category that kind of came to mind. I think center park is probably the biggest other topic. Um, and I think to your comments, Miss Dunlop, there is a you raised a question of the tiff and the number of projects. Uh, we will under center park, I believe we will come to those issues. Um, but uh, I'll be open to anyone who has questions to start. vice share coffee. See your light.

I I think I will start with a motion not to cut off any discussion, but just to put it on the table before um we get too carried away with ourselves. Um, I move that the county board adopt the adaptive reuse site plan amendment ordinance SPLA 25-000028 attached to the board report dated May 8, 2026, namely to permit the conversion of two existing office buildings to residential use with groundf flooror retail with modifications for reductions of residential and retail parking ratios, density exclusions, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed adaptive reuse located at 1800 and 1901 South Bell Street subject to all previously approved conditions of site plan number 56 and the conditions adaptive reuse site plan amendment ordinance.

Second. Thank you. Moved by Vice Chair Coffee, seconded by Mr. Spain. Now we'll give you an opportunity to speak to your motion.

Absolutely. Um, and it will it will come with questions, but um, to start, I think, uh, I think this is one of those policies and and proposals where everything everyone is saying is true all at the same time, even though it somewhat feels like they're pointing in different directions. Um, I think, you know, I I just really would validate what the Crystal City, Pentagon City neighborhoods are feeling as far as it is a concentration within that neighborhood of where these projects are landing. Um, and uh, it is an economic kind of imperative for the county right now to pull these vacant office buildings um, out of the market from where they are. And doing that does mean that we are not recognizing the planned community benefits that were put in the sector plan for um as Miss Dunlap said at least 30 years. um we don't really know what that timeline is going to look like. And so um all of these things are true all at once and that's part of what makes our job really interesting and fun. And um I think I think we have created an adaptive reuse policy that overall is working very well and I I've heard praise from uh across the region frankly of how did how did you do it? Um, and so that's a kudos to staff for coming up with something that really did accomplish the goals that this board set out, which is this is a priority and we have to find a way to make this easier. Um, and I think, you know, uh, it was slide 14 and the staff report showing that across the projects we've approved um, in Crystal City, a 7.2 2 percentage point decrease in the office vacancy for the the subm market there. Um, and I just wonder, this may not be a stat we have off the top of our head. Um, but when is the

last time that that submarket was at, you know, 20% vacancy or lower? Cuz between B and COVID and where we are now, I I think it's been a very long time.

Yeah, I'll take that question. Um I think you're correct. I don't have the specific stat in off uh the top of mind but um you did allude to B um the sequestration the great recession there were a lot of over the past 20 years there have been a lot of um disruptors so to speak to the Crystal City office market and so um if it has gone below 20% it's probably not much below that but um the numbers that you see today are where we're at. Yeah, it it it seems pretty substantial progress and again kind of speaks to why I think regionally the policy is being regarded as um one of the one of the most effective um that anyone has adopted. And so I appreciate that. I think um I'm happy to pass along or I can just complete my set of questions and discussion.

Uh how many questions you have m multiple or just one or two? Go ahead. probably one or two left. Let's go with your first two and then we'll go to Mr. Spain. That's okay. Unless there's a topic, Mr. Spain, that No, I was going to stay with the adaptive reuse on my initial question. Mr. Spain. Yeah. Go ahead. Sure. You're okay. Yeah.

Okay. Uh so this Well, one, I want to thank you to the not just the applicant, but also to uh Mr. Stunlop, thank you so much for coming and uh and voicing your concern, which is not unique about what's going on in the Crystal City area. Right. Uh we hear you. I hear you. Uh I think my question and what the vice chair stated, right, this is a good news story not only for Arlington but for the region as we continue to bring more housing. But I think this goes to staff, Mr. uh uh manager. Um what I'm picking up on is this uh lessons learned as we go through adaptive reuse perhaps and if it may be uh time or should we consider um this policy does it need any level of refinement based on what we're hearing? You know, we just had a com community um uh from our from our auditors, the community uh losing my words here now. Benefits audit. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. It's only early. I had one cup of coffee. Um but as we you know, we have a couple good projects. Do you think we need to maybe look at this a little more closely because it's not just I think Crystal City right now. We will see this happening in other areas. Any thoughts?

Yes. So, um, two things. First, first I'd like to make a couple of comments and then I'm going to turn it over to Mark McCauley, who is available virtually, who's going to talk a little bit about this. But, um, you I wanted to acknowledge that when the Crystal City sector plan was adopted in 2010, the board back then added a tax increment financing mechanism. And that mechanism was meant to focus essentially what that does is it takes money off the top of all our tax receipts and focuses it on what's going on in Crystal City.

And we see some of those fruits just some of those seeds bearing fruit, not some of the fruits bearing fruit, but uh um with the Crystal with the additional entrance for the metro and also seat seed to DCA and some other transportation improvements in the area. Um, so we've seen a lot of that and the deal back then was that we thought there was going to be much higher height and there wasn't going to be community benefits that came with that. Now we haven't seen those higher heights, but what we've essentially seen is adaptive reuse step into that. So we still have the same issues and so those require I think uh studying now that we're two years in where we are with that. So I'm going to turn it over to Mr. McCauley who's going to talk a little bit about that. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Mark, and and and members of the county board and and board member chain uh Smain in particular. Um yes, so the the happy uh coincidence, which really isn't a coincidence, but a good plan was we always intended in in in FY27 to do a pretty significant study and assessment of where we were at use a year and a half later. So that is on our work plan. We are scoping that out now. We can work with the manager to get you sort of the process for that. Um starting this summer we are also engaged with the state on some more resources for additional study which we may be able to update you on. So there'll be a lot of opportunity for study and when I say study I think to to chair member uh chairboard member Spain's question is I think there's a lot of analytical uh lessons to be learned and projecting to go on and sort of what our office market will look like what the supply and demand will look like what our vulnerable office properties look like today versus where they were several years ago. uh to answer to answer Miss Peterson's uh part of her question. Um but also I think there's lessons learned in sort of how we deliver um major plan elements uh that are long range plan elements and how the economics of adaptive reuse can uh play into that and how a better a plan for maybe using other tools to get those. So I think that's all coming forward. That'll be certainly um uh ready for reporting out by the end of this year if not a little bit earlier and we'll have a robust conversation as is needed uh around that study. I'm happy to answer

that is I think that is duly noted and thank you and as I close Mr. Sure. I think these the cumulative impacts of uh you know all of all of these projects at the end of the day and how we convert um under the re adapted reuse policy is going to be interesting to watch and I think that's what the community at the end of the day is going to want us to really be mindful of how this is impacting promises made whether that's in sector plans or whether that's in area plans which we'll get into later. Uh but yeah long as we're keeping our promise. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Spain. Mr. Karantis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I have various questions to to the topic of uh how the adaptive reuse policy is going. I think that in 24 um we embarked in doing one thing which was lifting barriers, making it making easier, more accessible for owners of these buildings to do something. And now we begin to collect experience with how they are doing that and what happens next. So one thing that uh I appreciated Mr. Musa's uh summary to say we want a if I paraphrase you vibrant mixed use etc. And I hear also Miss Dunlop saying yeah to the vibrant and mixed use is also the civic assets etc. So they had this has to be. So my question is first when we uh and maybe for our staff uh first when we look at an adaptive reuse project are we how how are we evaluating the context? I mean uh you know where it is how it is it's just a building or is it a building in the context of a neighborhood and the functions of the neighborhood. There is narrative in the in this in the board report that says yes well we support now the housing goals. We support that. But how holistically do we do that? Are we also looking in what may be missing and you know making a note to see you know for for further planning with other words. Is there a point where we take a you know sector plan from the tw from 2010 if I'm not mistaken. I still remember that the I wasn't here but I was over there and I remember that. So, and we say, "Okay, here is a here's an additional, you know, vector, an additional to-do in the list for uh

maybe looking at some point at an update of this plan because in the I'm asking that because in the planning commission the the discussion was a lot about and Miss Peterson may correct me was a lot about are we transparent about what the tradeoffs are, right? Uh can we summarize them? Is that is that a fair question? Do we have a a process of maybe

It is a fair question. I'm going to let either Anthony or Courtney respond to the specifics around this building, but um you know, I'm going to be introducing my CIP on Tuesday. So one of the things that we we try to focus on there is have we delivered the kinds of green space or community facilities that were envisioned

in the sector plan for Crystal City. The short answer is we have not yet. Okay. We made some promises there and I think that we have set aside funds. I think I noted that a lot of the tax increment financing dollars have gone for transportation improvements since the tiff was put in place and we're realizing some very significant ones. Um the hope is that as we move past those that we'll be able to do some of those others, but I realize if I were a community member, I want to get all of them sort of upfront as opposed to the year 39 or 40 of a 40-year plan. So that's something that I think we should have a lot of conversations when I introduce the CIP if we have the balance right and again we've also reduced the level of the tiff from 33% to 25% right

over the life of the plan and the question is whether that is now at the right level to realize that as to the specific buildings I'll let either Courtney or Anthony talk about that Mr. Fiserelli.

No thank you. Um I appreciate the question couple I think um points of response. One is um first absolutely yes with any adaptive reuse application that comes in we are not just looking at the building sort of on its site area but we are evaluating that building within its broader context. Um ideally you know taking into account any sector or area plan guidance that may be applicable or in place. Um sometimes that's not the case, but we are still looking at you know what could the potential impact benefit opportunities be um not just with the use conversion of the existing building but uh in certain instances you know some of these applications are proposing um you know improvements and changes to the ground plane and to the public realm as well. Um so you know I think consistently across the board that is something we are evaluating. Um as to the I think this the second or other part of your question is you know if I um receive it accurately in terms of you know is it time or when is it time to go back and evaluate or um update some of our sector and area plans. I think that um in working closely with our co Mr. colleague and colleagues in AED and and our department um in developing the policy. I think we took great care to um ensure that the policy was communicating a um clear enough level of flexibility um to consider, right? um some trade-offs in terms of maybe perhaps not realizing a specific element of an adopted plan um because on balance in this moment, you know, an adaptive reuse, supporting the adaptive reuse may be um you know, the more appropriate decision or supportable. That being said, you know, we um we took that

approach mainly to not try and overburden our collective work programs by having multiple sector plans or area plans that would need to be updated because um while the project we're speaking about today is in Crystal City which followed an earlier project in Crystal City from last summer. You know, we are seeing these types of projects proposed in other neighborhoods in Courthouse, in Pentagon City, etc. Um and so you know there would be significant work and burden involved in updating all of those individual plans. Um you know if that were if that were the case.

Thank you Mr. Ferelli. Um I I observe that um the initial investment in transportation assets etc actually enables us to do to have these conversations today. So we got the sequence very well right. Uh it would be almost impossible to have 1801 in a place without public transit or you know completely without retail without the pre-investment also the private money that was put there. So for me the the formidable challenge right now and actually a very welcome one is to see oh my god now we have the ingredients right it is beginning to look good. uh so uh we don't want to fail in this next step and and you know set up us for for success. TIFF is not the only uh response to that. I have some more questions on the architecture of the buildings and how they accommodate uh families and what the rents will be etc. But maybe for later, right?

Okay, Miss Cunningham.

Yeah. I first want to thank um Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Fuserelli and Miss Flanigan Watson for really walking me through the sector plan and and um where we're going with evaluating the adaptive reuse plan. it. You don't often get a chance to sit with the folks who authored some of those plans and to see how in each of the bumps along the road, and there have been a number that you just went through, the the planning quality has enabled us to pivot and adapt and and be resilient across time, which is it's really quite a good news story. So, thank you for reminding me of that and and helping give us that context. I think it's very important that we are at this juncture of now we've done a few adaptive reuse projects. Um and I think our our staff had anticipated we would be here and start to have some of the harder ones um and start to see some of the challenges. So um I am encouraged that we are about to start in fiscal year 27 that analysis of you know both the fisc fiscal impact and the civic asset impact and what we may have gotten right and what we may have gotten wrong and how we should tweak the the um program going forward. I grappled a lot with this one actually because 1901 it's it's a hard it's hard to give up that vision of a larger center park. Um and the cost of not moving forward is also considerable. And so I've grappled with that. I think all planning is about trade-offs and balance but this adaptive reuse stuff even more so. Um, and we're probably not getting it perfectly right, but I think we are being judicious about it and we with the community's uh support and deep engagement will continue to to refine and get it better. I wanted to focus a little bit on the fiscal impact analysis. I know we

haven't done the like full deep look back yet and that is coming um probably later this calendar year. Um but can you just recap how we go through even now in these adaptive reuse projects? Um you know do we have enough school space? Do we have enough um transportation capacity? Can you flush the toilets? All those things. How how have we gone through that? And then likewise the fiscal impact. Are we um certain that the revenues that are being generated are sufficient to cover the cost of serving new residents, neighbors I should say?

Certainly. I can I can uh start perhaps and if Mr. McCaulay or anyone else has more to add um they certainly do so. Um so in terms of I think the first part of the question is really focused on infrastructure. Um and I think an an important point to note there is because these buildings are already in place and have in this case have been in place for you know 40 um 50 years um you know at its peak it was full of office workers and the potential now is they'll be full of um residents uh in the future. Um so in terms of like transportation and transit, water, sewer, etc. some of the core infrastructure um you know knowing that this building has been in place and yes the use will change um but understanding that on the developer and the applicant side you know there's a lot of work that they have to ensure um that that change in use can be supported. Uh but we so so it's different right distinctly different from perhaps an entirely new development you know perhaps something that were more uh aligned with what the sector plan envisioned where we'd be looking for significant increases and additional building um I think over time the planning we have done the investments in infrastructure have certainly put us um in a good place to know that we can support it but um there is as was noted you know the review process for these projects can be a little bit more streamlined because the the building has been there, right? Um so so hopefully that that addresses in part um the first part and then on the fiscal impact um again we don't you know we we do not um look at necessarily a you know a very precise fiscal impact analysis uh project by project as they're coming forward for entitlements.

Um but based on some uh recent work um in this arena, we do understand that you know um high-rise you know condo or apartment elevator buildings in these types of transit focused neighborhoods um do have you know in terms of like student generation for example they are um among the least productive in terms of student generation if not the least productive um in understanding the share of you know, public service costs that schools um relate to. You know, uh we would expect this to perform um relatively well from that perspective and especially given the level of investment that we understand the applicant will be putting into this building will bring um the assessments, you know, increase the assessed value of the building um over and above the existing conditions.

Yeah, I'll just chime in, Mr. for Australia because I think it's a great question and just to uh to to layer onto that in terms of the basic fiscal yes our study uh that I referenced before will look at uh the fiscal impact model and look at the projects and hypothetical projects I will remind people that even as we do that study that we don't have a project yet that is complete so we are still going to be doing a lot of projecting in this round but that opens up opportunity for several years from now to look at completed projects in the same way but I just want to note that we'll always be projecting one of the things that's difficult to project in this environment as we all know is the impacts of different uses because uses have changed so considerably. So how a residential building is used today in an urban environment is much different post pandemic than it was po prior. So we've already seen impacts on how our public spaces, our infrastructure is used differently and we've seen the adaptability of our urban environment to to accommodate. I think with that said, I think clearly the question of do we getting enough tax to pay for basic services? I think we feel very confident we are given where the taxes for these properties are now and where they'll be likely reassessed to once they are fully functioning multifamily rental buildings or in one case hotel. Uh and we do think that that spread is going to more than cover the additional costs of serving high-rise residents. Uh but we'll be able to confirm some of that some of that math with you later this year.

Great. And then just one clarification, I think the student generation numbers here, the first report had it as eight for the whole uh for the for both buildings and on reanalysis it was 16. I think there's a supplemental report. Um so thank you for looking at that. I do have a question though. I think we based that generation off of historical analysis of how multi- you know what elevator or multif family buildings have done on the quarters previously. But as we finally get to doing some threebedrooms and sort of larger sized units, does that analysis scale at all with the size of the unit or is it just, you know, it's the same if it's a studio or a three-bedroom? Because it does feel like there'll be more than 16. I hope there'll be more than 16 school age children in these two buildings.

Yeah. So, I I can start to answer that and then um if anybody has additional information to add. So the student generation analysis is done by our colleagues at APS. So we provide them with the breakdown of bedroom size and different characteristics of the residential building. So if there is an elevator, um if it's condo versus rental, um if it's market rate, if it's committed affordable units. So we provide them with all that information and they uh have some equations and stuff that they do on their end to to give the numbers back to us. Um I I'm going to turn it over to anybody else who has information to add about bedroom size.

Yeah. No, thank you for that. Um yeah, and so in recent discussions with colleagues of ours who um from the research and uh strategic initiatives group who are, you know, the county staff who are working directly with our partners at APS. Um, you know, I was reminded uh recently of um the opportunity roughly 10 years ago with the community facilities study. Um, among other things, that process entailed a look at the way in which APS and the county work together to generate um produce estimates for student generation. Um we had outside consultants at that time to really essentially um evaluate um and um our methods um and what we found was that they found that the methods were valid and appropriate, they did have recommendations um for potential improvements. Um and while they had, as I understand, had recommended that information additional data future data collection include things such as bedrooms. um in in that recent conversation, I've come to understand that, you know, if that were to try to be implemented today, there are serious um impediments and challenges methodologically in terms of uh not yet not necessarily having a complete data set on, you know, the number of bedrooms in all of the tens of thousands of housing units um in Arlington in which students reside. And then furthermore the challenges of like as students move from unit to unit like tracking that in real time. So um I was reminded that the recommendation from the consultant or um opinion was you know sometimes trying to track uh the student or approach student generation rates at the bedroom level um sort of the juice isn't worth the squeeze necessarily. the the labor

intensive um um you know uh the labor intensive nature of that work doesn't necessarily produce you know an equal benefit on on the outcome side.

Yeah. Got it. So I I think that all makes perfect sense and um maybe just to tag as we do this initial look back at adaptive reuse as they do lease up just testing whether because because one of the benefits is we are getting family size units in in greater quantity than usual. So just to check back on that because that can swing the math fairly significantly when those numbers change. Then one last comment, not even a question, but just lifting up that um while this isn't what we planned. Uh the climate value of keeping those two buildings longer rather than scraping and putting a double tall one up is really kind of profound. So, um again, as hard as it is to swallow some pieces, that's a a true true win uh for our climate and for our community.

Thank you, Miss Cunningham. uh vice chair coffee.

Great. And this will be probably my last go round, but um yeah, I think just back to the center park question and um you know, I kind of I note the planning commission's um request for us to to track benefits we're not receiving and find ways to do it uh via public dollars. This seems like a particularly sticky one given that um if the building doesn't come down, we do not have uh 75,000 square feet of space to turn into a park. Um and so I I think I think the subtext of the planning commission's motion really speaks to me, which is find other ways to do this. Um find other ways to build in other community benefits. and the manager and I had a bit of a conversation around whether um these new adaptive programs as they get approved should be in some sort of separate tiff district like for adaptive reuse specifically. Um and and that idea intrigues me and I don't think we are nearly at the level of discussion that warrants anything lengthy among the board here. But um I think I would just put it out there as one of the possible options is that as we do these um we continue to look at you know should there be a dedicated as we see concentrations in neighborhoods you know an adaptive reuse crystal city tiff that would be over and above the existing one but that really recaptures the economic benefit and says we're using not all of the benefit but part of the benefit to pay for things that um we need to do in different or creative ways now u because we just can't do them with the adaptive reuse being approved. Um I see Mr. Schwarz.

Well, I want No, no, I just did want to add something and I know we're really getting into budget arcania here, but it's really important

when the Crystal City TIFF was adopted back in 2010 and I think, and Anthony will know, I think it was in 2013 or 2014, the general assembly also gave the county the ability to add a 12.5 cent tax for commercial and industrial properties. This property we're looking at right now is going to flip from, this is not in real estate, from a commercial to a residential policy property. That 12.5 cents of revenue is going to go away. And you're going to see that when we proposed the CIP, there's less money available there. So back in 2013, 2014, the world was completely different. We envisioned that we needed additional revenue for transportation kinds of needs. Now we need additional revenue for some of the residential needs. So that's just echoing what you said and then of course because uh I have to say this at the end of the day it's still the same pot of money.

It's a matter of how you slice it and prioritize it. So we'll have plenty of conversations about that over the next few months.

Yeah, absolutely. And and I think the last thing I would identify is um if there are specific community benefits um related to the adaptive reuse in Crystal City um that we know are really unlikely to deliver based on the other things that we're doing. Um I would be interested in in knowing what those are. if there's specific identified areas that we're thinking, you know, I think when I looked at this proposal for adaptive reuse the first time and uh it was shared that the idea was for 1901 to just fully go away and that's how we were going to get the park. I think I remember asking one of my first questions of being like, well, how did we expect that to happen? Um because I you know the world is very different than 2013 and I wasn't here in 2013 and I've only done this kind of planning in the economic environment we're in now. And I think that is a that is a premise we would not include in a sector plan now because we know how hard it would be to achieve that. And I appreciate that at the time the idea was, well, if 1800 can go twice as high, then you take the the density on 1901, you move it over to 1800, we're all kind of in a good place now. Um, that is not the world we live in anymore. And so if there's I don't know if we've done any overall kind of looking at those benefits to see it, but if there are ones that we know immediately are are maybe problematic in that way, I'd be interested in knowing that. Um and then I think cuz our applicants have sat here so patiently this whole time. Um I would be interested I know you don't have any further applications in from JBG on adaptive reuse. Um do you envision given

the number of residential projects now concentrated in the area? Um do you envision there being more applications in the next let's say twoyear time horizon or have you kind of you know hit that tap as as deep as you can get?

I think it's a great question. Thanks. Um, Miss Coffee, in terms of where our pipeline is, I think these two buildings are some of the last that are fully obsolete, meaning that we can't provide additional investments similar to what we did at the Concord to bring new tenants in that space that are commercial. And so if I were to have a crystal ball, which I don't, um I would say potentially maybe there's one other that we would consider maybe two that would classify as totally obsolete, but uh frankly these are the ones that we're focused on right now.

Absolutely. And I think that's just helpful to get a a sense of the problem, so to speak, um as we think about how much time of our staff also to invest in in some of these questions. So um all right with that um overall on balance I'll be happy to support great thank you vice chair coffee Mr. Spain and then to Mr. Kronis um Mr. Konus go ahead and you said he's not

oh okay so Mr. Spain I'll just I'll just see if I can see if I can ask a specific question that tries to that I think is for staff so we have the end of the year from Mr. McCaulay we have the CIP which has been alluded to several times by Mr. shorts. We have the list that Miss Peterson asked of the you you were asking uh the full list of remaining projects using adaptive reuse and then we have your reference, Miss Dunlop, to the five properties in in the area. I think it's for staff and it's okay to say not there yet. This is pretty high. We haven't seen the CIP. So, I'll have a list that will grow as we see the CIP in detail, but this is high area on my list and that's true for all of us. the list that Miss Peterson mentioned, is that in the work plan from your perspective, is that something that sort of can be done or should that should we be clear with our community that that's a likely the end of the year type thing? And the same is true with the the five uh M. Stunop already knows those five, but it's a little different to know the five and then do any analysis on the full list and the list in Crystal City. When would that be likely for Miss Peterson and that might give context to the board? And it's okay to say not till the end of the year. I just want to understand.

Um, apologize for asking. If you just clarify which which list in particular the are we talking about the list of buildings we think may the full list of possible adaptive reuse and within that list is it is there a way to just check off and get alignment on the five properties in Crystal City that um would need adaptive re would be adaptive reuse that have that have either are on the horizon to do those are the two lists I'm trying to refer or two.

All right. Thank you for clarifying. And I actually I may ask Mr. McCall if he's still on the line um because AED um had done some of this uh thinking and assessing earlier and he may um be better positioned to to address that question. Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mr. and uh board chair def Fronte. Um I think the question I'll answer in a couple of parts. One is that I think yes as part of this upcoming study we're going to reear the initial study we did back in maybe back in 2022 2023 of what's our vulnerable list of properties and or what's our scope of order of magnitude of vulnerability in our office sector as you remember at the time we did not have a list of eligible properties uh one because eligibility as we know under this policy is really any other any site plan that's can be amended uh if it meets the criteria can eligible and um office in the conversion of use is allowed within the zoning district. So the question really becomes what are the likely candidates and yes we can provide an order of magnitude of where we've come from and where that list goes. Just as an important reminder we don't list actual properties publicly because that's a privacy issue. uh we don't know the individual decisions of these properties but we do have a criteria methodology through which we look at what are the conditions and we we think a building is ripe for potential conversion or adaptive reuse. So we we will be doing that and we can certainly u communicate where that will be in the process. So if it needs to be accelerated we can do so uh even before a final report is done.

Great. Thank you. I don't think I need to be abstract. I think several colleagues have gotten the opportunity to talk with you Dunlop this past week. I might have been slacking but maybe a short conversation would be useful for us and Miss Peterson if you have a sense separate sense of when you know the background of that I don't think it's different from what Mr. Maui just said, but that would be interesting and I think it help might help inform me for the relative as we think about we all want everything in the CIP, but we have to prioritize. And so over the coming weeks, if you have a wisdom to deliver to me, I'll take it. And that's really the only big question that I have. I see multiple lights on. I think uh is this on the same topic, Mr. Spain? Then we'll go to you, Mr. Kon.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you. And uh thanks to everyone and thank you Mark uh McCauley for uh lifting up. I I think I'm looking for perhaps a little bit of definitiveness on when the report should you know may come out. You say end of the year, but we can talk about that a little later. I think in my closing comments here, um you know, adaptive reuse quite honestly is is a plus for Arlington. Um, it's not only solving a lot of our office vacancy dilemmas and issues that we have right now, but what we have to be very careful about, I think, and we're hearing this in the planning commission and other areas is that um by creating all of this uh are we in fact uh putting forward a deficit when it comes to let's say our parks, uh libraries, civic space, community infrastructure, you name it. So, I think we need to be very diligent as we move forward in this arena and ensuring that we are uh in keeping with some of the promises again that we've made to these communities uh and not uh so long ago past. We quickly forget uh the promises is made and I think people are expecting us to deliver on that and I think we can do both. You you know, Mr. Chair, we can walk and chew gum at the same time here in Arlington. But thank you and I look forward to supporting this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. Mr. Karen Tonus. Um Mr. Chair, I wanted to comment on one thing on this list. Um when we started in 24, we uh had all the intentions of the perfect planners to create perfect uh you know transparency into the future and you know already you know measure and and identify the potential properties and have kind of an advanced uh preview of how this play out play scenarios on this. I think that it's still premature to do that and I don't see uh the hard uh public the hard benefit of of insight here. Uh I think what we did in 24 was to say let's open the gates. Let's lift the barriers. Not don't we and and the barrier was we were staunch uh uh you know zoning uh fundamentalists on commercial use, right? We wanted commercial use and because this is the best uh you know and and and more most profitable use of of land in close to transit on top of transit actually etc. So we lifted that and we began to uh redefine the uses and take all these barriers out and enable this. And now we see that things that we never thought I mean I I would never have bet I mean I never thought that a building like 1800 was a viable adaptive reuse prog pro um uh candidate. I still don't believe that by the way. I I think that there are significant issues with that and I'm excited to see that I'm wrong. honestly and that we learn as we go. So I would leave it still open because in the balance what transparency is about and accountability is is what's the balance of deliverables here on the one side. Yes, we are lagging behind or not

exactly lagging behind. we are not seeing the uh the pathway the clear pathway to the park or the clear pathway to a library or a clear pathway to other civic uh because the old style u planning was just net new density uh it it doesn't come very fast but it comes in big batches so big batches of value and so this is a credible path to to get this now we have a new one that sequesters faster value because we are going to add value to these buildings. We have done it already on on Crystal Drive, but it comes in smaller budgets, small far smaller ones. So, we need to digest that first and see how how it really works. So I'm I would be still here in the exploratory mode but with an inventory of how what the actual needs are because the new residents who come in and I found Miss Cunningham's question about the conversion rate there uh on schools uh brilliant. I think this is a fantastic place to to to start. how many families will choose to live in a building like that in big apartments but not with a lot of light etc. So uh uh that's that that would inhibit me for today to to task staff to prepare some sort of a formal report of that uh but rather have a regime of observation that the the planning commission SPRC's etc should be part of that the neighborhood should be a very big part of that because they are the the living measure of how their neighborhood is uh changing. They are not coming to us by asking to deliver on a 2010 uh plan. They do, but more importantly, they're coming to us to say, "Wait a minute. My neighborhood is exploding. It's a it's a it's a showpiece of a of good planning and good work." Yeah, but there are certain things um certain things

missing. You you delivered a fantastic car, but you know, one wheel is is missing here. Uh so that's that's the new quality of of adaptive policy that we have to accompany uh with adaptive reuse in my opinion. Anyway, thank you. Thank you Mr. Karen Tonus. Miss Cunningham.

I will um just include in my concluding remarks um a I am in support of the project so excited about that. Um, and B on the on the civic asset conversation, I think we do have a lot more to talk about. So, and I know we've been talking about it and with community members. Um, I think both Boston and um and National Landing have some similar pain points that we just need to figure out how to make sure that we are investing in libraries and parks um in just making it a great place to live as well as uh getting the the buildings to be um occupied which is what we all mean to have. On that note, a question for the applicant and maybe a plea for other projects as well is we hear from families in particular about the need for play areas and so curious how you're addressing that with indoor or rooftop or other topics. Um and then similarly we we hear from everyone from three to 103 about more community garden space and so also curious how you're thinking about that whether it's rooftop or um you know uh water gardening inside um and you don't need to belabor it but maybe just a quick answer and then I will stop talking.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question. I think one of the things that we're really excited about is being able to open up um some of the amenities to children because we do anticipate that there's going to be additional families in these um converted uh buildings. And so one of the new amenities that we're bringing in that we typically wouldn't put into our high-rise is actually children's rooms. And that's going to be um a big part of our amenity platform is just really thinking about how families would use these buildings. And obviously we're very early on on the design um and the interiors, but that's one thing that we're excited about. We'll take note of the the gardening as one of the the needs of the neighborhood and hopefully we can be able to, you know, incorporate that as we continue design.

Thank you, colleagues, and thank you to the planning commission. I'll have just very brief thoughts. First, ultimately, I think that the 100 vote uh on the planning commission is more aligned with where I am than the 64 vote. uh there's a condition precedent concept in the law and I don't believe that that we're in a condition precedent situation. I do align in part with the I think there's it's possible to align with that vote align with the I believe that adaptive reuse is a benefit given that our our vacancy rate is still at 20%. I just believe it's a benefit. And then thirdly, I believe that the list and the details of how we work that list for what's next in the CIP and by the end of the year is how I believe it's best for for me to approach the valid concerns that you've raised. That's just my perspective. With that, I'll call for a vote. All those in favor of this uh Miss Vice Chair Coffey's motion say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. You guys can stay, but you do not have to. Same is true with you. Congratulations. Thank you. oper operable windows, please.

Thank you. Thank you. And we'll have a shift change for those who are here on the next item. Um, and I'm not trying to be uh Scrooge like, congratulations on the project, but um, we're also kind trying to keep moving. We what I propose to try to do um, we have 13 speakers on the next item and then we have two two presentations. Um, and uh, those presentations will take some time. I believe lunch is here. I also believe um that there may be some people who are interested in this afternoon getting to other things besides the county board on this next item um which the main event

which I certainly can understand. I guess what I'd say is um we're 6 minutes to 12. It's going to take too long for us to do two full presentations. Colleagues, can we do a ex a efficient lunch and be back at 12:10 and hear the full item? 1210. Is that good? All right. It's ambitious. My apologies to all of you, but you knew that we were eventually going to have to eat lunch, I believe. And you'll find that we're nicer in general when we're fed. And so by 12:10, we'll hope to be back here. Um, and we'll take the item fully from there. So those who want to stay, apologies for not announcing it earlier. That's the way the real world works. We are recessed until 12:10. Thanks.

down

miss. Yeah. Oh, nice.

We have three. We're We're back in session and we'll not try to rush, but uh it's over to our clerk to call the next item, please. Certainly. Item number 34 on today's agenda is a site plan amendment number 452 to construct 47 townhouse units with modifications for lot coverage, front and sideyard setbacks, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development located at 2134 North Taylor Street. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Manager, I will All right. Thank you. share it with you and we can we don't have to rush, but we we all want to get Mr. Lamb's presentation. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Duranti. I'm going to turn it over to Kevin Lamb who is assisted today by Bryce Johnson. Over to you, Mr. Lamb. Thank you. Uh so, good afternoon board members. Good.

I'm Kevin Lamb with the planning division and today I'll be providing a brief presentation on behalf of staff for the Waverly Ridge project. So this um item is a site plan amendment uh to construct 47 townhouse units with modifications. So based on staff's analysis during the public review process, staff finds the proposal includes numerous deviations from the Langston Boulevard area plan uh with regards to uh land use, housing, public space, and tree canopy. Collectively, these deviations result in a project that fails to adequately achieve several area plan goals uh listed here, which include expanding land use and increasing density in appropriate locations, progressing towards housing production targets, including affordable housing goals for the corridor. Uh increasing community access to public spaces that promote social connection and expanding tree canopy to strengthen the corridor sustainability and resiliency. Uh therefore, staff recommends denial of the site plan amendment application. Um so taking a step back, uh the site is located at the corner of Cherry Hill Road and North Taylor Street in the Waverly Hills neighborhood. The 2.8 acre site uh currently consists of four unoccupied single detached dwellings, five out buildings, as well as a large forested area uh back here. It is also bordered by several condos, apartment buildings and town houses. So the applicant is not requesting a change in either the uh general annies plan designation or zoning designation, the existing glo designation is low medium residential and is also located within the Langston Boulevard planning district. Uh the site also includes a triangle uh denoting public space. Uh

meanwhile the existing zoning is RA818 multiple family dwelling district. So the existing site plan um at the site uh currently consists of site plan number 452 which is also known as the artist senior living project. So this project was approved back in 2020 and it consists of a 175 unit assisted living facility that is six stories and includes new public space. So while the uh site plan approval remains valid, it also remains unbuilt. Uh back in 2023, a site plan amendment application was submitted by a new contract purchaser of the site in order to facilitate construction of the elder care facility which was at that time to be known as Solera Reserve. However, unresolved contractual reasons prevented them from proceeding and the county board ultimately deferred the site plan amendment indefinitely. So, the uh site is located just off of Langston Boulevard and is therefore subject to the Langston Boulevard area plan adopted in 2023. The area plan establishes a vision for the Langston Boulevard corridor as a green main street of connected neighborhoods with improved access, safety, sustainability, and amenities. It provides a framework for future growth along the corridor and outlines goals and recommendations related to key planning elements. Uh the site itself is located in area 3's residential district, uh which is largely characterized by multif family residential development. So diving uh deeper into the area plan uh to encourage new housing occurs within appropriate locations. The area plan includes usemix maps as well as uh building height and form maps that inform future land use types and

densities. So as you can see here at the subject site, the area plan recommends multif family residential up to seven stories. So to enable these uh recommended land use and building heights, the area plan also envisions future glo changes along the corridor when redevelopment uh does occur. So again at the subject site as shown here, the area plan recommends a designation of uh low office apartment. In addition, the area plan seeks to increase access to a diverse network of public spaces as growth occurs. Uh the area plan identifies a 20,000 square foot public space located at the corner of Cherry Hill Road and North Taylor Street, approximately 17,400 ft of which is to be located on the subject site itself. Uh the area plan further recommends that the public space includes a hybrid of plaza and park amenities with a mixture of hardscape and landscape elements to support large community gatherings. So going back to the proposal, uh it includes again 47 townhouse units at a density of 16.8 dwelling units per acre. Each townhouse unit includes two parking spaces with another 11 spaces located on site uh dedicated to residential visitors. The site includes private internal streets and a 10,279 square foot new uh public space. Uh the applicant is also requesting modifications for uh law coverage as well as setbacks. So in support of the corridor wide vision uh the area plan establishes several goals including increasing density through GLP changes uh at the subject site. again that low office apartment hotel G club G club G club G club G club G club G club G club G club

G club designation which uh corresponds to allowing densities of up to 72 uh units per acre achieving housing and housing production targets including uh 2500 affordable units on Langston Boulevard by 2040 expanding equitable housing choices increasing access to public spaces as well as expanding tree canopy at this site it uh recommends 35% tree canopy coverage as well as corridorwide. So on the left uh this shows the concept plan uh in the area plan depicting the site as envisioned by the area plan. So uh in support of these goals as a multif family residential development. So in reviewing uh the proposal in relation to these goals uh the proposal maintains the existing glove designation uh providing 16.8 8 units per acre. It does provide uh 47 market rate units uh with no required contribution for affordable housing. It does provide home ownership housing with larger size units. It installs and maintains that 10,279 square ft of new public space. And then in terms of tree canopy, it includes 26% coverage. So staff finds the proposal fails to adequately achieve these area plan goals which is largely attributed to the proposed housing typology. So the fact is the proposed housing typology presents a major deviation from the area plan which again recommends that multif family residential the impacts of the proposed townhouse typology is reflected in the proposed site design compared to what is envisioned by the area plan. So typically uh multif family residential consists of you know compact multi-story buildings with vertically stacked units as well as shared entrances and parking

facilities. However, as you can see here, town houses uh feature sidebyside units and are often characterized by increased lock coverage to accommodate uh various internal sidewalks and streets to support the individual unit entrances. There's private garage access. There's the visitor parking as well as uh fire access to consider. So while the area plan does acknowledge that town houses contribute to more housing choices in the corridor, it also stresses that byite townhouse redevelopment would likely result in a form of development inconsistent with plan goals for moderate to higher levels of residential density and the urban and pedestrianoriented streetscapes, consolidated public open space and a coordinated multimodal plan street grid that can be achieved through multif family housing. As a result, the area plan recommended a zoning ordinance amendment to require approval of town houses within the Langston Boulevard planning district via special exception site plan. Despite this, the area plan does identify transition areas along the edge of the corridor for townhouse development where this uh housing typology can provide appropriate height transitions between high density to lower density areas as shown here. So within all the RA zoning districts, uh there are residential uses that may be developed by right subject to various requirements for things such as height, street frontage, lot area, bulk coverage, and placement. So listed here are uh the byite residential uses for the subject site along with the maximum densities that could theoretically be achieved. Uh so just going through these a maximum of 20

one family dwellings uh 34 two family dwellings and 101 multif family units could be developed by right. It's also important important to consider the proposed townhouse project in relation to the currently approved artist senior living site plan uh in purple and the um site as envisioned by the area plan in green. So, the Art of Senior Living uh project, which um does predate adoption of the area plan, uh provides over three and a half times the number of units, all senior housing, a $350,000 AHIP contribution, and the same amount of public space, which is outlined in pink here, and a greater tree canopy coverage than currently proposed. Meanwhile, uh for the multif family residential project as envisioned by the area plan, uh this project would theoretically provide at least 200 units, the recommended public space and tree canopy, as well as affordable housing in the form of an AHAF contribution, 30 on-site calves associated with the recommended glove change, and potentially additional calves associated with uh request for bonus density. So, looking at the proposed uh density and associated site plan features and improvements, uh should it receive county board approval today, the applicant will provide uh new sidewalks and street trees, site landscaping and uh trees, contributions for public art. Um they are undergrounding util some utilities. They are providing a contribution to the utility undergrounding fund as well as implementing a transportation demand management program. Uh since there is no additional density requested, there are

no features or amenities associated with additional density. Uh so the area plan itself did evaluate existing conditions through an equity lens and found the corridor provides limited housing opportunities for lower and middle inome households to live or stay in the area. Uh it also identified there are connectivity gaps in areas with insufficient public spaces. The corridor lacks robust street canopy coverage which disproportionately impacts those who rely on non-vehicular transportation. and the existing transportation network is generally undesirable for walking or biking. So, as a result, the air plan does seek to address these inequities through the policies and recommendations previously mentioned. Um, staff finds the proposal does not advance the equity goals for housing, public spaces, and tree canopy, but does contribute to the transportation network. Uh the project was reviewed by the SPRC which included representatives from various commissions, civic associations and the adjacent condos and HOAs. So during the SPRC meetings, uh members were generally receptive to the proposal despite the deviations identified by staff. Some SPRC members raised concerns about the anticipated sales price being unattainable for mo for most Arlingtonians and the lack of green building elements. Uh some also suggested the limited size of the public space could be mitigated through other site improvements while there was strong support expressed by civic associations and adjacent condos and town houses. The following commissions and community groups also provided letters and comments which are um attached to this agenda item. And just to wrap up, following the SPRC meetings, the project was heard at the transportation commission where they

voted 9 to0 recommending approval. The planning commission also heard this item where they voted 5 to2 recommending approval. And as you know, last month the county board voted to defer consideration at the applicant's request um at their April county board meeting to no later than the May county board meeting. And to conclude, staff recommends denial of the site plan amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lamb. We'll now turn it to the applicant. Mr. Cummings.

Good afternoon. Uh Nick Cummings with Walsh Kluchcci here on behalf of the applicants, Brian and Christine Normile of BCN Homes and Arlington based real estate development company and the rest of our uh team including Chris Gordon at KGD, Karen White at Walter L. Phillips, Feliz Bria at Grove Slade, and Frank Poli, also from BCN, as well as my associate Jess Washington. BCN has built more than 200 homes, multiple town home projects, restaurants, and other commercial projects, including a school on Langston Boulevard over the last 28 years in Arlington, and has an active townhouse project in Penrose right now. In addition, the design and engineering teams of KGD and Walter L. Phillips have worked on projects totaling millions of square feet of new development in the county. They are all very proud of these contributions to Arlington County and look forward to this new town home project at Waverly Bridge, bringing to fruition the redevelopment of a longstalled site in accordance with the Langston plan goals. As you know, we were deferred last month and during that time made a strong effort to improve this proposal. Significant changes were made, including commitments to green building measures that are now codified in our conditions and due to the critical importance of affordable housing to the Langston plan in this community, an AHIF contribution that matches the one approved in the artist plan. This project brings much neededed housing to Arlington on a parcel that has been vacant and blighted for 30 years. It is important to note that the housing created will be new family-sized housing supply and an ownership product in high demand, but in short supply throughout the county. This is done while fulfilling the goals of the Langston Boulevard area plan. The plan provides guidance for redevelopment throughout the corridor and recommends housing on this site. It also anticipated flexible implementation over a 30 to 50-year period of which we are in year three, characterizing its recommendations as just one concept for each area plan and stressing the need to accommodate changing community needs and desires and market changes as each project comes forward for review. It

plans and allows for town houses as well as multif family uses and recognizes the role that town homes and forale housing have in the housing market and the need for that type of product. Town homes are allowed everywhere housing is allowed in the plan area and while previously a byright use now require site plan review. That was not done to discourage or prevent this desirable product from being built. It was done to ensure that each project was reviewed for conformance with the plan and to ensure that the community benefits were realized with each project and that is exactly what was successfully done with this proposal. There are litany of specific plan goals we knock out at the park also referenced on this slide with some specific quotes. Our project will increase and diversify housing supply, provide ownership opportunities, offer family-sized units with a total of 188 bedrooms, delivers the open space and landscaping and streetscape improvements, undergrounds utilities, includes green building features, and makes an AHF contribution. This is a project that meets the goals of the plan. We're also amending an existing approval, the artist site plan, which was approved prior to the adoption of the plan. It includes a number of community benefits that are identified as planned goals, including a 10,000 foot public open space, road and streetscape improvements, storm water management improvements, and a $356,000 AHIF contribution, among others, all of which are included in the current application that is before you, including of course that AHIFF contribution. And although that sits outside the site plan conditions, was not mentioned in staff's report, it is the same contribution approved in the artist plan and is offered to match the benefits that plan delivered. One more piece of context that is important to reiterate today is that when the LBAP was developed, this was the only large parcel on the corridor with an active approved site plan. Because artist was already approved and those working on the plan believed it would be built, the site was not subjected to the same type of community visioning process as every other parcel on the corridor. LBA executive director Ginger Brown spoke at SPRC and said, "When we were going

through Plan Langston Boulevard, this project and this parcel was an approved site plan. It really wasn't under any real public discussion at that time. That history matters when evaluating plan conformance for this specific site. Critically, our project will provide upwards of 188 bedrooms in the Waverly Hills in the Waverly Hills community, which is essentially the same number of beds in the approved assisted living facility and consistent with the number of bedrooms, especially considering how many studios, efficiencies, etc. are delivered these days that might be seen in a multif family building on the site. All of these are critical goals of the plan and are fulfilled with the project. All of the community benefits that were provided, as I stated, in the currently approved artist site plan, including that public open space, street improvement, storm water management, were retained and even improved in some cases. This was done despite a significant decrease in density, nearly 35% in F, and a lower height at four stories. All changes that have been wellreceived by the surrounding community. And specifically, the project provides, consistent with that artist's approval, public open space, just over 10,000 square ft in size, utility undergrounding fund contribution include in addition to undergrounding all on-site utilities, increased tree canopy on site, more new trees, reduced lot coverage, and remember that tree canopy replacement coverage um contribution has gone up to nearly $724,000, which is substantial. um as well as a number of green building features that I mentioned earlier and of course the AHIF contribution. The result is a project that will accomplish all of the community benefits the artist project promised but was never able to deliver because it could not be financed and built. The plan has also received broad community support since the acceptance of this application and through the entire SPRCP process. an 80 recommendation to approve from transportation commission and a 5-2 recommendation to approve from the planning commission. In particular, the plan has received enthusiastic support

from the major stakeholders including the LBA, Waverly Hills, and Cherry Dell Civic Associations and neighboring properties and communities. This support is evidenced by previous testimony, letters of support, and a number of speakers that you will hear from today. Many of the folks involved in this review process have been working on plans to develop this site for almost a decade, myself included, and the record shows more than 27 years of unsuccessful attempts to redevelop it, none of which have delivered a completed project. BCN will deliver this project, which maintains and improves that package of community benefits while delivering a muchneeded and desired housing type that blends in beautifully with surrounding development and is strongly supported by the neighborhood. The project does provide density. 150 plus residents who will be part of the Waverly Ridge town home community who will walk to Lee Heights bike Lee Heights shops, bike to local trails, walk their kids to Dorothy Ham and Gleeb Elementary, enjoy the public open space provided next to them and who will be part of the transformation on Cherry Hill Road that brings the vision of a green Main Street to life along the corridor. All as envisioned and allowed in the LBA. The strong demand for this type of housing speaks to the lack of it across the county and the strong desire of Arlingtonians to remain in Arlington when purchasing a home. Town homes, which are a much denser type of forale housing, offer housing solutions to a wide array of different purchasers and are a flexible housing solution. We've heard from many long-term residents who own in the surrounding neighborhoods and want to find ownership housing with less upkeep and with an elevator to age in place and stay in the community where new single family homes are often twice the price and square footage of a new town home. In closing, I want the board to know the Waverly Ridge site plan process did not divide the community, but rather the community and the neighboring citizens around this parcel are in fact united in support of this

project. And after having waited nearly 30 years for this site to be developed and support this project, we respectfully ask this board to end that wait today and approve this application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. We will have questions. We'll move next um to our commissions and I believe we have Miss Peterson here for planning and we'll see if there are any others. Miss Peterson.

Okay. Good afternoon. Good to see you again. I'm Tenley Peterson from the planning commission. We heard this item at our April hearing. Uh this for us was a difficult decision. Um, it is not often that staff recommends denial on a project and we take that very seriously. Um, as the planning commission, since we're looking at these early projects for Plan Langston Boulevard, we have really been reinforcing that it needs to follow the plan. We really want to set a precedent that we expect people to follow the plan. All that said, um, as you heard, this site wasn't really considered during the plan Langston Boulevard process really thoroughly because we already had a really nice, much wanted, um, project already approved, the artist senior living site. We were all really excited for that project. It was one of my first projects on the planning commission. So, I think it was really disappointing for the entire community when that wasn't going to be able to to um, go through it. Um and then there was the second uh senior living project that was being considered that was again determined to be infeasible. Um this site has been vacant for a really long time. It's been unckempt and the community I was just feeling really frustrated that this is a very unproductive site. Um and we were also aware that um by could produce uh we were told at at our hearing 14 single family homes. I think there was some updated numbers, but there's still a a potentially attractive buy option here that um made us a little bit uncomfortable. So, this site will bring 47 town houses. Um it is not multif family, which you know, generally the planning commission is very supportive of. Um but as was noted, a lot of multif family units are studios in onebedrooms. Um, and so if we're looking at 47 townhouse units, which are more likely to have families in them, we're probably going to get close to the same number of residents actually living in this area, and it will be more likely that kids can live in the area since children often don't live in those studio or one-bedroom apartments.

Um, they will be offered at a different price point. Um, so we did note that and we are disappointed that there will be a lack of on-site affordable housing. that is usually really important to some to us and something that we focus on as a as a commission. So, that was one of the reasons this was a hard decision for us. Um, we're also disappointed that we're going to get a much smaller park space than the plan calls for. Um, the tree canopy is disappointing. We like to see tree canopy. We feel like there's too much street space and um interior driveways that, you know, really is there a way that we could have redone that so that there could have been more park space? Um the project has a lot of potential for being really green. Um the applicant talked about, you know, solar panels on the roofs and EV parking, but they weren't willing to put any of that in the site plan conditions. So there's no way for us to enforce that that would actually be followed through on. Um part of that is because the county no longer has our green home program. That program has been discontinued because of staff turnover. Um and so there weren't a lot of great opportunities for staff to really push put including site plan conditions or have a program to really require um a higher standard. Um one of our biggest concerns with this process was that the C2E2 commission has a standard questionnaire that they work with applicants to fill out and usually applicants are really supportive of that process and are very happy to share information with um our our colleagues on the C2E2 commission. And in this process, they did not reply to emails. They did not respond to the questions. Um, and so, you know, for part of the site plan review process, it's really important that the applicant engage with us and respond to us and work with us. And, um, C2E2 in particular didn't feel like that was happening. And all of my colleagues on the planning commission were disappointed about that. Um though ultimately um we have very much respect for staff and the hard work that you do and respect that you um recommended

denial of this project. Um we understand your rationale. We ultimately ended up voting in support of this project. Um from our perspective, this site has been vacant and unproductive for far too long. Um it has seen a couple of failed projects. We do not want to see a third failed project. Um the site wasn't actually fully considered and assessed during the plan langston boulevard process. Um, and it does have really strong support in the community and will will provide a lot of density and actual number of humans that live here if not our traditional way of assessing density. So, we did ultimately uh vote in support of this. I will read the motion. The planning commission recommends that the county board approve the application for site plan amendment SPLA25-000027 aka site plan 452 to permit the construction of 47 townhouse units with modifications for lot coverage front and side yard setbacks and other mod modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development located at 2134 North Taylor Street. That was voted in support 5 to2. Thank you very much and I'm available for questions if you have any. Thank you, Miss Peterson. I believe we have our C2E2 representative Mr. Sandali or Yes,

Mr. Sandoli. That's better. You'd think I'd know

uh would you mind uh button in the center of your microphone?

There you go. Thank you. Good afternoon. Um and thank you to Miss Tenley Peterson from the planning commission for for raising several of our points. Um, uh, I'm Rob Sandoli. I serve as the vice chair of the Climate Change Energy Environment Commission or C2E2. I also serve as C2E2's lead representative, uh, to this Waverly Ridge project. Regarding the project, uh, C2E2 prepared a draft letter to the board just yesterday following a call with the developer on Wednesday and following our access to the negotiated site plan amendments only one week ago where we observed uh for the first time the limited sustainability commitments that were negotiated with county staff. This is not how it's supposed to be. But before I address our proposed process improvements, let me summarize C2E2's assessment of the project from a sustainability perspective. Based on available information from the applicant, C2E2 applied our scorecard rating methodology with which uh the board uh is familiar. Uh to be fair, our scorecard framework works best with commercial buildings and large multif family housing developments. So scoring for a townhouse project development like this one may produce a slightly lower score than expected. Nevertheless, uh applying the tool that we have, we rate the project at 48%. Which falls short of what is necessary to meet the carbon uh the county's carbon neutrality uh and other sustainability goals. I'll begin by noting uh the positive elements of this project which include enforcable commitments now to install Energy Star appliances, water sense fixtures, efficient uh electric HVAC systems, pre-wiring for rooftop solar PV and EV charging, programmable thermostats and paints, sealants and carpets uh with low volatile organic compound content. The applicant also commits to install reasonably efficient windows, though

specifications appear to uh appear to fall short of Energy Star criteria for the windows. While pre-wiring uh for solar and EV charging is commendable, uh C2e2 believes the applicant should actually complete the installation of the devices. More significantly on the downside for this project, we note the applicant chose not to pursue green building certification, conduct any energy modeling or benchmarking or addressed construction waste diversion embodied carbon and many other sustainability features. Open space features and tree canopy coverage also fall short. We note that these are two of the four areas of concern that compelled county staff to recommend denial of the site plan amendment. Since Arlington's green home choice program was discontinued, C2 recognizes that the applicant is not technically required to incorporate many sustainability features under the baseline site plan conditions for townhouse development. Nevertheless, uh C2e2 uh finds that the development proposal is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the county's climate action resolution. We believe adjustments can be made to improve the sustainability features of this project. Now turning to process improvements. C2 notes that no sustainability documentation was made publicly available throughout the site plan review committee process or SPRC process. In fact uh I was in the project website just yesterday. I counted 80 documents to support the project including plan sheets uh justification letters request forms and other documents. When I clicked on the file titled sustainability commitments and in another file entitled energy model summary and proposed savings, a one-pager with the same text popped up. It read the applicant will submit the requested documentation at a later date. This is the print out from the website right here. So now the county board is about to vote on this project. So how

much later can we get? Uh accordingly uh C2E2 recommends changes to the SPRC process. In short, we suggest that no project should move forward to county board review unless sufficient sustainability documentation is submitted in a timely fashion during the SPRC process. Furthermore, we suggest such documentation should be submitted in advance of the first of two planned SPRC meetings. C2E2 stands ready to work with the board and county staff on these process improvements which will help advance climate environmental priorities for the benefit of all county residents. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sandoli. Next, we'll turn to uh our public, our community, and I believe we have public speakers. Mr. Kushner, we do. Our first speaker registered virtually is Mr. Nicole Too followed by excuse me, Steven Fedoric. Mr. Tuloose,

we will come back. Back. Um, going once, going twice. We'll come back. Uh, next speaker, Steven Fedoric. Mr. Fedoric.

Uh, good afternoon, county board members, county manager, others in attendance. Um, thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Stephen Fedorch. I'm grateful to have lived and worked in Arlington for the last 20 years after first living and working here in the early 1990s. Hard to believe. Um, during my time in Arlington, I've been fortunate to be immersed in the community in a variety of ways. as a business founder, co-owner, and operator of the Liberty Restaurant Group, as a board member, volunteer executive, and donor across multiple nonprofit entities, including Doorways and Arlington Free Clinic, and currently as a commissioner, an executive committee member on the Arlington Economic Development Commission. Throughout this time, I have frequently interacted with and been appreciative of county public officials and staff. With that in mind, I would like to voice strong support for the Waverly Ridge project proposed by BCN Homes based on the following. The project activates a long dormant site in a thoughtful and productive way, adding appealing new housing product that's well positioned to attract a diverse stream of potential residents. BCN builds highquality, durable, and aesthetically pleasing real estate that resonates with buyers and stands the test of time. This has been proven over the course of nearly 30 years of building in Arlington. And finally, the project will greatly enhance the sense of community, vibrancy, and connectivity between the Cherryale and Lee Heights neighborhoods and provide welcome new economic stimulus within that corridor. As an example, our restaurant company is finalizing plans for a new business on

the Essriage Essie's carriage house site. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to serve 150 plus new residents. Thank you in the context of this project. Thank you, Mr. Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Fedorch. Next speaker. Our next speaker speaking for three minutes is John Miso, followed by Miss Caitlyn Plattton. Mr. Miso.

Good afternoon, members of the county board. John Miso, government affairs manager at the Arlington Chamber. On behalf of the chamber, I want to express our support for this project and we urge you all to please adopt the development project at 2134 North Taylor Street. Currently, this site remains vacant and continues to deteriorate as the numerous previously proposed projects detailed in other presentations have stalled or failed to materialize over the last 27 years. Currently, this site generates no housing, no community benefits. The proposal before you all today would transform this site into a place with 47 town homes and up to 150 different residents. This would not only create home ownership opportunities in Long Lin Boulevard corridor, but also alleviate a shortage throughout the county of larger three and fourbedroom units that provide additional opportunities for families in Arlington to grow, stay, and thrive within Arlington and not having to move outside of the county for larger spaces. Additionally, as mentioned, this would generate numerous community benefits. Improvements to Cherry Hill Road, North Taylor Street, more than 10,000 square feet of open space, storm water improvements, and so forth. We believe that these proposed the benefits in this project would align ultimately with the goals of Langston Boulevard that we all share. And as noted, this has been endorsed by the Langston Boulevard alliance, the Wly Hill Civic Association, the Transportation Commission, and Planning Commission. They've all have thought that the benefits of this project way outweigh any negatives. So, we very strongly urge you all to please adopt this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Russo. Next speaker. Sorry. Our next speaker is Miss Caitlyn Platt, followed by Mr. Bernie Burn. Miss Platt, are you there virtually?

I am here virtually. Yes. Hi, my name is Caitlyn Platt and I'm an Arlington resident raising my family here with my husband and I have my kids in the Arlington school system. I manage sales efforts for BCN, but I'm here in the capacity as a licensed realtor for the last 13 years here in Arlington. I'm not speaking as a representative of the applicant, but to share my experience selling town homes. I've sold many new town homes across Arlington projects like Boston Grove in Boston, Irving, and 9inth in Lion Park. I'm working currently on the launch of Bradberry Square and Penrose in the next few weeks. I've also sold many resale town homes across the county and I know firsthand how scarce this type of home is and how hard buyers are searching to find one. The buyers I work with aren't looking for a condo or a rental apartment. They want a feastable home with space, privacy, a garage, and the ability to build equity. And town homes are nearly impossible to find in Arlington. At any given time in this market, there are as few as five to six town homes for sale across Arlington. This represents less than a month's supply of inventory. I also sell many new single family homes, but they've become more expensive for buyers, too expensive for buyers, and older homes at a more attainable price point present a challenge because they need to be updated, renovated, or expanded. My buyers are typically coming from apartments or condos, and typically there are residents of Arlington. I find that many of these buyers love the layouts of town homes and the fact that they're low maintenance, yet they still come with outdoor space through balconies, terraces, and nearby open space. Other buyers express the desire for an elevator so they can age in place in the future. And many buyers want to live in the Arlington way, walking to shops and restaurants and biking to trails. Lee Heights and the surrounding parks and trails will fulfill that goal. I see how these buyers free up housing stock, whether it's rental supply or ownership supply, because they're moving up or downsizing, and that's important with the shortages we face in Arlington and the surrounding areas. I strongly support this product for the clients I know who desire more options for ownership housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Plant. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Bernie Burn, followed by Mr. Shawn Lauder. Mr. Burn, are you there virtually? Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead.

This is not a good project. The project does not align with the Atlant Boulevard area plan. As a result, it has several features that the plan recommends but are not appropriate to the proposed project. This is an important point which you must consider because it is residential. This project needs more green space to accommodate trees and low vegetation. Green space supports butterflies and other pollinators. It also increases livability. The area plan recommends a public space containing a paved plaza and a lawn. These are supposedly needed to support the large population that the area plan recommends for project site. However, a project as small as this one does not need a plaza or lawn. This is one of the major that problems that occurs from this type of of improping. The uh the pollinator should remove the lawn from the public space. Lawns provide little carbon habit for pollinators. They also increase storm water runoff. Yet, this is what the applicant is proposing. Most storm lawn grasses are invasive non-natives. Their mowing uses energy and creates air and no noise pollution. The applicant needs to replace the lawn with native trees, shrubs, and perennials, but it won't. To its credit, the plant pallet contains common milkweed. This plant tree feeds many monarch butterfly caterpillars in Arlington and its vicinity. However, the plant pallet also contains 10 species that are native to North America, but are not native to Arlington and its vicinity. These include a tree, southern root magnolia, shrubs such as ink berry, summer sweet and American bit beauty berry, a perennial purple cone flower, and two ornamental grasses. Native polynes may not recognize these and they are virtually useless. The the applicant should replace all non-natives with plants that are native to all vicinity,

but it won't. The these should have si uh similar characteristics to the uh non-natives that is planning to install. Now the important point the present po site presently contains a woodland or forested area that provides many benefits to the environment that this project won't if the applicant can cannot pro provide the type of project that the area plan proposes the county should purchase the property at its assessed value. Preserve the woodland and make it a park and let the c the applicant make some money on this thing. In short do not approve this project. Save the woodland as tree canopy. make it a park and don't follow the the area plan blindly when the when the applicant is not going to follow it in the first place. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burn. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Mr. Shawn Louderder, followed by Shawn Wilson. Mr. Louderder,

I thank you for the opportunity to uh be able to address the county board about this project. I would like to uh strongly recommend that you approve the project. I have been a um I've worked in Arlington for the past 20 years and I've been lucky enough to be a resident for the past eight years. I rent a home along the Langston Boulevard um corridor and have watched this project as I just got married last year and like most newlyweds, my wife and I are looking at options to buy a home. What we're seeing is a lot of older homes that are built in the 1940s and 50s um that require a lot of upkeep, maintenance, and frankly a lot of renovation uh to bring it, you know, to modernize the home. When I saw this project, it was the first inkling that as a longtime person that's worked in Arlington, I could own a brand new home in Arlington. I strongly recommend that you approve this project for me and people like me who want to be able to own a new home in Arlington. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Louderder. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Mr. Shawn Wilson. Hi. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes. Go ahead.

Wonderful. Thank you for your time. Um, so my name is Sean Wilson. I have been a licensed residential real estate agent here in Arlington for a number of years and I have worked alongside my mother and Wilson and we've helped a ton of families build homes here in Arlington. Um, and this is my home. I've grew up here and I've built a career here. Over the past few years, I've watched a ton of clients have the same conversations over and over again. There is a good amount of inventory of homes um in Arlington. However, they don't check all their boxes, and I believe this project does that perfectly. Um, according to Real Scout, which is a tool that a lot of residential real estate agents use, there are currently 500 active and qualified buyers searching for this criteria, which just only shows and supports that there are people who are ready to move to Arlington or upgrade into a larger home or even downgrade into one of these developments. What I love about this project is it fills the gaps and for years, like you all have addressed, um, I have love for the corridor, but it's dominated by car dealerships. Um, and this area has been underdeveloped for, I believe, 27 years. Um, this project is what I would refer to as a no-brainer to move forward with. Um, and I strongly advise that we do. Um, and I genuinely think that this project mean would mean a lot to Arlington. Um, and there probably isn't a better development team to do it. Um, as BCN has built some incredible homes in the past. So, thank you for your time and I would love to see this be approved.

Thank you, Mr. Wil. Appreciate your comments. Next speaker. Yes. Our next speaker is Mr. Jay. Hicks, followed by Mr. Michael Augustine.

Mr. Hicks. Uh, good afternoon. Jay Hicks, 2015 North Kenmore Street. I live in Cherry Dale and near the property. That's in that capacity to that I'm here this afternoon. I also have the distinction of being the fellow who sold the property to BCN. Um, I provided the board with a letter that gave you some insights into the process. But to summarize, you know, we marketed the well, we tried to develop it, had it uh agreements with two separate senior living companies, both of which fell through. Decided we had to sell the property, marketed it heavily to senior housing, multif family, and townhouse developers. And the market was resounding to me when it said of the 12 offers, nine were from townhouse developers, one from senior and two from multif family. And as I said in the letter, while price is always important, commitment to close, giving the starcrossed history of this property was every bit as important, arguably more important than price. Uh we took a loss on this whole enterprise. Um commitment to close was important and the townhouse's offers were unique in their ability to provide the kind of commitments to suggest that it would go from contract to approvals to closing to construction. Um, and among the townhouse developers, we were particularly impressed with BCN and BCN's offer. Um, certainly their track record in Arlington is unparalleled, and I'm happy to see that at least from afar, they're maintaining all the commitments that they expressed to us during the during the negotiations and contract process. Um, so like I said, I've heard this property described as being starcrossed. It really is. It's a curiously challenging piece of property at a challenging time. I think the public benefits package that comes with this in the aggregate is exceptional.

And as a nearby resident and somebody who's lived this property for years and know how it's challenging it is, I would uh implore you to take advantage of this opportunity and approve this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Next speaker. Yes, our next speaker is Mr. Michael Augustine followed by Jay Hamilton. Mr. Austin, good afternoon. Yes, I'm here. Great.

Yes, my name is uh Mike Austinine. I have been an Arlington resident for over 26 years and I'm here to speak uh in support of the Waverly Ridge project. And Arlington has done a lot to add housing in recent years. Um, but if you look closely at what actually available, the choices are limited. For people who want to own a home here, put down roots, raise a family, stay in the community long term, um, and build equity. The options are scarce. So, my son lives in Arlington. He works in restaurant rest. He spent several months looking for a town home and found almost nothing in supply in Arlington cuz it's non-existent. Uh he eventually purchased a condo, but a town home would have given him the opportunity to provide rental housing to subsidize his mortgage. Here's the thing. He bought the count condo and he vacated an apartment. That's one more rental unit freed up for someone else. That's how housing supply works, especially when new dwellings, excuse me, uh are built and it creates opportunities across the board. So, my son uh wanted to build equity over time. a lot of older residents looking to downsize for lower maintenance option, a town home makes sense for them. So bottom line, 47 four-bedroom town homes for sale in an established neighborhood fill in this site that is set undeveloped for decades is exactly the kind of project Arlington should approve. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Austin. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Mr. Jay Hamilton, followed by Mr. Paul Romnes. Mr. Hamilton, are you there remotely? I'm dialing in. Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead. We can. Go ahead.

Oh, good. I'm double dipping. Uh because this is an important project. This is the type of project that fits in perfectly with the site that it's going to be on. Um the metro access is incredible. The three wire goes right into where I used to work at Fearson Square. The 55 takes you into Rosland. And you I heard one of the U uh administrators talk about why it was not approved. There is a sidewalk right to Lee Heights about two blocks away. So I don't understand what the heck that opposition's about. And to get to a bigger picture, my daughter and her husband as of 3 months ago moved from an apartment in Arlington to a townhouse in Falls Church, a very similar courtyard type structure that I saw the plans uh for the uh Waverly Ridge. And so, you know, you're in competition with Falls Church. Young people are looking for this type of housing and they're going elsewhere for it. These are the kinds of people that would fit in perfectly with this townhouse development. And um you know, more in line with what uh neighbors for neighborhoods is all about, um we know about Arlington's decades old transitoriented development model. This is perfectly fits into that model. And as one of the I think it's the past board chair even mentioned this morning, this offers that different type of layering that missing middle is all about. You know, it's not a McMansion. These are beautiful town houses that will fit in. Um, you know, some of the concerns I think are are not valid because there will be trees. It's like anything else when you clearcut a land, which happens all the time in these eHo approvals. U trees are part of the process. So, I really urge you to accept the scorecard as I see it. Everyone in favor of this except your staff and that doesn't sit well and you guys are the elected officials and I think you can do the right thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Mr. Paul Romis followed by Melissa Heinder. I'd like to thank the board for considering this project. Can you We can hear you, but we could hear you better if you were a little louder. I'll I'm happy to speak louder. Is that better? Sorry. Thank you.

Oh, no problem. Uh I'm Paul Romnus. Thank you to the board for considering this project. I am a 60-year-old t towny of Arlington. Um my my wife and I are very proud uh about uh our time living in Waverly Hills. It's just a great neighborhood and we'd like to someday move into a place not not so long from now uh in between where we are now and either Jefferson or Sunrise. And so this is a great opportunity for people like us to integrate with some of these younger people that could buy these town houses and walk to our favorite places. And it's just it seems like this is something that we've been hoping someone would build in Arlington for a long time. And so that transition between where we are now and Jefferson or Sunrise would be a great opportunity. These places possibly could have some elevators, which we're going to certainly need soon because it's hard to find a good orthopedic surgeon around here. Um but uh that was a joke. Um but uh we we really hope that the the county u the board passes this because this is something we are very interested in moving into and it' be a great transition. And other than that to Jay's point and some of these others there are other places that we could move to and we really don't want to because I've lived here my entire life.

Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you Mr. RS. Our next speaker is Melissa Heiser followed by Mr. George Granwell. Miss Hineser, if you're joining us virtually, uh, you'll want to place the microphone to unmute. Going once, going twice. We can come back. Circle back. Uh, next speaker is Mr. George Cranwell. And then I do believe Miss Tuloose is on the line. Mr. Cranwell, are you there? Oh, are you here? Excuse me. Sorry. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is George Cranwell. I'm a lifelong Arlington resident. I've owned a real estate brokerage here for the last 50 years. And my offices are just down the street from this project at 4113 Cherry Hill Road. I see this property sit there every day undeveloped over the last 30 years. It's clear that this site does not support multifamily housing. The market has said so repeatedly. What it does support is exactly what BCN Homes is proposing. I'll be honest, I hadn't planned to speak here today. I followed this application. I supported, but I didn't feel the need to come forward publicly until I saw it described in a headline in the Arlington now this week. Controversial. I want to address directly because it's simply not accurate. This is not controversial project. The underlying zoning already permits town homes. The site plan process exists precisely to unlock community benefits beyond what byright development would provide. And this project delivers them. meaningful public open space, streetscape improvements on Taylor Street and Cherry Hill Road that are long overdue and storm water management on the site where I can tell you from personal experience, drainage is a real recurring problem for neighbors. Arlington has serious housing shortage. Everyone in this room knows it. This project adds 47 new forale homes that do not currently exist anywhere in the pipeline.

That is a significant contribution to supply and comes with board community support from all the neighboring civic associations from Langston Boulevard alliance from neighbors who have watched this eyesore sit vacant for decades. I ask you to support this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cranwell. Next speaker. Yes. And I believe because we do have Miss Tuloose on the line now, I'd be happy to return to our two-minute speakers for a moment. Miss Tulus, are you there? I am. Thank you so much for having me today. Can you hear me? All right. Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. Wonderful. Oh gosh, that's very close. Um, I was actually just walking past this site with my son as we were coming back for a nap. So, uh, sorry for my tardiness. Um, I've lived here almost my whole life. Um, I know many of this speaker's kids actually. This site has been sitting vacant since I was a child. Everyone knew that it was going to be housing. So, that's not really a surprise to anyone. Um, I have said this for years and years, but the amount of forale housing that's available in this county is is very nominal. And um I think that it's 97% of the units that are planned right now in Arlington County are going to be apartments. And when we talk about supply, we have two different markets. We have our rental supply and our for sale supply. And I think we often loop them all together in total supply, but they're completely separate. And so the ability for us to be able to add forale housing um in an area that is prime for development that the community wants it um I think is a huge opportunity for us to take. Um I I think that it's just a a no-brainer. So um I don't have anything really more to say than that, but um I just support this project and hope you'll consider it.

Thank you, Miss Tuloose. And then very briefly, one more time, uh, see if Miss Melissa Heinder has joined us. Miss Heinser. All right. Not seeing her online. So, we'll move on to our fiveminute speakers, beginning with Miss Sandy Chzron. Miss Chzan.

Good morning, county board members, county manager, and county staff. Um, I'm Sandy Chester. from the president of the Waverly Hills Civic Association and we are here to support uh this project. Uh although the White House, the Congress, and the courts are all ignoring the will of the people as was mentioned earlier, we hope that our local government will continue to listen to the voters. All of us, the Langston Boulevard Alliance, Waverly Hills, Cherryale, and the surrounding multifamily developments on Cherry Hill Road strongly support this project. The application is consistent with the zoning and it is consistent with the Langston Boulevard area plan. The project will be bring many community benefits. Although, as you know, often townhouse developments bring none because they're by right. Housing. As everyone has said, the land has stood vacant for a long tong. We supported senior housing for over five years. As you heard from Jay, artists tried very hard and Silera tried very hard. And just to mention, Silera was under McAffrey, which is a very good Arlington developer who did the Clarendon Crossing and Mom's Organic Market. Neither of them could get financing. Well-designed town houses fill a gap in a critically low supply and high demand pattern. They are an EHO housing type representing only 3.7% of our inventory. This is important in Waverly Hills where seniors hope to age in community and there is also tremendous demand from our families. Town houses avoid high condo fees and are a sweet spot for building equity. In addition, although BCN is not asking for bonus density, the county staff, I believe, although I didn't hear it this

morning, has negotiated a generous contribution of $357,000 to affordable housing. That is the same amount that artists provided. Both the new tree-shaded sidewalks and lighting on Taylor and the new bike lane along Cherry Hill Road will enhance our safe walk to school. The plan also provides parking that meets the code. The green oasis pocket park of 10,000 plus square feet sits across from our Latino market and will provide important open space and also softscape that will not only facilitate shade but also overland relief. With regard to climate change, the project provides much needed storm water management included including underground vaults to keep the water on site and to prevent it from flowing into our flooding neighborhoods. This is an improvement from the artist plan which had no vaults. the tree canopy at 26% and the contribution does meet the requirement of LBAP as the project is less than seven stories. Per the LBA green Main Street, the applicant is providing shade including 77 new trees, native plantings, electrical HVAC and energy star, solar panel ready and EV ready charging stations. For all of these reasons and the community benefits, this project has been supported at all the neighborhood meetings, commissions, SPRC, and the planning commission. If this development plan is turned down, it sends a very negative message about development in Arlington and especially along the Langston Boulevard corridor. BCN will be left with a buy option. 14 McMansions or 24 duplexes. There will be no community benefits, a serious loss of tax revenue,

and fewer, more expensive housing units than these 47 town houses. Lastly, BCN is a local business who we respect as they continuously invest in Arlington's quality of life. In a time of vanishing bricks and mortar and empty storefronts and with investment going to false church, BCN provides us with excellent restaurants, Liberty Tavern, Line Hall, North Side Social, and housing. To summarize, as neighborhoods, we have worked on this site with the county for seven years. This is a good development, and there is no logic in not supporting it and every reason to support it. We implore you to get to yes today on this development. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Chzman. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Ginger Brown, followed by Jim Todd.

Hi. Uh, good morning, Chair Dick Defranti, and members of the county board and county manager and staff. I'm Ginger Brown. I'm the executive director of the Langston Boulevard Alliance. Uh, many of you know the history of our organization. We over many years organized 17 civic associations to push for change and investment along the corridor which is decades overdue. While we were lobbying for county resources to make plan Langston Boulevard possible, which took many years, those 17 civ civic associations came together to carefully carefully negotiate guiding principles for advocacy for the community. Those principles included many topics, transportation, economic vitality, etc. But to prepare for today, I gave the most thought to our housing principle. It was to design a range of new housing options emphasizing affordable units, but meeting the range of needs and incomes of many. Those aging in place, young professionals, families, those with disabilities, everyone can benefit from housing options closer to jobs, services, shopping, and transit. You can imagine um that we're very excited about the first two projects that were passed. We're very excited that we met 10% of our goal with the Leki project and 250 units. We're very proud proud of the um of the project uh that's going in at Spoutrun. We're excited for the next project that's probably coming through which is assisted living. And so I had to think about this project um when considering our support for it. Uh it's likely home ownership and I thought of two different examples. One from a long time ago and one from this week years ago I was the Waverly Hills Civic Association president. We updated our neighborhood conservation plan. It took a dozen volunteers and a year of work or more. We surveyed the whole

neighborhood. We learned lots of things, but the single most definitive thing that we learned was that people wanted to age in their neighborhood. 70%. Considering we only got 50% support for improving the park, that was eyeopening. The townhouse project offers a type of housing that will help address those needs. On Tuesday, I was at the economic development meeting. They had a workforce panel discussion. top Arlington companies were there and they were talking about recruitment. One of the panelists was a worker that had the skills that all of those companies were trying to recruit. He had recently moved to Prince George's County because he couldn't buy a home here. This project offers the type of housing that might address the need. This project offers a type of housing that will increase the supply. As you all know, Arlington has a supply problem for this range of housing types. Uh so when I thought of of our guiding principles, I thought yes, we support this t type of housing and this townhouse development. Other plans in Arlington have town houses in them. Roslin, Columbia Pike, Boston. We believe they are appropriate for our corridor as well. And we are pleased that an affordable housing contribution is also being made. It's important to remember this site, a longtime vacant lot with a few dilap dilapidated buildings, uh, brings its own unique history and a clear reminder of why this project should be approved. LBA was fully involved when this project was going through the SY plan in 2019 for artists which approved which was approved prior to the adoption of the Langston Boulevard area plan, but not by much. Uh given the timing of the approval and then in int intense scrutiny of the plan process, the site was largely left out of the public dialogue. We were talking about lots of other things, but not this site. LBA was extremely disappointed when the elder

care project failed and LBO was disappointed for a second time when the property was sold and the second attempt at devel development failed. Uh the artist project has lots of community benefits as many people have already said today. In short, this is a good development that needs an that adds a needed housing type, increases supply, and is supported by our neighbors. We strongly encourage the county board to approve this project. Thank you for considering the views of the Len Boulevard Alliance in the community. Thank you, Miss Brown. Next speaker. Yes, our next speaker is Jim Todd. And then we'll circle back to see if Miss Melissa is joined.

Mr. Todd, are you there virtually? Mr. Todd going once, going twice. You want to circle back to the other? We can certainly circle back to Jim Todd. We will go back to Miss Melissa Heinser who may be joining us virtually for three minutes. Miss Hineser, are you with us? Yes, I am. Yes, I am. Go ahead, Miss Hineser. Thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning. I wanted to say I have been a member of this community for 21 years. Um I live on the corner of Cherry Hill Road and uh Stafford H sorry and North Taylor.

The proposed park is Caddy Corner to where my house lives. This neighborhood I have raised my children in. Uh they're still in school um and some going off to college. We are my husband and I are highly excited about this project. bringing town homes, bringing more families, um um investing in the community. This will be a huge asset to the community to this neighborhood. We highly recommend that the county consider allowing this to go through. We believe that the increased sidewalks, the tree cover will all benefit everyone in this neighborhood. So, I implore that the county board consider this and vote in favor.

Thank you, Miss Hinder. Next, do we want to give one last chance to Mr. Todd? Yeah, we'll try one more time for Mr. Jim Todd. Are you joining us virtually? Okay, I do not see him online. Going once, going twice. No speakers. There are no further speakers.

Okay. Uh, we've heard from our public. Conversation is now with the board. Um colleagues, um I would suggest we have have some discussion before we uh move to any motion. Um this is there's lots to try to work through in this case. Um and I'm open to how we do it. There are categories identified in the staff report um and uh the planning commission's consideration um and I am open to uh how we do it. There's loosely I'd say there's um land use um housing uh sustainability including storm water um tree canopy and loosely I'll say green building or conditions with respect to green to climate related green pieces uh green work. Um, those are the biggest that come to mind. Um, so I would start there and um, we'll go to land use first and I see two lights. This you've gone first a few times. Maybe we'll go to Mr. Karen first this time and then back to you, Vice Chair Coffin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a fundamental question. This is important for my edification and for framing the conversation. uh most testimony was about these 30 years or 27 years uh that this side has been uh impossible to uh successfully develop. Is there anybody that's that's both to staff to the and to the applicant is there any understanding why this is the case? Uh this is a block uh there are three blocks that have five or six uh mid-rise buildings. They are seven to nine stories high. They're just next door. Um they are older. Uh this is wouldn't be uh unusual or unique in this place to see a bigger building. So what is the reason uh why this site is not able to to fulfill its uh land use potential in a pretty soughtafter corridor in a pretty supply starboard market?

Should we go first to the to the to staff? Does staff any have any thoughts first? Then we'll come to you and Mr. Cummings. Okay. Then we'll go to Mr. Cummings. I saw Yeah. Negative head nouns quick.

So I can speak at least for roughly the last 10 years. Um I started working on this uh site with uh Mr. Hicks um right when I really started practicing land use in general. Um and uh at the time it was subject to uh an estate that was looking to sell and they had some tax issues and other things to resolve. Sometimes those transactions can move slowly. But there was at that time a discussion of all right what's next? and town homes were the main competitor then and they were the main um interests really and myself and some others with Mr. Hicks convinced uh the seller at the time um represented by Mr. Barnes Lawson who many of you know um that the county would not want town homes um they don't favor them and that we should try to get assisted living in there if we could. Uh at the time assisted living was not allowed in Arlington County. It was mostly banned and only allowed in the SD hospital district. This was a quirk of the zoning ordinance that hadn't been updated in many, many years. Um, and so we launched into what became a multi-year effort to attempt to amend the zoning ordinance to um allow for assisted living and allow for that use. That took a long time. Um, eventually including the property did not have an ability to connect to water and sewer correctly because a pipe that would serve the site runs through the horizon property and the owner previously did not want to grant an easement to that even though it was a public utility. the county had to threaten to condemn it, etc. It's now owned by a different land owner who's a local land owner and a very good neighbor. Um, but there were a number of issues with the site. Uh, that all ran right into COVID like a buzzsaw. And, um, the assisted living industry suffered enormously from occupancy restrictions. It still is. That's largely why during the interim period where um, again, I talked to not it wasn't just Salera and McAffrey trying to do assisted living here. Um there were a lot more behind the scenes over years as um the owners behind artists waited and waited and waited for anyone

to try to come forward or any ability for them to actually build the building. Um you know from there it went to a competitive bidding process led by and Mr. Hicks described this in his letter led by um you know the owners of the site I think it's the Bayum family they're the ones behind artists and they were looking at this and saying all right we've been sitting here since really 2016 2017 we've been carrying this property been paying taxes etc on it and nothing has happened we want to finally sell this thing and they had also been tied up in previous contract negotiations like with Macaffrey etc that hadn't ultimately come to fruition and so they said all right bring in your offers we're going to look at whoever can buy the site we're finally moving on um and there were upwards of probably 20 offers. I was talking to many of them. I can't speak about those conversations given that they're privileged, but what I can tell you is that um the site has inherent value that sets a floor based on those buy options that staff presented. And that has always been a bit of a challenge because that is the backs stop for anybody looking at this, but also the source of a seller's determination of what they can sell the property for. Because a home builder is always going to be willing to buy and pay a certain amount to build those single family homes on this site. That means that the site is more valuable. Then at that point, we're looking at with the site with a land value of that amount, what is actually economically feasible to build, which leads us to this application and this project. A good comparison or a good sort of food forought thing is um the Walgreens site. I think that they paid about half as much for that site as BCN paid for this one. Um this site was about 16. I want to say the Walgreens site was about eight. These are all this is all publicly available information. That value for that Walgreens site is in part set by what can happen there without board's approval. Um it's zone C2 I want to say which is a commercial district that permits basically the Walgreens that's there today or uses like it. If there were a more lucrative by right use for example if the county allowed autooriented uses um by right things like drive-throughs you would see them

right next to there and that would have happened instead of the Walgreens building because it would have had a lot of value a lot. um instead it didn't and so that helped incentivize there the ability for a multif family building obviously also have a better location there closer more walkable distance to the metro etc into the corridor um but the site has had a long history of folks trying to get things done trying to get them done in a way that really accomplished the county's goals and looked at the uses the county would want but it has continually run into unluck bad luck and unfortunate situations over the many years I think co was a big factor factor as well. But certainly time kills all deals too and that happened many times. I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that long-winded description. Brian,

I'd be happy, Mr. Karenus, to to explain to you just from a developer standpoint in a very You bring the microphone a little.

There you go. In a very simple reason as to why this site hasn't been developed as multif family. This is actually very simple. What's happened since 2020? We've had financial crisis obviously and development financing has become scarce and what we've seen in the county as we've seen projects like artists and we've seen projects in Clarendon along the metro corridor that have much more accessibility and are much more favorable sites. We've seen approved site plans that have sat undeveloped for years. BCN has revived two past site plans that could not be built. This is a site right here where if I were interested or frankly anyone were interested in building a multif family building when you break it down to its simplest components this is an expensive construction project. What the county says should be built here a 200 unit building is basically a project that would be well in excess of hund00 million on this site. And I can tell you that the development community would rather go to a site in a Clarin and Roslin Boston corridor. Frankly, Columbia Pike, which you are so very familiar with, is much further along in a development cycle than where we stand on Langston Boulevard. And as such, in a market like right now when financing is very, very scarce, the projects that will be built are going to be in a transit corridor. They're going to be with more amenitized buildings. The cost to build at Langston Boulevard and the cost to build the same identical building in Clarendon, they're identical. There's no difference in construction cost. And the problem with Langston Boulevard is you have an increased parking requirement that you can't have in a metro accessible location. The demand for parking in a building that isn't as transit accessible leads to needing to build

more parking. and parking is about $70,000 of parking space. So when you start to incorporate the necessity of parking cars for building a site on a site that is nowhere near metro accessible and is really only serviced by one bus at this point, it just makes no financial sense. And frankly, your question about the surrounding buildings and what's happened on Langston Boulevard, when you look as a whole from Roslin all the way to Falls Church, the buildings that you're referring to, they were built in the 1970s. And what happened is once Metro became focused and a corridor pushed to Rosland and Boston, all this development has moved that way. And it's not magically going to move back to Langston Boulevard today. It's just not. the rents do not support building multif family at this location.

Thank you both. Um we'll I'm sure we'll have more questions along those lines. Yep. Thank you for that. I mean I just wanted to establish that there is not a objective but there is a commercial and thank you for making the case for uh the very high cost of parking especially because we we need from time to time to remind ourselves that this our parking policy is really transit oriented development. So uh I I will yield other questions later. Thank you vice chair coffee and then Mr. Spain. Vice coffee. Thank you. Thank you. um a a little deviation from land use, but I think important for me to ask up front

um for uh staff, Mr. Manager, um could you confirm that staff did not negotiate an AHIF contribution and that this has been offered as a gift to the county? I can confirm. Great. And for the applicant, um, could you confirm that staff did not negotiate an AHIF contribution and that this this is being offered as a gift to the county by the applicant? Yes. Thank you. Um, just important for us to be very buttoned up here. Um, now as far as land use, um,

I was not, you know, I know some of my colleagues either because they were on the board or because of their personal proximity to Langston Boulevard, um, were very involved in the Plan Langston Boulevard process. Um, and I know kind of the the the language explicitly around townhouse in Plan Langston Boulevard. um alongside our general view as a county that mix of uses is a positive thing and um having different options, different types of housing is important for the overall health and success of our community. Um, and I'm wondering if uh, and my colleagues should feel free to jump in as well, if there were any explicit conversations about kind of why that language around townhouse got added into Plan Langston Boulevard because it feels um, different, I think, than what we have seen on other corridors and in other discussions around different housing types.

I think I could start um, answering that. So you're right. So Plan Langston Boulevard, you know, recommends increased density uh corridor wide to meet the different housing goals, affordable housing goals. It also, you know, recognizes town houses do provide that different housing choice. It's just a matter of where that is located. So I think plan lang boulevard really focused on where does higher density make sense and where do town houses make sense. Um I think that excerpt where it talks about town houses. Um I think it's you know it's it it does it is a fact you know town houses don't necessarily help the corridor as a whole. if it was just townhouse development meet those ambitious goals. So you kind of do need higher density. So that was kind of the intent of of of that excerpt. Um but overall plan lang boulevard you know does recognize the value of both multif family and town houses.

Great. And I think Mr. Fuserelli will have more.

No thank you. And I yeah I would just have one point to add um to build upon what Mr. Lamb had had noted which is um I think there are actually other areas in Arlington where a similar approach has been taken in the sense that town houses um the language that's in the Langston Boulevard area plan where it notes the um likelihood for appropriateness of town houses along the edges um to really transition from sort of the areas of of greatest concentration of development potential to the, you know, single family or one family neighborhoods. Um, that is a an approach that's a technique that has been used elsewhere in the county. It's a big part of what you see, why you see what you see in the edges of Boston, um, in particular. And so I think there there is some consistency in terms of the plan's approach to targeting town houses as a transitional um land use that can help harmonize with what's you know um lower density nearby building up to the higher intensity uses.

Right. Thank you. Thank you vice chair coffee. We'll come back. I can say from my part that the two pieces of Mr. Lamb and Mr. This really aligns with my recollection of the context of what I worked on as I sought amendments on the Langston Boulevard area plan. I was very detailed in some other areas, but I think that the language and what the two folks is is really consistent with my recollection. Uh Mr. Mr. Spain,

thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm I'm tracking land use, housing, sustainability. Um we're going to have a lot of robust discussion about this particular project. And again, I want to thank um uh the developer, the applicant, and definitely staff for the years of work you've put on this. I do have a question. Um and you know, my question is going to be quite pointed, and I think when we get to the end, you'll understand why. Um so for staff, Mr. Manager and you uh Andrew, you can lean in on this. Um, just to be clear because we're hearing mixed testimony and we also have a staff report, but so for clarity uh and for the record, are we following our adopted land use plans or are we effectively in this endeavor rewriting um them through some uh individual uh project i.e. this one? Uh and and what level of precedence are we setting when it comes to land use if we depart from the adopted plan? Yes, I I'll take that. Um to start

be clear, the um the staff recommendation for denial of this is based on um staff's examination of the proposal in the context of the board's adopted area plan. Um ultimately we could not find you know enough consistency um or alternatively we found um uh sufficient inconsistency with the adopted plan to be able to be in a place of support. So this would be uh somewhat of a new precedence if we change

this this would being the third site plan you know I believe coming to the board following the adoption of the area plan. It would be the f the first of those three site plans where we would find ourselves in those place. In terms of the question of of presidents, I may see if um the county attorney may have more to add there. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. Can you It's a the word is fraught with a lot of meaning. Go ahead. Yeah. And I would have to brief you in close session on that.

Good. Uh the next question which kind of lands if we can pull up slide 19. This may still f be in uh land use, but it also may be in housing. But let me pull it up and put it on the screen here. I've heard over the past several months about what we can, what we cannot, what we've tried, um what's feasible, and for for staff, I mean, you know, folks know me as thinking about the art of the possible. Um can you talk a little bit on the third part of this slide on this hypothetical how you arrived here and um just talk through this a little bit for the public.

So this kind of piece of this slide it represents what's envisioned by the plan. It's a hypothetical you know based on based on reading the plan and what it calls for. that's kind of reflective of what's on the screen. It's not necessarily running a development scenario, seeing what's possible. It's kind of just looking at the plan, seeing what it recommends, um, and then how that would compare to the current proposal.

Yeah. Okie dokie. Uh, so Mr. Chair, as far as land use for right now, that's my two questions. I'll come back later with some more, but we can move on. Thank you for staying with it. I do have one question um that you're that's along the lines of yours which is staff has an opinion whether the artist would have complied with the plan or not Mr. Fuserelli. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. So, I would um I appreciate the question because I know there were some comments um raised during that and so um I would I would concur and agree that there wasn't um as much discussion about this particular site as there was with other sites largely in part because of the approved site plan. Um that that being said um I would also indicate that in the development of the area plan there was uh some additional level of liberty in terms of thinking about what if right there were comments raised previously that not all site plans that get approved ultimately get developed. Um, and so an example of how that shows up in the area plan is really with the the public space. Um, that is illustrated in the area plan is not if you were to overlay that with the approved artist site plan, there's not alignment or consistency there. So um, Mr. Mr. Chair, to your question, you know, if if the artist's site plan were to come back in the future, so to speak, um proposed exactly as it is, um you know, there may be a slightly different examination of that, but it is it is an approved site plan that, you know, continues to remain entitled and could be built um you know, the market um uh contingent upon market uh support.

Sure. Thank you. I guess in some senses it's a hypothetical that you haven't done an such an analysis of a future site plan, but it's also helpful. It wasn't certainly my my understanding as we work through this that there was a there was a perhaps unstated or undocumented um view that the artist would have been was what was going to be built in the location. But unstated or undocumented is is not necessarily what we would be governed by. There's the te the text and then what you bring to the text that leads to interpretation of the plan. Miss Cunningham.

Um I think maybe just to clarify what you just said, chair, the site plan preceded the artist site plan approval preceded this plan, right? So it just would have been allowed uh because it already existed.

Um can we put page 19 back up for a moment? Um, so what's not shown here is what could be done by right without a site plan project. Could you remind us of that because there is an underlying by right zoning here. Can you remind us? So the slide right before it, it kind of frames what is theoretically possible in terms of the maximum densities that does have an asterisk where there's different requirements for like streets and coverage and bulk and what have you. So it'll likely be lower than that. And I think the applicant has alluded to I think it was 14 single family homes. And then can you also compare the tree canopy requirement and storm water requirements in the Bite option?

Under option uh again they wouldn't be reviewed against the area plan which does have higher uh tree canopy goals and even public space goals. So by option would not necessarily be reviewed against that. Uh it would be much much lower.

Right. Okay. And I think, you know, I was there for the Langston Boulevard planning, not quite as much as several people in this room, but quite a bit. Um, and I also moved a few blocks from here, uh, probably just a year after it first became vacant. Um, so like Mr. Lewis, my whole adult life has been next to this vacant property. Before the when the artist plan was adopted, this plan would have been allowed by right, not even as a site plan project, right? You could do town houses by right. So prior to artists. Yes. Correct. So there would be different.

The zoning was different though because with artist it did come with a reszoning. So it was actually split zone between single family zoning districts, townhouse zoning districts, multif family zoning districts. So this chart wouldn't be exactly what would have been.

It would have been a blend. Yeah. Gotcha. Um, but all that to say, I I think this is hard because it's an early one along the corridor. Um, and like the project we handled earlier today, it's, you know, it's just a hard one a little bit because you had dreams and hopes that might be bigger and denser here in the in the overall plan. Um, but I know we'll talk through lots of other topics here, but I, you know, I absolutely think this is the best plan for this era and that we've given it a couple decades to try some other things. Um, and that if we, you know, I I'll leave it there. So, I am generally in support of in of the plan and I appreciate the additional effort that's gone in the last month to to really get back on top of the sustainability issues. We'll talk about that more when we get to sustainability. Thank you. So um for that uh Mr. Ktonus I you stuck assiduously Mr. Spain to land use and we haven't I haven't stayed within the box. So uh we'll we'll we'll we'll try to um to work land use nexus housing and so but Mr. Ktonus go ahead. You're you're up.

I'm going to be in in in I will stay in the frame of the land use consideration. So another another discussion is the type of product or you know the type of townhouse and uh you know uh there there is a reason why previous counter boards and a lot of people have con have they they approached this product with constrnation sometimes not always I mean this town homes are an integral part of American cities and they have delivered a lot to of housing good quality of life etc. However, here we have town home sticks. They are surrounded by asphalt all around. This is basically a lake of asphalt and it has homes in there. Uh out of which only one stick is actually has a quasi garden in front of it. So one of the questions is that uh if we are having to uh if if this is a form that is more or less more more economically viable why does this preclude uh stacked flats that would increase the number of households that would be housed there or a mix and it's all uh one type of housing even if I recognize it's not the same size of town homes and there are some variations in the mix abs Absolutely. Um this is something that we deal with uh really throughout the county but also throughout the region. Um condos are very difficult to finance and very difficult to build. Stacked flats are a condominium product. What you want to get to generally for something that is much easier to build and very easy to sell that is in high demand is fee simple for sale housing. The difference is and the critical issue is that when I buy a town home it's like buying a single family home. At the closing, all liability merges into the deed and um the seller is not left with an open-ended uh legal commitment to the

buyer as far as any defects, etc. Um builders get are on the hook as well. It can be even difficult to find people to build these. That is what that is the reason that you don't see as many condo projects in the county. Um, and certainly that when you see them, they are very high dollar ones because that's the kind of market where you can finance and build those. Um, and find people that will still finance and build those. The model for that is almost Miami, right? I mean, that's the type of condo that um, you're seeing get delivered more frequently. Uh, BCN is certainly not a builder that would um, be willing to do that or that thinks that they could finance them. I'll tell you that all of the leading other builders in the area, including national ones, um avoid that type of product for that same reason. There are other approvals in the county. I think you're going to see them come in front of you and that they'll shift for that exact reason. I can think of one. I don't want to necessarily throw it out here in public, but there's um one that uh you know is in Boston where it was entitled as uh essentially stacked flats really. I mean, it's a condo uh product. Um it fits the multif family definition which is great because in that zoning district you can't get towns. Um but that's not something that that owner was able to find anybody who was willing to build and so that's very likely to come back as something else. The model that is working in those areas um that are closer into transit etc that can help pack a few more units in is putting the um the simple towns on top of a garage that can qualify as multif family. We successfully did that as a component of the Crystal House uh project where you had market rate uh units that are cross- subsidizing the affordable units there. Those are selling well and they are small. They sell at a price that will probably be a bit higher than these. But similarly attainable which unfortunately today means in the low um seven figures just over a million dollars but that is what attainable forale housing is for my generation quite frankly. Um, and so you'll see that product coming up more

and more. Hopefully the building official can continue to work with us. I say that with a smile just because it's um, that subdivision was very difficult to get through. Um, and there's more regulatory help both locally and certainly at the state level that could help on this. Um really I think all of the outcomes that you're seeing today are unfortunately a function of how we have designed the zoning ordinance um our sector plans and simply the e the economy where we are today. Right? I mean I think that the example that was put up on the screen with the building that staff modeled that would be great if it could be financed and built. It it really cannot. Um, and quite frankly, I think that if someone were able to get this site at the land value it would have taken to build a multif family building, they may well have buil been building the byite building. Um, because you can build a byite multif family building here that would not come with the millions of dollars of additional costs that come with the upg um, and the upzoning, etc. Um, it's unfortunately a situation where I think you're going to see some of the sites in Langston that are closer to sort of Main Street, closer to transit options. Those are going to potentially have the ability to go as multif family, but a lot of others won't because the incentives are simply not sufficient in that plan to motivate anybody to do it. Um, and that's just a function of the economy and then in the real estate market and unfortunately the design of the plan that may well need to be revisited in a decade or so. We'll see, right? what the delivery numbers are. Um it'll be a mixed record across.

Right. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Caronus. Land use density uh question. I I guess before we leave this uh 3.7% was a number that was mentioned. Is that the is that an accurate I'm trying to remember in in the long glory of town homes um discussion in the expanded housing options debate eventually we settled on town homes are available but they're not available at the percentage rate that um we might wish for and so I guess I kind of put that in a if there's someone who could work that on online or just tell me if that is a it's a density related question and I guess is that a number that sounds accurate to to staff or do you need time to look at it? Um, someone I I was listening I did hear someone say 3.7% of our units as a whole are town homes and I don't know if that sounds within range to you Mr. Fuserelli.

Yeah, we can we can look that up and confirm that shortly. Sure. I did not mean to put you on an immediate spot. Now you had your light on dent. Are we other things on one carry on to um Mr. Caronus' question about stack flats. So, understanding the condo issues which have some state level uh challenges that we need to work through. One thing we did talk a lot about um is how you can have flexible arrangements uh in a vertical path. Right. So, can you say a little bit about elevators, about in-law suites, caregiver suites, potentially ADUs if we change our our rules a bit?

Yeah. Um, I'll start off and then Brian is absolutely the expert on this because he knows how these units are built. But, um, with four-bedroom town home units, again, these are not palatial ultra luxury town homes. Those could have been the choice. They were not. They are smaller so that they are more attainably priced. Um, but with multiple bedrooms, you certainly could do exactly what that gentleman was mentioning. And you could be a young person who buys and then rents. I have heard of many examples in the past when I was young 10, 12 years ago of people doing that successfully. Um, you certainly could over time as regulations change create an ADU in these units. BCN themselves would be happy to work with anybody when you're buying one of these units to do that in install, but certainly if it were legally possible by then, but these will be built quite frankly very quickly if you approve them. Um, which is a good thing. Uh, so you know, I won't say the sky is the limit with what they can do within the box of that structure, but they can do really whatever Arlington would legally permit as far as folks being able to use that structure to allow for additional housing for relatives, loved ones, friends, whatever.

Thank you. Uh, I'm mindful that, uh, we will move from density to to housing. Um, and we had discussion about housing supply and then housing affordability. Did I interrupt? Did you want to add briefly uh the applicant? Go ahead.

Just for a second. That would be great. Um to your question, Miss Cunningham. The opportunities in how these units are built out is actually there's a lot of flexibility in townhouse construction. Right now, our proposal is governed by the zoning rules that require extensive parking of two spaces per unit. I know we'd all like to be a more walkable community and obviously as we can get toward that avenue or toward that goal, this creates opportunities to recreate how these first floors of these town houses are used. There's no reason that these couldn't be turned into an ADU or an accessible dwelling where you've got access at grade. I mean, that's really the big thing for um you know, accessibility to units. We've got a situation where because of the way these town houses are constructed and been laid out, they're very close as it relates to, you know, grade of the floors. And down the road, these could easily be converted to accessible units in here if you were willing to give up a parking space. The units are large enough on that first floor to be able to do that. As Nick mentioned earlier, the elevator component we've already have designed into twothirds of this project. Elevator capability, which certainly allows, you know, multi-generational living, and it also allows people that want to age in place, which a lot of people spoke about here tonight and or today. And that's something that we see from a lot of purchasers in Arlington that are here that really need that and they want to stay. So, that's just a little bit about what we see as, you know, future opportunity. And obviously we want to continue to work as a developer and as a builder in Arlington to try to, you know, make sure that we're, you know, staying ahead in terms of what we can do in, you know, accessibility, but also sustainability. And, you know, I I'm looking forward to talking about that a little bit later because I don't believe that what's been characterized so far about BCN's commitment to sustainability of this project is accurately being reflected.

So, thank you. Thank you. So, uh, we'll go from density onward to, uh, housing, but you were next, Vice Cher. I

I think this may be kind of a a bridge of the two perhaps. Um, you know, I think we we've heard a lot from the applicant around um the financial feasibility and I I find the Crystal House example to be an interesting one. not because we're talking about, you know, could we um put committed affordable housing, but really the kind of idea of the the cross subsidization of types of housing um all contained on one site. Um and a question I don't know that I've ever asked of you all is was there ever any consideration of doing kind of two types of multi-unit here, like having some portion that was townhouse? I'm thinking of like Clarendon Crossing, which is um you know, one of my favorite developments, but it does have that the townhouse side of it and then it has the multi-unit side of it. Um and I I just wonder if that was ever considered. Um and if not, you know, why not?

I'll start us off and then I'll let uh Brian speak to it. But I do think that they really looked at all options to maximize the number of units that they were delivering on the site. Um because like I was speaking earlier about how uh you know the amount that they have to pay for the site especially in a situation which is like an auction and you have to close immediately is set by that sort of like floor value. So at that point once they know they got to pay X amount they're really looking to all right how many units can we get here while still getting you know all of you to uh approve it. Um, and so anything that they could have done to build more that they could have sold, they would do. I think that the issue once you start to mix the unit types is that you end up sacrificing more land area to do that and hurt your efficiency on delivery of the actual towns because it's easier to keep sticking in sticks of towns in different sizes and have all of their utility hookups working in concert than it is to have a different type of housing on a site this size and then um, you know, continue on with the towns elsewhere. bigger sites. If you guys remember that site that was a almost a historic site and became a whole lot of houses and could have maybe been something different if it had been planned ahead, etc. Something that big would have been an immense opportunity for a thousand town homes plus an affordable housing building because you could have done exactly what you did at Crystal House and had the for sale product cross subsidizing affordable units. It actually would have been really really great opportunity. Once you have the kind of space to do that, you can really do it well. Um, it's just finding acreage sites like that is extremely rare in this county. This might be the only one that's even this big and which we, you know, did an analysis that we sent you guys looking at all the sites of similar sizes and smaller throughout the corridor. There's really not anything else that is this size that would accommodate a development like this.

Um, Brian, if you wanted to speak more about housing types that you got, I mean, I think the layout

I mean, we looked at this site We looked at this site extensively. I mean, the development community as a whole looked at this site as Jay spoke. Um, multif family wasn't viable here. It wasn't It's not not It's not that it wasn't viable for BCN. It wasn't viable for anybody on a national level. I mean, they went nationally to try to find people to build, you know, whoever would pay the most for this price, whoever would pay the largest price and ultimately close. So when we looked at it, our goal here was really to redefine and reimagine a broken site plan. It was clear that artists was never going to be built to us. It had happened. There were two subsequent contracts. We looked at this and we looked at the project as a whole and we came very early on before we closed on the site and we came and met with the board and we talked about this project and we talked about well how do we get to yes and what makes this project work and really for us we wanted to develop this in the confines of a project that was already approved. Basically this project had been vetted artists had been vetted. It was approved 90 by the planning commission and four to zero by the county board. Everyone was very happy with that project and they were happy about the community benefits associated with that. And we talked to the neighboring communities and we talked to Langston Boulevard alliance and we we've done other successful larger projects on Langston Boulevard. We built the children's school on Langston Boulevard. We had a working knowledge there of the community of what would what would be successful, what would work. And we looked at what was already approved and it made the most sense after doing a study of housing type and what could go here that how could we develop a project that would bring the most housing to Arlington, the most amount of bedrooms. We knew when we spoke to the board members that that was important and we did that and we did that in the confines of trying to manage every other goal

that's out there in the in the in the plan from lock coverage. You know, our project is actually 3% less co less lot coverage than artist was. Um, you know, we looked at tree cany, we looked at everything and we've done everything we can and work tirelessly to meet the goals of the plan. And if you really look at this plan, this checks so many boxes. So, that was a long we did look at everything that could be done on the site. Go ahead. That's your Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Um and uh for staff specifically Mr. Fuserelli because I think this is a a broader planning history question than a sightsp specific question but um I think onto the housing of the topic um there's been a lot of conversation around the need for ownership um the fact that that is been a struggle of ours to get um and I am trying to think of in recent years how many of our site plans have included um the plan for ownership type housing. The only one I can think of since I've been on the board is the Penzance one Rosland that included um a single condo tower uh of 73 condo units. Um and so am I am I missing others or can you think of others maybe a little bit before I was on the board that had ownership planned for development?

Yeah. No, it's it's a great question. Um, a couple thoughts on that. One is I think as uh Mr. Cummings had noted, you know, the um latest amendment to Crystal Houses's uh 7 and 8 uh fronting uh Fern Street is an example. Um there I believe a portion of the 4600 Fairfax Drive in concept. Um, but I would I think it's important to note too though that um from a site plan and an entitlement perspective, right, there's nothing in the site plan entitlements um approved by the board that speak really to ownership versus rental. So it's not an attribute of specific projects that we track closely because we understand it can switch you know one way or the other um without further action by the board in most cases you know unless um the the the desire to to shift from one to the other came along with you know significant enough redesign. Um so um those are just a few few thoughts that are hopefully helpful.

Yeah. Um yeah, I think you know there's a lot there's a lot to consider here, but um among them, you know, kind of refreshing myself with our our different housing goals and everything and looking back at um the affordable housing master plan, which did say in objective 1.2, too. We need a net new uh 9,500 ownership units, which over the 30-year period averages 316 net new units per year. Um, I I can't think of a single time since I've lived in the county that we've had a net increase of ownership units of 316 per year. Um, of total units, absolutely. I think we're doing

Sure. a decent job. But like I just when it comes to like the the housing topic of conversation, I think um I'm yeah just trying to grapple with how we weigh the different types of housing goals that we have. I think Miss Miss Tuloose her comments about supply being kind of lumped together but really not all the same thing um is resonating with me. Sure. Thank you, Vice Chair Coffee. We'll go to Mr. Spain on this.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, and thank you, um, Vice Chair Coffee for elevating those those thoughts as it relates to net ownership. Uh, really appreciate that. I'm going to have three areas. Uh, one question is going to go to staff. Uh, one's for the developer, and then I'm going to go to planning commission representative. Um, but I also want to give credit where credit is due. Sy's here. you came and testified and Sandy, I went back and looked in my notes from September 1st of 2022. I wasn't on the board. I was just out in the community. You and I shared some conversation and we talked about the preliminary as a concept plan for Langston Boulevard and we met at Ruthy's and I think Matt Deeranti our chair was also invited at that time and I recalled how we talked about affordability within the scope of plan Langston Boulevard and how important it was and it still is. That being said to staff, um just you can you can answer this. Do you believe in this current state of the plan, are we uh achieving our long-term housing uh supply goals by approving lower density projects on sites designated for higher density development for this particular plan? Are we are we achieving our goals that we set out for in Plan Langston Boulevard? Right. We know what the instate is for affordable housing, what we're trying to get to. Does this help us?

Does this help the county? This particular So, just understand the question. Yeah. About this particular project. Um I mean I think as has been um noted in in the staff report and in the presentation um this if approved by the board um this number of housing units would be approximately 150 or so less than the maximum development potential that could help towards um achieving uh increasing supply of housing.

Thank you. uh for the applicant. Um can we pull up a slide on equity? We had a equity I forgot what number that is. And Nick and team, this is just a general question. Um and I before they bring the slide, I would just like to ask you how familiar are you with our not only our equity resolution, but the framework that guides that should guide us in the county as we shape policy? Fairly. I've seen it a lot.

Okay. uh can you talk a little bit about how our equity framework went into your decision in the planning of uh your project? So I don't personally plan out you know the development itself but I can speak on behalf of the team and I think I can capture um you know an honest answer here. These developments don't come up in their in the form that they come to you

based on um you know a developer's own personal values or desires or thoughts about the world. Um these are really math problems and the outcomes that you see in front of you um outcomes being the projects brought to you for review are a direct product of the state of the real estate market. the policies and the plans that the county has in place, the zoning ordinance, and then really just the efficacy of the policies and plans that the county has in place with the tools that it is allowed to have by the Commonwealth, which are of course limited by the Dylan rule.

Um, so there are two mechanisms by which the plan uh creates affordable housing along the corridor in Langston. Those are one through a GOP amendment um and two through uh bonus density. Neither of those were requested here. Um, and it's because the economics of the site don't support a multif family building. More to that, I would say the plan itself obviously doesn't say that any site in particular needs to be 100% affordable housing, etc. And this is not a committed affordable housing project with a subsidy from the government that would allow would allow that. Um, I will say that this team certainly cares and takes to heart all of the principles and shares the value of the county. I think that Brian has spoke to that at length and that is the source of that voluntary gift that has been offered to the county. Um that's because we share those values that are set out in this equity framework.

Thank you. Um I I'll just say and uh to BCN um I'm in Pinrose. I see your new development. You're you're you're moving full speed ahead. I know this is probably out of scope, but I see what you're doing. Thank you for your commitment of what you're doing in Arlington. And the only reason I asked the question about equity, right, is because I also recall that this county took it, made it very serious effort, right? And I get it. You're developers, it's business bottom line, okay? It all the math has to jive despite what we may have in our ordinance or our policies. I get that, too. Uh however, if we right as a county um fail to keep ourselves to a standard or practice, then what is a policy or resolution? Why why even have it?

Yeah.

Right. So good. I I just wanted to understand how what we have as a resolution and our guiding principles in many ways, how does that help inform you as you move forward and putting forward these uh uh projections? I need to move to the planning commissioner. Uh Tin Lee, if you don't have a have a problem with this, I I took the liberty right twice to go back and watch that good YouTube of the planning commission and very robust conversation. And you may not have the answer to this, but I think it's important to note there's 13 members on the planning commission of which on that particular night seven showed up. That's 53%. And you know this is a very serious decision that we have to make. Um and I'm just wondering you may not have the answer. Uh do you believe the the planning commission had uh sufficient participation to make this recommendation for approval given its the magnitude uh of what's going to happen here? I understand people have it's voluntary. Everyone can't make it. I think there was a meeting the night before, but can you talk a little bit about who's there, who's present, how robust those conversations are going? Do you and your your immediate past chair, I think the public needs to know because coming out of the planning commission 52, that means there is a little bit there's some questions there that I think we need to understand.

Thank you for the question. Um I mean I think your point about it being a volunteer organization is is one of the factors. We do actually especially in our recent meetings have had really great turnout. Um we are meeting our um quorum requirements. Um our process uh is multifased where we have our online comment period. We have our SPRC meetings. We have commissioners that participate in multiple parts of the process. Um even though at this particular meeting they weren't there. Um, a lot of our work is much broader than just the planning commissioners that are in attendance. Um, you know, working with our colleagues in the other commissions, I think goes a long way into helping inform what the project ends up looking like and our conversations at the dis. So, I do think that this uh vote is representative of the planning commission overall. um whether someone may or may not have been able to attend that night and participate in that vote, they would have been, you know, part of the process earlier um with our SPRC meetings. Yeah, I think when we we're discussing aspects like open space, tree canopy, sustainability, all those things, you know, uh you know, having a threshold, what is that particular threshold where they may deem some level of non-compliance and having an understanding of the severity of not having an extended and very robust discussion with the full complement of the commission given again this these are going to be around for 30, 40, 50 years. And I think I appreciate you being there. I appreciate your your thoughts. For what it's worth, I just wanted to hear that and um it helps me out. Mr. Chair, that concludes my round of comments for this particular area.

Thank you. If I may also just add briefly, um you know, having a full commission is really helpful. So, thank you all very much for appointing four new commissioners for us last year and we do have some commissioners, including myself, who will be rolling off next year. So, the recruitment efforts uh continue and uh anybody in this room who's interested in planning, please feel free to submit applications and you'll be hearing from the commission about more applicants soon. Thank you for your uh unwavering service and commitment.

And for the uh concluding infomercial, I'll say so on housing um for me this is u I think Mr. Lu and Mr. Excuse me, Miss Brown captured my thinking. Um, if we if you know, it's okay that we pulled that slide down, but if we just looked at the housing item, low and middle inome housing is mentioned in Arlington, 50% of people make over $175,000 roughly for their household. So, they could say they're middle income. The rest of the country, those folks are rich. That's just true. You know, it's it's sort of people say, "Oh, I'm upper middle class." for the rest of the country where I've lived except San Francisco, you're wealthy if your household makes that much. You may be in the top 10, 11, 15% at least. So, you know, I think there are two segments here. When I work for Habitat Humanity, that is a type of ownership that is different than the ownership that we're contemplating in this case. But I take it the word those who say we are in danger. Housing is very difficult challenge. We're in danger of homes being so expensive, both single family and town homes, that we're pricing out people who are two feds or two a police officer and a firefighter, you know, and you could argue two feds were probably most out of that world unless you already own. So the way I see it and the way I saw the 2500 aspirational goal and if you look in the text of langar plan aspirational is in a couple of places and it's not a qualifying adjective in a couple of places. We had a long debate over whether to put 2500 in there and for me the way we get to 2500 is also about overall development in addition because that will bring transportation and other benefits in addition to the individual

spaces. And so if we if we zeroed it out, would Lucky have been 250? We didn't get to that level of spec specificity to my knowledge on each individual. How many affordable units would come from a particular parcel? Um that's a hallmark of the plan. So for me, you know, I think it is a fully reasonable concern to say there's just a difference between quote affordable housing, workforce housing, and housing affordability as you move up the income ladder. and uh for me the the development piece, but that's just me. I'm not trying to impose that view on on colleagues and I do recognize that, you know, the density and and affordable housing piece in this is um is not the standard that we would have we would have wanted to meet. So, I'm not trying to, you know, we'll have concluding comments on housing and housing affordability. I would propose that we move to sustainability. I do know that folks have thoughts. I don't want to sort of um dwell too long in any particular area. There are three buckets that I've got in this area. Storm water, tree canopy, and quote what I say is green building or climate stuff. Um storm water uh is where I would start with a question. Uh although I don't need to drone on, Miss Cunningham, you first and I'll

just before we move off of housing, I had I had one comment. Um, you know, I think the the housing the equity slide did highlight that it's a goal of all of ours to meet the needs of a community that has different incomes, different ages, different abilities, and that is going to happen along Langston. It already does happen along Langston. Um, but I could we put up the rent report. Um, I teamed you to the link if you can. Um, you know, we publish a quarterly rent report and I am always astonished that uh Langston is our second lowest corridor, right? And and that's because it has a lot of older mixed um housing. And so I just I want to take every opportunity. Langston has great bones today and great potential tomorrow. Um but you can see there. Yeah. So Langston's the the purple line there. So the rent the average rents are quite low, which is to emphasize why it's been hard to finance a multif family building here because there's available reasonably priced uh units literally next door at the horizon where we have some housing grant um families, right? So um so it's good news and it's also a fundamental of why it's hard to make anything else work here just now. Um, and it's also just to reiterate, we have ownership and um, you know, we have $200,000 condos across the street. We have a lot of rentals up and down. Um, so we have some diversity. And I think what the plan was saying was as we grow, we need to keep that diversity, both the ownership side and the income side. And most importantly to many, the ability to age in place and to and to ladder in. So, um, I just wanted to make that

clarification because I I think we often make a sweeping generalization about zip codes and it's it's more than that. I have a question on a factual question on that because I've seen disperate analysis that does not have as much affordable housing in the Langston. There's a difference between Langston of course and 22207, but 22207 is desperately not as affordable as other places. So, maybe an inaccuracy in my thinking as to what is Langston versus And you may be thinking ownership rather.

No, it's 22207. likely it likely has to do with the density of units all together because the the units that are there and and for rent I think are often older and because they are older slightly more affordable but there are also far fewer and so if you're thinking about what is available and where in 2227 22207 overall there's going to be less affordability because there are fewer total units Um, and so even if there are many of those units are affordable, there is still less availability of affordable units,

right? And I shouldn't have introduced the zip code because we're talking about the corridor and the corridor is much narrower and has multiple zip codes in it. In fact, um, so anyway, just wanted to to make the point that that the we want to have a variety of h housing options. We do have a variety of housing options countywide and along this corridor. Ownership um entry level is is the hardest one. Um the short distance still an order of magnitude higher than Columbia Pike that is a transportation corridor and can accommodate multif family housing. So this is not a conclusive argument. It is interesting to know that the rent level doesn't support this. I think it goes back but Columbia

it's lower and it's supported. So sure what is different is the is the is the cost of land that's different and uh one of the problems with uh with scarcity of housing is that we have driven the cost of land beyond the the the the I mean at at a level that makes development of a diverse uh product pallet of of products very very very difficult actually it's the scarcity that pushes us into less options here. Sure.

Well, and I think Mr. Karonis, your point about the land value costs on this corridor compared to the Columbia Pike corridor go back to what the applicant was saying around what the buy right use and value is. Because if the buy right use is uh 14ish single family homes at $4 million each um that sets a very different floor than what we see on Columbia Pike particularly with the forb scarcity scarcity gets scarcity that's

sure so but I think the broader point has been sort of proven by Miss Cunningham is that there's complexity and m and Brian also referred to the the the corridor visa v the actual uh place that we're in here. Um I guess what I'd ask I know you will have additional points to make but you did also we want to get to sustainability and I suggest that we go there and then if you want to come back that would be great. So um I threw out three buckets to work through that seem to be on the slide that Mr. Lamb mentioned that we where we were not in in there's concern that the plan is different from what is being proposed. Um, so storm water I we heard about two vaults from Miss Chzan and uh certainly you know as I think through tree canopy and I think through what is if you look at page 11 page 19 a number of the pages in the staff reports page 22 page 27 on trees uh you know storm water um I'd like staff to give us a little sense the two vaults and the work that we are doing on storm water in your anal in the analysis that you have done. Do you feel that this is an this is an upgrade? Do you do we know whether there is the sort of uh flooding off of the site that I believe one of the speakers spoke to? I don't know who would be speaking to that, but I see Mr. Johnson teeing up. So, I'll leave it to staff, whoever's the right person on this. So, staff is comfortable with their storm water management. Um, all site plans we review and make sure that they are compliant with the requirements. That's both for the quantity of the storm water as well as the quality. Uh so that's the way we're evaluating it. The uh vaults definitely help with that. They're detaining uh storm water from their site based on their impacts. Um and they will be collecting some storm water from their um frontage along North Taylor Street. Uh so all that's going into the storm water vault and then into the eventually into the public system.

And I'll just I'll yield this. I I do have one question which we've talked some about heat islands and I don't know that we have done an in-depth analysis that talks about heat islands um you know have we done that um is that a component of our storm water goals our tree goals um avoiding heat islands I I don't typically think of heat islands along that stretch of Cherry Hill Road but I also am mindful that you know until I was sort of educated in part by colleagues. I didn't I thought more of Heat Islands as New York City than I did of of Boston. And it's fairly clear that Boston has some intersections in some areas where there's there could be heat islands. I don't know if you can speak to that, Mr. Johnson, or or anyone. Have we done analysis of heat island effect, that sort of work or not?

Yeah. Um I mean I would probably want to defer to our colleagues in DPR on that. But I mean I will say at a very high level a lot of our planning conversations you know area plans sector plans as well as uh development review um you know urban heat islands in Arlington um is a recognized thing and I think there's a strong correlation between where the county has set its tree canopy goals um in in its plans where the council of governments have set their own goals and targets and trying to mitigate against um urban heat island impacts. Great. That's helps. It moves us unless there are colleagues who have questions in this area. I'm interested in moving towards tree canopy. Um but first to vice chair coffee and then I don't know who is first but uh whichever one of you wants to go first in the area of storm water or heat islands uh as we move towards tree canopy. I think I see it as Miss Cunningham being ready or vice chair coffee. Go and then Miss Cunningham.

Um thank you. um on storm water. Um I know that this seems to be a pretty sizable investment that the applicant is proposing as far as um the the two underground storm water detention facilities um as well as the bio retention planners in front of um each proposed townhouse. um is I don't know I am looking at the plan Langston Boulevard book online I'm not seeing that there is site specific guidance on what would have been expected as far as storm water mitigation um can you share a little bit if there is anything specifically expected from storm water out of this site

so the area plan breaks down some of our recommendations based on I'll call it areas within in each area. Um, so for the Walgreens site, for example, from last month, it was recommended to maximize overland relief just based on the sheer quantity of storm water. For this area where the Waverly Ridge site is located, we are recommending or rather the plan is recommending underground detention, which is what they're proposing. Great. Okay. I think that's helpful for me to understand. Um, and Miss Cunningham can have her turn. Miss Cunningham, over to you.

Just because you know how I love to talk about storm water. Um, can you just clarify? I I think I heard along the way that the plan that's presented here today actually is an improvement on storm water management over the previously approved site plan. Is is that right or is it just equivalent or hard to know? I I we weren't necessarily evaluating it for comparing the the two. Uh we're evaluating what they are proposing, making sure it meets the area requirements for recommendations and what's required for it. And does the applicant want to say anything specific about that or we can have Miss Karen White speak to the storm water design if you want to hear about anything in detail. She's the expert.

Yeah. Just just clarifying. I I may have it may be just it's the same. They're meeting standards no matter what. The same detention facility with the artistite plan. There was one there. There is one here. They both meet the current standards. Okay, great. Um that sounds good. Other questions I had for the applicant on sustainability. Um, I think we heard from our C2E2 leadership that they're disappointed that Windows couldn't be Energy Star. Is there a is there a reason we couldn't get there?

Brian, can you guys explain a little bit more about the actual window product being chosen and how it does or doesn't qualify as Energy Star. I could otherwise also really well we get ready to answer that question put a plug in that I do agree from a process perspective with the C2E2 representative that it is important that and it was my fault that we missed an email because it looked like spam quite frankly and I apologize for that but if we regularly presented to C2e2 and it was a requirement and if submissions to CPHD required a um questionnaire that goes to C2E2 we will all do it and I think that treating them the same as other commissions that the county has decided are a priority would be the right thing to do. So, you want to talk about windows?

Yeah, sure. Frank Polley with BCN. We've not bought the windows. We've not designed the product and we don't know which windows will be used. We have put a stipulation of a certain energy performance that is actually very close to Energy Star and once we get to that point, chances are it will be, but we just haven't made the commitment in terms of the recently added comm conditions. Okay, great. So I think you know you've done enough projects and sat in this room long enough listening to other projects that Energy Star and Bird Friendly or some sort of interruption would be would be really of value to the community.

I wanted to add very briefly too there was a comment about finishing out the plugs for EV etc. That was more of an intentional choice. Um products are different. The exact plug that people want for their exact vehicle is sometimes different. The final work necessary to do that is not particularly expensive at all. Obviously, people are buying these. All of these are kind of roped in. And so, um, that can easily easily be done just to fit whoever whatever their preference of vehicle is. I I want to say it was like a $600 added charge or something. It's just a matter of the final component matching the vehicle. That's it.

Gotcha. And then, um, finally on the questions from C2, the construction waste. What What are your construction waste targets and how can we help you exceed them? Um, one of the things I think that's important to do, I mean, the construction waste piece, it all starts with the demolition of this project. BCN has been involved in demolishing many projects. We're doing one in JD's neighborhood right now in Penrose. Our goal, obviously, if JD saw the site, you've noticed we've separated all the materials. It was a very careful demolition process to be able to recycle all the steel in that building. The project here on um Cherry Hill Road is going to be the same consideration. We these houses may be a little too far gone if you've seen them, but typically as a policy, BCN is bringing out um entities like um Second Chance and other groups to deconstruct houses. I mean, I've probably commissioned the de uh the deconstruction of 25 to 30 houses in Arlington over the course of time. Additionally, I've done it for commercial buildings. I did that with the Alpine Restaurant where I built the school, the children's school. These are projects where BCN starts with a commitment to, you know, sustainability from the get-go. And the problem is is that, and why I was, you know, a little worked up earlier was we have since codified in the conditions what we're going to do. And that's setting a minimum for what we're going to do. It's not BCN's goal to do the minimum. We've been building Arlington for 28 years. We will continue to be here. We want to build sustainable projects. So what we've and I I would say one thing further there's no plan in place right now for sustainability for town home communities and BCM previously has been a certified green home choice builder. We've delivered green home choice buildings in Arlington. The program isn't there yet. We want to participate in it. We've been in it before. We're here to be a guinea pig in that process. So I I just want that out there for the

record. So thank you. Great. And then I'll close, Mr. manager with uh a reminder that one of one of the issues here is that the standard site plan conditions aren't matching up with the programs we have right now. And I know we have a commitment as part of the green building incentive policy uh roll out to get back to those standard site conditions. Can can you confirm we're on track for calendar year 27? Yes.

Excellent. Um, and then I think the SPRC role as as you mentioned, you know, making sure that we bring in now that we have the climate resolution that we're really making sure that those questions are being asked up front so that it doesn't jam anyone in the end and I appreciate you all raced together and C2E2 was on this edge of their seat and they are um volunteer as well. So, thank you all for doing that, but we should make it easier going forward.

I I did, if I can interject, our C2E2 score was a 48. I want to say Leki was 42 and Walgreens was 50. So we're right in there. And I completely understand. I quite frankly share the values of C2E2. Um they are critical um both in priority but also in attitude towards the projects which is fair but um we're right up there with everything else in the corridor. Great. And sorry I did say that was the last it wasn't. Tree canopy you guys are heading 26%. The by right I think would be 10%. Um, so again, it's not the aspirational 35, but um, I know I appreciate the effort and those trees are really important to those residents and everyone around them.

We appreciate that. Thank you. And of course, a 3/4 of a million dollar tree canopy fund contribution um, just given the number of trees on site that are being removed. A lot of those are invasive, not healthy, etc. But they count and they get replaced at um, you know, either on site or with $4,000 per tree. And with 181 trees times $4,000, the quarters of a million dollars will go a long way in planting new tree canopy in the Langston corridor as well. Thank you. So that was an expedited tour through sustainability and I and you covered most of the areas where I was interested in. We'll go to M Mr. Caronis.

Uh thank you Mr. Fanti. So one uh one thing that um uh theoretically it's easier to achieve in town homes than for example in higher bigger buildings is a better envelope uh a greener roof uh um a better um heating and cooling uh especially with uh you know higher efficiency and at the price point that that that these homes will be selling actually even uh purely for commercial interests because you know somebody who spends a million plus in something like that would expect to at least get a very efficient heat pump for example. So how how does your planning for uh you know more sustainable design factor into the product itself? Uh that's number one. Number two is uh you know I I have difficulties to to uh digest the amount of asphalt that you have to build around these homes. I understand that the that the individual parking spaces have to be accessible etc. But does this all this uh all these accesses do they have to be hard impervious asphelt or is it possible to at least dedicate some of that to something that is a little bit more pvious?

I'll start off with um the permeable pavers question and then I'll let my colleagues speak about heat pump and other infrastructure. Um it's difficult with permeable pavers because it's a product that I have generally been told in this business um is just difficult to maintain etc. Uh we are open to certainly if we can move forward with this project finding ways during C um to further reduce the pavement. We did respond to staff early on and dees was very helpful in flagging for us where we could narrow internal um you know drive vials etc to reduce the amount of pavement. Um the challenge of course is if you put grassrete over a section that's going to be heavily traveled it becomes dirtreed really quickly. Um grassrete works well when it's not frequently driven on and when it's only truly a fire lane that's not accessed. Even saying it works well is probably anthma to all of my developer clients. But it's a challenge. I can let um BCN speak more to that. But I I can say that uh certainly if we can move forward with this project, we would be open to working on that further um during the final engineering process.

I think one of the ways um Mr. Karen that we actually look at the building process, it really starts at moment one. And this actually addresses Mrs. Cunningham's question earlier about waste on site. We will first explore the panelization of these homes where these are built in a factory and delivered in panels. One creating a tighter envelope because you're building up you're essentially building a home in a factory. So you've got much less waste than subsequently on site. You're building a much tighter envelope because you've got cuts are actually happening in a factory to materials and that you know obviously heat loss and air infiltration. you're so much tighter an envelope to start the building process right there. It costs more to do that, but that for us creates a building envelope that we can get comfortable with to start. Secondly, you know, Frank obviously on my team works extensively on the specifications of the homes. We self-perform construction. Many of the people that come here and develop projects in Arlington hire outside firms. BCN is the is the general contractor. So we put our name on the building of this project and the specifications that I said earlier in terms of higher efficiency um furnaces, heat pumps that we're using in this project looking at, you know, bringing obviously solar as a possibility to these units by providing a conduit in them. You know, using all electric and skipping gas in our projects. We're taking the steps that it takes. Um and and that's really the goal. And as Frank mentioned earlier, we're not at a point now where we've developed all the specifications on this project because we're sitting here waiting for an approval hopefully for this project. Once we get there, we're, you know, 2 feet deep in this thing, digging our way and getting these plans submitted to start construction here. But obviously, the goal is to build the best project we can because as you said, the consumer who's going to buy a new town home expects a quality product. And that's

something that we've been doing for 28 years in Arlington. I get calls from people that I built houses for 20 years ago that are friends that still call me. So our reputation is here. So really for me it's very important. Same thing in the community that we're doing in Penrose right now. It's another project where we put our name on it, we construct it, and we're there. So,

we also had some good suggestions during SPRC about things to do um that were uh feasible to do because these are town homes that can be built to spec for folks and they can have that choice of what type of features they want to have. And so, there was a sincere interest in the hookups for solar and so we looked into that, went for it. Um green roofs were discussed. What we figured that would work well is the ability for planters and some reinforcement on those roof decks so that you can put more green and plant vegetables and other sorts of things up on those roof decks. Um there were a number of other, you know, I'll call them little things because they feel like that when you're just designing a house, but I know that they're very impactful. It's also the sort of thing I think that even at Planning Commission, Miss Peterson suggested that um we put the solar panels and other options in our marketing materials. That was a great idea. I think that that's going to happen because this is Arlington and that certainly does help sell units here. Even if everybody doesn't buy it, it's going to help no matter what. Um, so I mean it's a wholesome answer, but uh we had a lot of good feedback too.

Thank you. Thank you. So last call on sustainability, which would include tree tree canopy, uh climate and green choice, and uh over to Mr. Spain.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick uh to the developer and thank you for your updates on the um uh the solar and the EV. Just a quick question about I think from a marketability perspective outfitting some of the units uh you know initially with uh not just the wiring but perhaps with EV ready uh would perhaps be you know somewhat beneficial and also help with a level of uniformity right as you on this project. Can you give me some thoughts on perhaps why you're not at that stage yet or have you considered it uh with some of these 40 some odd units?

Yeah. Yeah. I um I I spoke to it a bit earlier and it is um they're wiring them EV capable because that final step of finishing is product dependent as far as the exact outlet. That's what I was told. It made sense to me. That final step is not a particularly expensive thing that I mean it's like 600 bucks. It's an easy thing to do during construction for some folks, but go ahead.

I I know. But we're talking about add-ons when you're building a townhouse. And so, you know, add-ons when you're building a townhouse that are that cost are very very different from for example, if you go out in the suburbs and you're shopping with Toll Brothers and they sell you on like XYZ, you're going to walk out of there with $50,000 in added costs for the, you know, nicer refrigerators and whatever. Um the point being that uh they absolutely could make it EV ready. They just feel like that's taking a step that all of the buyers wouldn't necessarily want and that they might want a different type of socket and so it's almost a to me it's a nitty-gritty detail but I get the question and I understand it is important to them to to have EV ready. Thanks Nick. Thanks Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Spain. So I'll just um almost ready. I will be making a motion shortly. Uh colleagues go ahead vice vice chair coffee. Great. I have a a couple of uncatategorized questions, shall we say? Yeah. Miscellaneous. Um,

in particular, we've spent a lot of time on different planning guidance elements of this, but one of the things we actually haven't talked a lot about is transportation. Um, and so I I note that the transportation commission voted unanimously to support and noted that, you know, some of the the more sticky issues of this are beyond the purview of their commission. I just want to confirm from the staff perspective um that there are no issues, deviations, or concerns related to how this would meet the transportation planning goals for this site.

Uh that that's correct. We evaluated it based on the use and making sure that it complied with the transportation policies and goals as applied to the proposed use. Okay, great. Um, that is very helpful. We Yeah, we will also have after the motion I'm open for some discussion, but go ahead if you need. Some of some of these are kind of just like go to it

check boxes. Um, and then we had talked a little bit on the parking issue when we were talking about land use. Um, but I just I think one of one of the parts of uh the Lincolnston Boulevard plan that is tough is the transportation issue because some of it is chicken and egg. We need to invest in greater public transportation service, but it doesn't make sense to make those investments until the people get there to use them. And um but then we have to build things based on what might have. So, um, recognizing that issue, I know you said that this has to be parked at two spaces per unit. From a market perspective at this moment in time, is there any reality where we could go below two spaces per unit, noting you do have 11 spaces of visitor parking as well on the site. Um, but is this driven by the transportation requirements or by the market more? So, I

driven by the market. The the county I don't want to say that um you all five up there would approve a town home community with no parking. Um I don't think that's true especially in this location. This is a very progressive board when it comes to parking supply and I think that you know the community is well aware of that that we can get parking reductions from you all if we're willing to build something that we think people will buy. Um and that's really what drives it is like how much parking do people really want? And I think that given sort of the maturity of the transit environment around us, um, two spaces per unit makes a ton of sense. It it's just a matter of what drives sales. That doesn't mean, like Brian said, that if somebody wants less parking that we couldn't um go in and do something different that would technically require a minor amendment that that person probably has to pay for, which unfortunately would cost in and of itself 50 grand, but um, who knows? Uh it's possible over time and certainly there's other measures coming from the Commonwealth about parking reductions etc. So we may end up in a new world one day. Um we do love that there is at least one bus line and as more come that will be good for this development and the walkability of this neighborhood and the access to the shops and to Main Street is a huge factor. We love it. That's why this community is going to thrive. Um but like Brian was saying earlier, it's just not quite there yet. Um, Columbia Pike is a great counter example of something that is far more mature with those access options that really help support um, multif family housing. There's also a lot of other differences about how Columbia Pike plan was designed and how it incentivized development rather than setting some lofty goals that are going to be difficult to achieve. Those are simply value judgments, but um, it's a long-winded answer. We're getting late in the afternoon.

Thank you. Do you mind if I answer just one? parking.

I think one of the things um to that transportation question, I think Nick really hit on it, it's um the chicken and the before the egg issue, I think the one thing that's really important to look at in the context of that too is it was brought up earlier the precedent issue of this project. I think what's really important for everyone here to evaluate is that the precedent doesn't want to be set on Langston Boulevard. that projects shouldn't be brought forward. The precedent should be that projects get approved because when they get approved then we have we get rid of the chicken and the egg concept because as much like at Columbia Pike as development happened more development begets more development. Projects need to start. Once they start, the resources are there. And once the resources are there, like we saw in Columbia Pike, theseund $30 million worth of improvements finally happened, but it took a lot of development to get there. It was a longer term plan. And what I want to make sure that everyone realizes is that we need to we need to set the right precedent for how that things start.

Also, no one in the development community is taking this as a um sign that uh it's real easy to propose town homes and go ahead and do it all the time. It's going to be okay. Um but that's not the lesson here and certainly denying it would not do anything different in that regard either. Um so please don't Sure. Did you have other that you wanted to cover? I I think just one more staff. Um at this point the applicant has agreed to all of our standard site plan conditions. Is that correct? Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And that'll be my my last one

which covers what I was going to ask which is last month the applicant had not agreed to all of the site standard site plan conditions. Correct. I mean correct.

Got it. So changes I think to tree tree replacement compensation. Is there a is it plausible to describe at a high level some of the changes made to align with site plan uh standard site plan conditions? Is that something that you or m Mr. Ferelli or we could piece it together uh at at a sort of conceptual high level um succinctly? And if it's not uh and I should have looked at all of the strike strikethroughs in the latter part of it, that's okay. But I would love it if at a high level you could describe I think the applicant had a slide that showed the changes. Would that be easiest? Either way. Either way, I don't want to step on Mr. Lamb's toes.

I guess for the most part, you know, you know, they are standard site plan conditions. That's what um we put forth to the applicant. They didn't necessarily agree to all of the standards. They have since come to agree to the standards. So, you know, that's kind of how it shaked out over the last month. Got it. Is there a slide? I mean it certainly the ones that come to mind there was some as I understand it there was some work done on the utility undergrounding conditions and that's reflected in the documents and tree canopy are the two that stand out the most to me. Are there any conceptually that are at a high level that you would like to to highlight Mr. Cummings?

Uh sustainability commitments were codified as well. Um the utility uh undergrounding condition we essentially just decided to trust the process and staff and um I'll keep a close eye on it and we have confidence that'll work out. It's a very complicated, specific, detailed issue with how all that works that nobody wanted to incur a lot of brain damage on here. Sure. Um, and the Tree Canopy Fund contribution was simply a financial push point and we decided to open things up.

Sure. Thank you. Appreciate it. So, I will go ahead and make a motion. Um, and then I do will have a question for attorney uh as well as I'll want to speak to the motion. So, I move that the board approve the site plan amendment SPLA2-000027 parenthesis SP site plan number 452 and adopt the site plan amendment ordinance subject to the conditions of approval attached to the board report dated May 8th, 2026 to facilitate construction of 47 townhouse units at 2134 North Taylor Street with modifications for lot coverage, front and yard sideyard setbacks, and other modifications necessary to achieve the proposed development. Is there a second?

Second. Thank you. I will um first question is the standard. This is not with due respect to the earlier item being not simple. This feels more complicated to me. So the question is is the standard for approving a site plan amendment to our attorney. Um, you know, I have the misfortune in some ways of having once been an attorney in other states. And so I I think it would just help me to understand what our standard is that we apply to approving site plan amendments.

So this the standard you're applying is in the zoning ordinance. It's section 15.55. And there's three things you're you're looking at. you know, is is the application consistent with Arlington County comprehensive plan and any applicable and relevant adopted county board plans and policies and with the uses permitted and use regulations of the district as set forth in the zoning ordinance or as may be modified by the county board. And then is it functionally relates to the other structures permitted in the district and will not be interest or detrimental to the property or improvements in the neighborhood? And then finally, it's so designed and located that the public health, safety, and welfare will be promoted and protected.

Thank you. that is helpful. There are different pieces of that that I uh have been thinking through and um wanting to work on for me um sort of a few thoughts. First, I think this is a unique site. We I we've heard enough that persuaded me this particular site has fa historically failed for a number of years, number of decades really to achieve its redevelopment potential given its unique site plan site conditions compared to other properties in the Langston Boulevard area plan. Second, on county housing goals, I've tried to enumerate the different pieces of that having listened. The application advances, in my view, countywide comprehensive plan goals by expanding housing options in the county as a whole, specifically providing town home housing typology, which I do believe, and Mr. Fuserelli, you can contradict me if later, we're still under represented as a percentage of overall housing typology, though that exactly what should be that percentage may be up for debate. Um but but I do believe that this is uh I am keenly aware having once worked at Habitat for Humanity and then having um talked to folks far younger and uh in better shape than I am that they're leaving because they can't reach affording a home and uh plenty like false church like Fairfax but I want people to want to stay and be able to stay in Arlington. So home ownership I think is a real challenge. infrastructure improvements. The project will deliver needed infrastructure improvements in addition to on-site site storm water management. Storm storm water was a key piece for me and we have talked about sustain sustainability and solar ready EV capable indoor thermostats and the other conditions that are further enumerated in our discussion. So those are my that's my reasoning. I would say that um the

overall plan um being consistent with the overall plan um is ultimately where I land and uh I also am not I'm not um immune to the question of what would occur if we if we do not act here. And while I understand the desire for plans that um for fulfilling all of our plans, I also think the reality that we're facing with respect to um moving forward on the languable of our plan leads me to support it. Sorry to have gone on a little bit. Uh I'll stop there and let colleagues share thoughts. I don't know that I'd have much in the way of concluding beyond that for brevity. Miss Cunningham. Yes, I think we've said a lot about everything, maybe multiple times, so I can I can be brief as well. Um, you know, the Langston Boulevard plan has been bubbling in some form or another since the last century. Um, and it is really exciting to see that we are, you know, this year getting some true momentum on implementation of the plan. So I will be um fully in support of approving this project. I would agree that it has truly unique site conditions and history of also since the last century being vacant and having multiple attempts to uh improve and uh and develop it. Um and then I am particularly excited that we are getting some more fe simple housing. I do think that is the true missing uh product in our in our ladder of housing. So excited to see that as well as the flexibility to meet future intergenerational needs or stacked flat needs. Um and I will leave it there.

Thank you, Miss Cunningham. Mr. Spain,

we all knew this time would come. Um and I have written out, so I'm probably going to take a few minutes here, Mr. Chair. Sure. Uh first um to the applicant I just want to thank you for enduring this process. Uh it has of course uh not been easy. Um and also I want to thank the staff who has spent hundreds of hours uh participating and going through this process. and about my 17 months of being on the board and something I said early on in 2025, I said, you know, and I learned this over the years, there's a wrong way to do the right thing. And so, I have some some comments here that I'm going to read. Uh, and as you think about the Langston Boulevard area plan, I want to remind folks that this is a process that not too long ago this community was involved in. It wasn't long ago. And uh I was part of that in in some way, shape or form. But I also want to acknowledge that the decision before us in my opinion, my professional opinion establishes a precedence. Uh much of the rationale that I've been hearing and I got so many text messages and emails over the past couple weeks. Uh but most of the rationale that has been offered to me uh for this proposal rest on a concern. One general concern that absent approval the market may not deliver a larger scale redevelopment or that the site could remain dormant or change ownership and I want you to know that I understand those concerns. But I do not believe that long-term land use decisions should be driven by fear or speculation about market uncertainty. We should be guided instead by the adopted process, our policy framework, and the community vision, the Langston

Boulevard area plan that this board before I got here formally adopted. This is not ignoring the will of the people. I heard some of that today. In fact, it's the opposite. The Langston Boulevard area plan is an is in of itself an expression of the will of the people and it was shaped quite frankly by years of engagement, technical analysis and ultimately adopted as a governing vision for this corridor. So I respect the process and I honor the commitments embedded in it. not revisiting them each time a individual proposal is appealing or challenging. I also want to be clear that I'm a strong supporter, many of you know this, of expanding housing options and housing diversity, including town homes. But supporting housing in the abstract does not require us to set aside adopted policy guidance. The question before us here on the board, I believe, is whether we're willing to follow the framework we created to guide exactly these type of decisions. The Langston Boulevard area plan was adopted in 2023. It's 2026. Again, after a multi-year public process and explicitly incorporates equity, housing production, sustainability goals. staff has concluded that the proposal represents a significant deviation from that plan particularly on the site design for higher density multif family development. We also have to consider whether we are advancing our undermining adopted equity and sustainability objectives. I put high emphasis on the equity resolution that was approved here in 2019. And if we aren't going to be doing that, it is all performative. We have to pay strict attention to that guidance that we put forward because that's part of our guide

in Northstar. But I also want you to know that this decision ultimately at the end of the day is not about one project. It's about whether we here in Arlington will faithfully implement the plans and commitments that are already been adopted. We need to do better. Doing better means ensuring that the plans are not just treated as flexible suggestions. And I will say this that if we we talk about trust, we talk about what's going on across the river, we talk about national politics, but if we want to trust our planning process and we want it to remain strong, then we ourselves have to demonstrate that our commitments are real, that they're durable, and they're consistently applied, not just whenever we feel like it or because we live close by. So, for the record, um I just want you to know that I will be abstaining from voting today on this one. And you need to know that my abstension does not mean opposition to housing, town homes, or redevelopment. It is not a statement against goals of increasing housing supply or housing diversity, which I continue to be to strongly support. My abstension does not mean indifference or disengagement. It reflects my recognition that there are competing governing principles at stake, particularly in policy consistency, equity commitments, and adherence to our adopted plans. And what I want you to know that instead of this my extension means that I cannot fully endorse a proposal that is aligned with our adopted framework but I can also cannot fairly characterize it as something I oppose any broader intent and it's part of intent broader intent. It reflects a judgment that in this case where the dens the tension that I have between housing goals and adopted

planning guidance is not resolved in a way that warrants quite honestly a definitive yes or no vote. So look um we don't need to be ruled or governed by fear my friends or by speculation or uncertainty. We need to show leadership. We need to show commitment to our community because the way I'm feeling is quite honestly is that the Langston Boulevard area plan wasn't all for not the time, the attention that thousands of people participated in. It wasn't for not because of the decision we're going to make here today. And that being said, Mr. Chair, uh I look forward to many more projects coming online, but I will be abstaining officially from this vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spain for the care and preparation as you shared your truths and and your view with respect to this Mr. Karenus. Uh thank you Mr. Chair.

Um uh the the first question that I have to myself is why are we struggling so much with this? Uh I can answer this question for myself. I uh I I used to work in a different corridor uh with very specific goals on housing production, afford housing affordability, attainability, diversifying the market etc. uh so I know that uh yes policy plays a very big role as well as development. There is an intentional and aspirational part here uh that is expressed in the very fact that housing is such a critical part of the life of every single person who lives in this county. Uh and at the same time free and pragmatism are you know the on the other side of the equation and we need to balance these. Um, you know, in Columbia Pike, I I still have I I never associate town home uh developments as something that went down always with a smile. There are notable exceptions, but the rule was gosh, couldn't we have more? Couldn't we have a better bigger building house more people being able uh to uh to go where we were where where the plan wanted whether it was Carver homes in Arlington View or it is uh uh you know Arcoa row or etc. So there were there are many examples where uh town homes town home communities emerged as a pragmatic balance or a pragmatic negotiation between what was possible and what the goals of the plan was. Um I heard some of our of the testimonies here saying oh

my god the the young people that will move there. Honestly, you know, uh when I think that the average age of the uh of of the firsttime home buyers in the United States is 40 years now. And the average age of a home buyer that in 2010 was 39. Today it's 59. So we have a huge problem here. And I'm struggling always to find how the product of a town home helps out. It helps. My problem is always it's I I feel that's not enough. We don't move the needle enough. So at the same time, I see the neighborhood who uh uh was not very uh you know had to struggle with u the project that we approved a while ago. The um no just yesterday actually. um the affordable housing complex just next door there, not very far away, very walkable distance. Uh and now we have a new challenge here with a place that has been 30 years without development. And I I recognize that this is a very substandard situation. It's not a desirable place to be. Now this board has again this kind of a dilemma in front of us. Uh what what options do we have? We have a a solid proposal. It's not the first time for this place, but it looks more solid and viable right now. Uh we have the option of byite which in my opinion is worse. It's less housing, it's more expensive housing, it's less even less way less affordable etc. And it also sets a standard in the neighborhood in the neighborhood that uh you know it

reduces the the the diversity of housing product that there is there. Um I will agree with my colleague Mr. Spain that um it is difficult for me to see how we we are giving a the right kind of push that I would like to give uh to the plan right now. However, this project doesn't mean that there is no push and no mo motion forward. There is you are actually going to build something. This is not going to be what what I would like to see. uh but it's also not the by right option. So there is this is this is a compromise there and I I'm trying to be pragmatic and realistic about that. I also know that while the new shiny uh town homes will be now a 1.2 2 million or 1.3 million. Even on Columbia Pike, you are selling them at 1.3 million. Uh uh this is a product that appreciates less or less less less as fast than the single family home. Therefore, in comparison, in 10 years down the road, the housing that we build today builds uh some more attainable base. uh it will age in uh closer to the bracket of attainability that I want to see be more prevalent in our community and serving more people like that. I also think that uh um organically this uh this product uh inspires people to use it in many different ways. I don't I don't feel that what that what you explained that we will see more multigenerational households living there etc is uh completely unrealistic or just you know a fluke or a a once uh not a very common

situation. It is a little bit more common than one wants to to accept. I've been personally uh I I have a lot of constituents here in Rossland town homes around that have been built in in in other areas uh in Arlington and they are now solidly multi- I mean two two households at the very least are at the least are are are there so they serve actually a function at the end it's a it's a kind of um a product that is uh transformable or has a a more more flexible use. Uh, last but not least, I have to say I was a no for a very long time on this. Uh, just because I it's you wouldn't expect me to be a yes on this just because of uh the experience that I have with with this specific product and you know the aspirations that I share uh with a lot of people on how Langston should um uh develop. However, I have a lot of difference and I have to say that clearly to uh to the Langston Boulevard alliance and the discussion that we had not only once but several times. Um I really feel that uh they made a careful uh pragmatic uh very goal oriented argument about this project. Uh they were good interlocutors in that and they convinced me that we need to be realistic and pragmatic and say yes to this with all the caveats and uh um and uh uh footnotes that are appropriate here which include you know inspiring

architecture would really move move us better. we are also customers here in in a sense we we need to like what you offer as well. I'm not saying that we are the ultimate and that it's a must, but uh but I think that um and I know that our architects in this room uh being being more inspired how we present housing, how we how we make housing to work in the neighborhood, create new realms, uh just inspire people for urban living and not being just a a you know a good product that has a good appreciation, but it's basically something that they've seen 10,000 times uh in in different variations. this is good. It's a good quality product. I'm not doubting that and I'm not doubting BCN's commitment to that. Uh but I think that it also has to show in a in a in a corridor that basically starts a new uh new forms are are good. It's a good practice to to try at least to to get there. That includes more greenery. That includes a smarter management of parking. that includes a lot of these environmental um um sustainability attributes. I think that they can be they can be more accentuated and be shown as this is the kind of living we have on Langston Boulevard. This kind of stuff. Um and and finally a respect for the process especially for SPRC for the planning commission etc. These are people who tr who really try and I and I believe they really try uh to to to bridge to to manage the most difficult parts of of these projects as they come uh so that they leave uh you know only the hard decidables with us. Last and but not least if I was staff here I would make exactly the same decision

like you did. uh you stay you kept the promise you uh interpreted the the plan in my opinion correctly uh and you presented the board with options uh that the fact that me as a board member I take one option today that has absolutely no it's no uh no um uh no no um judgment on on on yours I mean you this is not me overruling stuff you did the professionally correct work. No question about that. Zero. I'm actually very proud of you for doing so. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonus. Vice Chair Coffee.

And in maximum suspense. Um I appreciate actually Mr. Karen Tonus uh saying why are we struggling so much? I think that's a a question that I hadn't quite contemplated before this moment. Um I have contemplated the struggling of this but um not why. And I think to me it boils down to the reality that um from a planning perspective this is a development that we want but not exactly where we want it. Um and so what do you do with that? Um, and in particular, I think one of the things I've said to all of my colleagues and perhaps staff at this point is that, you know, this is a very tough position to be in where we have authority but not really control. um we can all sit up here and daydream about what development we would design to fit here and how we would do it and um what we we hope and dream of uh for this particular site. Um but we're not we are not applicants, we are not financers, we are not developers and and we um have one job which is to say yes or no at the end of the day. Um, and so I think that has been very hard for me. I think that this is a conversation where reasonable people can absolutely discuss and debate and and very reasonably reach different conclusions about what the right answer is and why. This is I think one of the few um things that have come before us as a board where I did not feel ultimately that there is a true right answer for me on which things ultimately

outweigh um all of the other things. There's always a mix of considerations in these site plans. There's always um reasons that you know if you value uh one part of our comp plan more than another part of our comp plan, you can talk yourself one way, you can talk yourself another way. And I think our staff have uh per personally witnessed me talk myself in at least three different directions on this site plan in particular. Um and I have so much respect for our staff and what they are recommending and how they evaluated this. Um I think similar to Mr. Caronius, I wouldn't have wanted you to do anything differently here. Um, and I think uh it is just a a difference between your job and our job at the end of the day that um we are here to struggle uh with the with the end result. Um, and so I think, um, I want to comment a little bit on the SPRC and our planning commission. Um, because I think one additional element that has been really hard in this for me is what has felt a little bit like a um, disregard or even maybe disrespect of the SPRC process. Um, I cannot think of a single other plan that has come to this board without evolving in any real substantive way based on what the community and stakeholder impact has been. And when I talk to our planning commissioners and they feel that this is the first time where everything felt like they couldn't make a difference, they couldn't make a change no matter how much they were advocating, no matter what they were asking for. Um that's really concerning to me. Um and frankly I think that it is unacceptable. And so I just want to put that out there that that is the perception of how this has gone from our very engaged, very

thoughtful planning commissioners who spend a lot of their time and energy on these things. Um, and you know, they may not have the voice or platform always to say uh things the way that we do, but I think it is important to say that because as this board may be pro- housing, it doesn't mean applicants can just put whatever they want forward and not go through the process with respect and with commitment to what we are all bringing here together. Um, at the same time, I'm not uh interested in making an example out of people for that reason alone. And so, I continue to really reflect on this particular site plan for the merits, for what it is bringing forward, and for what is presented um to us here today. And I think um I think it is highly unique. I think it is a a um exceptionally unique uh situation that I I can't think of anything else um that has come to us that is like this and I can't think of anything that is out there in the ether from a planning perspective so to speak that could come to us and reflect all of these very specific um criteria and characteristics. I think I just 30 years of of failure to develop in Arlington County where the value of doing development is so high. Uh that is in and of itself extraordinarily unique. Um and I think uh it is it is a question I I talked with uh our deputy county manager um and our director of CPHD for quite some time about you know highest and best use of the land. Um and I think from a planning perspective we have one idea about what the highest and best use is and that goes back to the you know a development that we want but not where

we want it. Um, and I guess the uniqueness of this site is that the the market has kind of told us that the highest and best use is actually different than what we planned for and what we thought it would be. And and that um, you know, is hard. It's hard to figure out um whether that's true. It's hard to figure out for how long that might be true. Um, and uh, again, I really align with a lot of what Mr. Karen Tonus said which is the the choice that is in front of us um is the choice that we have to make. And so um as I have evaluated this and I think about the things that to me are most important um when I evaluate consistency with our comprehensive plan and with our our different guidelines and different priorities as a community. Um, I think ultimately I find this overall in support of our comprehensive plan and community goals. There's no deviations on transportation, on housing. I I just can't state strongly enough how important having a mix of housing types is. And um this is you know generally considered the peak of the real estate market um this this spring period. And you can you can go and look right now there are only three uh town houses on the market in Arlington even close to Langston Boulevard or further north. Um there's there's about 45 total on the market. less than 10 of those are above Wilson Boulevard, let alone uh Route 50. And we talk a lot about, you know, mixtures of types of housing and and what that does to our kind of community makeup and who

gets to live where and thinking about the fact that, you know, we are we are not having that mixing in North Arlington at the moment. And we're not building um new ownership units, certainly not at the rate that we need. Um there are so few threebedrooms. there are like this is hitting a lot of things that we have said we want and we need and it is not at the location ideally that I would put it um but it's at a location that can come before us and actually be considered and be voted on um and I think you know the storm water investments are really important for this particular area as well um and ultimately you know I I want to say that I don't think this particular site plan should change anything about our planning guidance or the Langston Boulevard area plan. Um, and I expect our staff to continue to apply this level of scrutiny to all future plans that come before this board. Um and and you know I think one thing that um has been very clear to me in my time on this board is that everything we do has to be sight by sight because um nothing is ever exactly the same as anything else. Um and I think about that in the context of other things we've talked about. Um, thinking about uh the Melwood project for example, where if it had been one block east or west, we would have come to completely different conclusions about what is and is not appropriate there. And so I don't find this to be a generalizable decision. And I think everything has to come before us with fresh eyes. Um but ultimately uh after a lot a lot of thinking I think a lot of time has gone into what is a relatively

small number of units for me here but um ultimately I think I will be in support of this project.

Thank you vice chair coffee. Your comments returned multiple times to the uniqueness of this site which I think is an important piece of it and then your and then both your comments and Mr. Karen Antonus touched upon uh the the piece that is respect concerns both the county comprehensive plan as well as the plans and the uses permitted which uh Mr. Uh Samuel mentioned in his uh comments and answer to the question. Appreciate folks have answered. We've all spoken our truths. Everything's been said and nearly every one of us has said everything. So the question is on uh the motion. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. I. All those abstaining say I.

I. Four. Four in favor one abstension. The motion carries. Um, now we have one more um uh motion that I will make uh distinct fully distinct motion. I move that the board accept as a gift Cherry Hill Ridge Investment LLC's proposed AHIFF contribution. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonus. All those in support of accepting the uh as a gift Cherry Hill Ridge Investments LLC's proposed AHIFT contribution say I. I. I. Any opposed? Any abstain?

Thank you. That passes 4 to 0 one abstension. With that, Mr. Clerk, are there any other items to come before the board today? There's no further business today. We are in that case certainly not adjourned, but we are recessed until Tuesday at 3 p.m. Thank you and congratulations as well. I've developed so many today, so many drinks.