City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening, all. I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome to the Monday, June 3rd work session of City Council. Can we start with calling roll, please, Cindy?

Certainly. Mr. Egan?

Here.

Ms. Connolly? Here. Ms. Downs? Here. Ms. Flynn?

Here.

Mr. Snider's not present. Ms. Underhill? I see Ms. Underhill. Can you hear us, Justine? I'm not seeing the comments.

Cindy, you said Dave's not joining us tonight?

No.

No, okay.

All right, well, checking one more time, Justine, also checking on the captions, which were previously working and are not coming up now, so I'm thinking.

Sally, can you hear us, Sally? Okay, sounds like a no, yes, so we'll pause for a moment. Yeah, but Sally didn't hear us either.

I'm testing the mic again.

I'm not hearing anything even come through here.

The line comes off, but it's not coming through the speaker top.

I can hear you all now. Yeah, I couldn't. I couldn't hear you before, but I can hear now. You said you had the ceiling lights on?

Has Justine's child been born? What is the name? We'll let her announce.

Sorry, I don't have any video feed from you guys. Is that something that would be worked on? I can see you guys now.

Okay, Ms. Underhill.

Can you identify your remote location and reason for participation by electronic means?

I am located in Falls Church, Virginia, and I'm participating remotely for medical reasons.

Okay, I move that city council approve electronic participation by councilmen from around this meeting for medical reasons pursuant to the city council's adopted policy. Second. Second. Mr. Reagan?

Yes.

Connolly? Yes. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. You may pause and refer. The stream is fine, too.

I really have to say what the issue is with the mics. I'm not sure. But the stream is hearing it, and they can hear through this on Teams. Just so you can hear us okay through the ceiling mics?

Yes, I can hear you. It's just fine.

Okay.

All right. So our first item are the Chesapeake Bay related comp plan amendment and code amendment. So I'd like to invite Emily Bazemore and Baha'i to keep light up to the table. And I think we'll give a unified presentation of both at the same time. And then look forward to questions.

Senate Council. Senate Council is requested to hold a March session to review draft amendments to a Chapter 5 of the city's public demand, environment for everyone, and environmental sustainability, resilience, and natural resources. The draft amendments include three in-bounds, and narratives required by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and its regulations, which are prompted by a recent review of the city's Chesapeake Bay program with the legitimate department of environmental law. They represent a set of minor technical modifications that the city is undertaking following that review. On May 11th, the City Council adopted a Mentioning Resolution 2026-13. This Mentioning Resolution detailed that the required maps and narratives related to the CBPA will be included in the amendment. And it brought the chapter to enhance overall accessibility, and it clearly updates what we need to be doing if you can't compete without impacting your schedule. So my recommendation is that, certainly for a referral, TR-26-17-20 condition, the June 8, 2026, And I'm also setting a public query for July 13th. Are you going to go over to the staff analysis section? Okay, so starting at line number, or line 40. So to address the deficiencies identified by the EQ, the comprehensive plan, we'll need the amendments to include the following, and you'll see in the draft that it does. So number one, a DPP to math and political RPA areas and RMA areas, so resource protection areas and resource management areas. Within city limits, this is on page 57 of the draft. Number two, a narrative and a map that describes and depicts areas of the city that exhibit physical constraints to development, such as steep slopes, highly erodible soils, and areas prone to flooding. This is on page 48. Number three, a narrative and corresponding map that describes and depicts areas of the city known to be ecological issues. This is on page 54. This is on page 59 and 68. So again, Chapter 5 is being amended to address these different maps and narratives. We also incorporated those formatting updates and also some light clerical updates throughout the chapter that was previously adopted in February 2020. I'm briefly going to touch on our timeline. So we visited the council for a work session on May 4th, and then we had that action on the initiating resolution the following week on May 11th. And now we're here for a work session to look at those draft amendments on June 1st, and we'll be returning on June 8th, which is next Monday, to get a referral to the Planning Commission. And then we're set for action in mid-July. So now I'm going to turn it over to Bahiru, and then following Bahiru's staff report, we'll get him in.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm a little help doing the city council. I'm very worried about this project. I'm doing so much on the internet. Tonight, we are requesting an ordinance on measurement

is now joining.

and section 38, direct primary and final plant requirement. Also, T of 2016, original domain, the full suite of furniture, terminal, chapter 4A only. T of V, supplementary regulatory, request sheet, unit 7, site, land,

Allen is now exiting. Section 48, 1137, required information.

Section 48, 1141, consideration in the vision. A is landscaping. Section 48, 11. And also some tree canopy covering. Titles. So tonight, Council is requesting to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 35, Section 35.2, Definition, Section 35.12, Water Quality Impact Assessment, Section 35.43, and Chapter 38, Requirements for Plants, Section 38.34, General Requirement, and also Chapter 48, Section 48.11.34, When Required. So, Stanford is recommending scaling first reading of the 026.08, 026.09, and 026.16 for June 8th, 2016 and we are also requesting a referral for 026.09, 026.16 Charter 38 and 48. There is some background information about the Chesapeake Bay and general Chesapeake Bay divided into RDA and resource protection area. There is also a definition of water quality impact assessment. This generally requires taking into account under the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulation. involving the potential impact of product line development So there is also a map showing the location of RDAs in the city of Falls Church So recently the ECU just did the Chesapeake audit which is typically a modified schedule So they did the audit between 2024 and 2025 So, we have the proactive action agreement and we are ready to identify, to address and identify deficiencies by August 31, 2026. So, there are key provisions proposed for amendment. Chapter 35 needs to have a definition for the plan review process. Generally, the process of the development and review process is already included in Chapter 35, Section 35-4 for erosion and installment thermal control management, for lands around about 25 km2, and in Section 35-12 for So, the process is already included in the amendment, so we agreed with GEEQ to include only the definition for plan review. But the plan of review process is already included in section 3542, section 3542. impact assessment. So, the water quality impact assessment is required for all life surveillance, but our report refers to provide availability in replacing water quality assessment. In my time with the city, we have never replaced that, but the DEQ regulation doesn't allow to availability in replacement of water quality impact assessment. So, we are we are proposing to remove that section and the other one we are proposing is not mandatory but we are recommending for referencing the stormwater management fee which is set by the states. The reason is starting from this June, July the state is updating their fee code and changing every year to reflect the CPI so instead of updating every year we are recommending to reference the state code this is too easy our process every year come to the council or requesting the fee change every year so we are recommending to reference Chapter 38, this is mandatory based on the DEQ update. Additional requirements for the depiction of resource protection area and resource management area boundaries and location on plants as well as site plans. So, on this one, we are requiring to add a language in Chapter 38 to require the depiction of resource protection map area on the plants. But the site plan is already included in Chapter 48, so we are not requiring any amendment in Chapter 48 to depict the resource protection area and resource management area in the site plan. So the reason why we are requesting for the creation of a plant resource protection area on the platy. The platy is the document that came with the property, so we are trying to provide resource protection area or environmental constraints on the platy that came with the property. The other one, we are requesting to make a chapter for it, which is going. already included, but we are trying to clarify the threshold for 2500 square feet of land disturbance. The language currently says exceeding, but we are trying to clarify the disturbance by putting Eucaryptan or Econ to clarify or to give more clarification for engineers and property owners. So those are the three things we are requesting. The timeline for this is the same as the timeline for the camp line. I will try to follow the same timeline. There is no physical impact.

And that will be the only thing we are requesting.

I was going to jump in on the Q&A and just say can everyone start using the table mics again as well? We're going to start using both. Can you hear us better?

And then I'll take you back if there's any kind of echo on the cable. Does everyone have table mics on all the time when you're talking and pick up?

We'll probably need to project our voices maybe a little bit more for the mic.

Thank you, Emily. I know that we are planning on mainly making changes to conform.

Are we taking feedback from those other red line edits?

So the RPA

Are you referring to the streams, Ma?

This was made with our, um, earlier, um, so we can, uh, do that comparison and just take a look to make sure we're not missing anything. Um...

Okay, just... I don't want to continue with this one. Would you like to have another question? Go on, Link, or Harlow.

Um...

I was... That was my thing, right?

Any other feedback on either chapter 5 of the plan or the food changes that might come through? I'll check the process and we're referring it to the planning commission next week.

Yeah, so my thought process was doing a digital distribution and trying to get through their liaison so they can take a look at a review and if they have any comments. But because this one is kind of on that tight timeline, we're hoping to go for action in July. We're not just going to the planning session, but the EIC liaison is in the loop about us working on the chapter update.

Similarly, the RPA issues tend to come up in the Department of Forestry, kind of parts of the code too, and so at our last meeting, we were doing digital distribution to also include Charles, so that it goes to Amy Crompton, even if it's not part of their July, I mean, I guess June agenda.

Okay, yeah, we can do that distribution to both urban forestry and environmental sustainability.

Now don't we aspire to update our chapters every 10 years? Is that the process? So does this count? Because I guess this is the last month of 2020. I have vague recollections of touching this one in 2020. Maybe it was a blur during COVID. Does this count? I'm going to consult you for a bigger update of this chapter.

I mean, you've taken a look at this holistically with the clerical updates, but I think any larger update of the chapter might just, you know, be part of a separate process, and that's where I have to also be embarked on that.

Yeah. So, in that spirit, I did jot down a few things that we've done since 2020 that if only, if we have time, if only we had the data available to just have Meredith, since we're touching it, So if it's easy, that might be an easy thing to update. Because I often hear that there are concerns that we run out of space for development. That's a good reminder that we have one set of items that's right for the case. Second, we've taken a lot of waste changes, and that might merit a quick mention.

We updated to reflect 10% in there.

Yes, I will say a start with this.

We are looking at just that number that's in there for tree canopy, and I need to take a look at the cost. Great.

And then likewise, when talking commercial development, I feel like planning has brought to us, as part of the tree canopy discussion, the residential turnover acreage data.

Yeah, that sounds great. And again, you can take a look at all of those different things. So these have just stopped working. That's what they're saying in the back. This is not even feeding into the

So the light's coming on, but it's not. So I'm not sure. Should we just have a quick recess while we do that?

Yeah, there's five minutes. Sally, can you give me an audio check how you're hearing us on Teams? I've just muted the ceiling mics too, so now the mics are working again.

I could hear you very clearly, Cindy, but the meeting thus far has been very garbled.

All right, thank you. Maybe taking the ceiling mics back off. Yeah, I've just done.

The priority is to make sure the council members can hear. Yep, it seems like it just suddenly switched back on.

I can hear much more clearly now.

Okay.

But that probably, will that mean that the streaming folks are not going to be able to hear? Because that's why you...

back on they will be able to hear way more clearly as well okay yep okay i'll keep an eye on it so we think we're good on streaming on all the channels okay okay well let's continue on then i'm sure we'll hear otherwise if it's not working from people great let's jump into virginia village now

All right, Mr. Treanor. So tonight we have a work session to talk about the draft RFP. We've circulated version three that was in the packet, and we'd like to... go through with particular focus on Section 3 and Section 5. Section 3 is where we articulate our policy goals, and Section 5 is where we establish the selection criteria. Before we jump in, I will just note that we will be with the Planning Commission on Wednesday night to talk about the Comp Plan Amendment, the Small Area Plan Amendment, and we'll be discussing zoning with the Planning Commission as well. following the initiating resolution that the City Council adopted. And that's not really their focus at this work session tonight, but if there are questions about that, we'd be happy to answer. We will have a deep dive on those matters at your work session on June 15th. before our request for action by the City Council on June 22nd where the City Council would act on first reading on the zoning text language as well as the comp plan and the small area plan as well as grant authorization to release the RFP. And so as we discussed at your last meeting, then the big schedule is that the comp plan and sort of the planning documents would be worked on through the month of July and come back to council for action on July 27th. At the end of July, the zoning text language, however, would go on a slower pace And second reading on that would be scheduled in September or October. And so with that sort of kind of overview of the schedule, we'll jump into the RFP if the council is ready for that.

I just want to ask a question before we get in there, which is the ESC sent an email last Thursday or Friday, and I think that those comments have not been incorporated. That's correct. And I'm not quite sure where they'll fit in with what we have here, but one of the things the ESC said is that throughout there it mentions biophilic standards and energy star standards, and those are all outdated and not really the right kind of standard. So I just want to make sure we include that in the conversation tonight.

So we are kind of onboarding the ESC's comments, and I think as we go through the policy requirements and the grading, because it is referenced right now, the ESC input is not yet referenced, but I think those would be the places to possibly expand or phrase differently based on the council's direction.

Okay, thanks.

So maybe I could hit some of the highlights of Section 3 and just kind of get ourselves oriented. There are some changes since the last time the council reviewed it. And so let me just sort of describe it at the high level first. So Section 3, City of Falls Church policy goals and requirements. And so the mandatory requirements are that the proposals consider the financial feasibility of three potential scenarios. And we'll talk about those in just a moment because they've changed since the last time they were discussed and identify and ask the developer, the proposer to also identify the preferred scenario that they believe best achieves the city's affordable housing objectives in a fiscally responsible manner. And so we are asking them to think seriously about all these scenarios. And the purpose of that is to not to short circuit to one solution, but to really have them go through a thought process for a scenario A, where the existing housing stock in Virginia Village is kept and potentially expanded with a third floor or with bump outs but more modest changes but the kind of the core of those structures would remain in place. The renovation would be required and we've set the standard on the national standards that are put forward by by HUD through their inspire standards for affordable housing. It calls for stable rents for current tenants and then there's a rent structure a preferred rent structure that's described that's the same for all 3 scenarios and I will go into more detail on those in just a moment. We do note the environmental assessments, and so we would provide the respondents all the information that we have. In the last version that you saw, we listed out sort of our summary of those reports. Instead, we're just going to make all the reports available to respondents as opposed to air characterization of those reports. So that's scenario A. Scenario B is a what we call low density infill development.

And why is it that people aren't paying as much attention? Scenario A originally was a no build one.

That was just no expansion. No expansion, just preservation.

Could you speak to why that was changed from no build to some sort of small additions?

So our thought is, you know, the city is explicit that one of our goals is to preserve and to expand affordable housing. And so not having that expansion option in scenario A, we felt the council's feedback was that seemed to really handicap scenario A, that it wasn't a realistic proposal. And so by having the expansion, it makes it kind of more on equal footing because it will meet, to some extent, city affordable housing goals with the expansion.

Yep.

So it gives that more viability from a policy perspective. So scenario B, low density infill development, which would involve the demolition of the existing city-owned buildings and a rebuild. And so the low rise residential development is described as three to four stories in height. And then paragraph two lays out the stable rent requirement for current tenants and then the target rent scenarios that are described a bit more in section four below. The value of pedestrian accessibility through the site is noted so that people can maintain their access to Big Chimneys Park from Maple and just a perviousness through the site. It does here reference biophilic design elements. So I think there's opportunities here, I think, to layer in a bit more detail that the ESC has provided. And the ESC, the examples they've given are taken from other affordable housing projects in the region, and so we think it's helpful input. Four, so scenario B, being responsive to the goals and objectives and policies in the affordable living policy, delivering a mixed income community that balances various housing typologies to meet rental and ownership needs across the 10 lots involved in this RFP. So ensure committed affordable units range in affordability that captures renters, earning between 30% and 80% AMI. A minimum of 30% of the total new units are affordable to households earning 50% of AMI, and most of the 80% AMI units are larger, i.e., two-bedroom units that can accommodate larger-sized households. So those are the three ways that we're articulating our housing goals in Scenario B. Then in Scenario C, which we characterize as the larger infill redevelopment, also involving the demolition of the existing city-owned buildings, And so, height, density, and neighborhood compatibility. So, that is described as vegetation, shade trees, and other biophilic design elements shall be utilized to screen Virginia Village site from its boundary with the adjacent Winter Hill community and Big Chimneys Park. Ensuring an initial building free zone measuring 25 feet from the common property line. Similar treatment should be applied to the boundary with the adjacent tax analyst building, Bowl American site, and other interior Virginia Village lots with a building free zone of 15 feet on those edges. Beyond this green buffer, building height should step down towards the winter Hill community and big chimneys Park to achieve better transitions. Building Heights closest to these edge conditions may only gradually increase in height without exceeding a 45 degree bulk plane angle is measured from the point where the common property line meets the great elevation. We've shown in prior meetings. Graphics to illustrate this and this is what the planning Commission is going to be reviewing on Wednesday night as well. Height transitions along the boundary with the adjacent tax analyst building, Bull American site, and other Virginia Village interior lights can be more flexible. So that angle, there could be some flexibility on those adjacencies. And then paragraph Roman at 3 portions of the site along Shirley and Maple can reach 5 to 7 stories in height with the greatest heights concentrated along Maple Avenue and adjacent to the Bull America site. Any portion of new building exceeding 40 feet in height shall provide a minimum 10 foot step back along boundaries adjacent to residential districts.

So at 40 feet there's a 10 foot step back.

And then B, there's a discussion of open space. Pedestrian accessibility should be prioritized. Introducing new trails or pathways with access between Maple Avenue, the Virginia Village site and Big Chimneys Park. Wayfinding signage, lighting, biophilic design elements should be incorporated to make the site more porous and inviting to the public. Ground floor uses redevelopment should prioritize the most feasible combination of residential supporting uses that include some combination of daycare, supportive housing services, civic spaces that help celebrate and activate the adjacent Tenor Hill historic district and cultural district. So that's taken from our town hall meetings, the input that we've gotten from those meetings. And then two, the project is responsive to the goals and objectives of the affordable living policy. And so the same description that we just read in the prior section, affordability between 30 and 80%. 30% of the total new units are affordable at 50% of AMI and that most of the 80% AMIs are two bedrooms. Now, so those are the three scenarios and then we do allow hybrid scenarios where respondents can combine the scenarios of A, B, and C across the site. So there's an example of a renovation of several of the existing quadplexes while demolishing and redeveloping others with new construction. Respondents proposing a hybrid approach should clearly delineate which parcels are subject to which scenario and provide a cohesive site-wide plan. And then also if the respondents don't think that any of the scenarios are viable, we'd like to know why so that we can learn and then go forward.

Real quick question. So we're expecting a developer to give us a proposal that incorporates one or a mix of one of these, but they don't have to say, I don't like scenario B, they just pick what they want, unless they're giving us nothing.

So our thought process and draft, yes, is that we, and we, when we were having the community meetings, we heard opinions about these different scenarios. And so we thought it would be helpful through the assessment that the developers haven't just gone straight to what they want to do, but they've, we've required them to think through some of the options that the community came to us with.

That makes sense. Okay. But they don't have to do every option.

They should tell us what they think is the feasible one.

What they think is the most feasible. And that'll be just information that then we'll process and kind of make our own decisions on.

Okay. And I would imagine some may say, here's a pros and cons of scenario A. You know, they may come and say, This one might be more affordable to the city. It'll be interesting to see.

Here's what's financeable. Here's what's not financeable. Sounds like we're ready to jump. But before we jump into the RFP itself, Wyatt, kind of taking a step back, because I think I'm reflecting on the past two discussions where we're talking about where we are making decisions. And so I think tonight is one of two work sessions with a goal of releasing the RFP on June 22nd. After that point, if you give us like the big picture overview where we still have additional decision making authority along the way, all the way up till next March, essentially. I think that'll help frame this discussion so people understand when they're still making decisions on things.

So it's an important point. So how does the city council sort of keep control over this process? What are your key decision points? So first, you'll hear the recommendation of the evaluation committee. And then one important decision is choosing the top-ranked respondent and having an interim agreement with that entity. And then setting the final zoning for the site. Now, staff is proposing a buy right zoning structure. Council ultimately will decide whether you want that or not. But we are proposing that. And so there's been some questions. Does that mean the city council will give up control? And so what I would submit is that once you have an interim agreement with your top ranked respondent, you have not finalized the zoning at that point. And so there will be some probably some give and take at that point. The council could say this is it. You have to fit this. Or there could be some push and pull, and the council could say, well, this is a little different than what we thought, but you've handled it nicely, so we're going to approve that because we like your concept. So the council will have that ability up through setting the zoning. And then ultimately, the last big decision point would be the comprehensive agreement. So the interim agreement survives through the period where they're getting their site plan, getting their financing, and putting in their applications for financing. At that point then, the city council, there is still one final decision, which is the comprehensive agreement. where the whole package is put together. And so that would be sort of the last touching point and sort of the ultimate decision on the project.

So to recap, June 22nd, we get to decide whether we're releasing the RFP. September, we will hear from, that's not called the selection committee anymore, so I noted the name change, it's the Evaluation Advisory Committee, the EAC, so that they're advising us, they're not actually selecting. So in September, we get to actually select any of the respondents that we like. And then in October, which is when second reading of the zoning changes, that's where we still have, we get to decide what the final zoning is. And then the comprehensive agreement, which is maybe late 2025 or 2026 or early 2027 will be the final.

Yeah, February 2027 would be, I think, a reasonable time period for the comprehensive agreement.

Can I make a request of the city attorney as we talk about this? And I would just like to understand. So we're talking about this and like, oh, council has this, that or the other. But we're also putting out an RFP, getting people to invest and spend time and resources, putting together proposals, entering into some interim agreement. Should council select someone? And I would just like to understand, like, what like what counts as a contract when and what risk and liability is there to the city at what points in time based on the submissions that respondents have made to whatever we've signaled our intent to be and what we're on the hook for or not on the hook for when we sort of talk about discretion that we have but discretion that we may not have based on like what we view as a contract and not a contract and what's a breach of a contract at what points in time. So I would like to understand the legal aspects and ramifications of what it is we are kind of talking about in terms of decision points, but also like binding commitment letters and interim agreement letters and negotiated agreements because they have more force. than what I think we are making them out to have. And I think we need to understand from a negotiation position when we have leverage and when we don't have leverage based on contractual obligations we may or may not have based on how certain agreements are structured.

Understood. I've got a few thoughts on that, and then ultimately the city attorney is your most reliable speaker to it. I would say this. In any agreement, there are always default provisions, and there are always a way that the parties can separate. And so an interim agreement would have those provisions in it. In this RFP, you'll notice it says the city may choose to select no respondents. So we've protected ourselves. We are clear about that. At the comprehensive agreement, that's an important point because that's when we would transfer title to the selected team, either through a ground lease or through a fee simple sale. And so that's an important point. But still there's default provisions that can survive after that. And so those are all things that get worked out with our legal teams. But those are a couple of thoughts on it.

And then I don't, I mean I can ask the question now or I can ask the question later. I would still like to understand the EAC versus council. I understand we ultimately are making a decision as to the respondent or to the ranked respondent but it's not clear to me based on the RFP language that's actually in the document as to the EAC the EAC sort of going through the whittling process of the respondents. And then when we get to kind of numbers 10 and 11, the respondents submitted the most advantageous responsive proposal will be chosen by the panel. So the EAC, this is about section five evaluation process, paragraph 11, and recommended to the city council who will make the final determination. So it's not clear to me in number 11, Is the panel selecting a project? Basically, they're selecting more than a partner. They're seemingly selecting a project based on like the RFP. It's a single project that's coming down to us and council has an up or down vote as to the project or what is council's role relative to other submissions at this point in time. So like that aspect of EAC versus council in terms of the spectrum of Projects we're as a council evaluating.

I still have questions on just based on the language in the document So we can do some refinement on the language what I would describe as the process is that the ace? EAC will be doing its work in closed session the Responses themselves we're going to do some work with JLL in terms of what's normal for instance for West Falls the summaries were public and the proprietary information like what they were planning to build and their financing model was protected. I think it's going to be something similar to that. The EAC would do their work behind closed doors, give their recommendation to the city council also in closed session. The way that the city council, you can tell an entity, hey, you're our top rank respondent. We'd now like to sit down with you and work out an interim agreement. But the act of picking the top-ranked respondent is the approval of the interim agreement. So that interim agreement can spell out as much or as little as you want it to spell out. It could be that the council says, we like the team, but we're not going to commit them to the project because we want to change what their concept is. You could do that. Or the interim agreement could say, we're picking you, and you're going to deliver X, Y, and Z because that's what your proposal said. That's the way we would hope it would be, and that's the way I would anticipate it would be. But that interim agreement, you have some flexibility in how it's structured.

I think part of what Aaron is seeing is some of the changes that have been made in Section 3 haven't filtered all the way down through the rest of the document. For example, I was glad to see we took the $100,000 out because we want to keep our subsidy as small as possible, but tell us what it's going to take. And then in the selection criteria, it still has the $100,000. I think that's just... case of it filtering all the way through as the changes are made I think Aaron you may be seeing some of that as well with the evaluation so we need to make sure that that is cleaned up that's right yeah yeah yes yeah I think there are play there are inconsistencies and I'm happy to like help identify inconsistencies or give a marked up scanned version or whatever send it out but

If I could summarize, I think what I'm hearing is. No, it's a question. It's a question about it's not a summary. It's a question for the city manager about what it is that comes to council. Do we see three plans or do we see a plan that it's an up and down vote on? And I like I still am not like clear as to the answer because you're talking about a team and what we can ask the team to do.

So what I would, here's what I'm used to is that the EAC would give a report, here's all our responses, here's our matrix of how we evaluated the responses, here's kind of our work product. And so you would see all of them and you'd also get the findings of the EAC and a recommendation by the EAC.

That was what I was going to say, is that for those of us who were around with West Falls, we got to essentially see the homework of the selection committee. We could decide we like and agree with the recommendations, we not, and we ultimately voted on it. So I think Mary Beth and I are kind of familiar. I have some deja vu from how this went with West Falls, where we had a similar kind of committee and a much, much more daunting and complicated project. we ultimately can make a different recommendation decision than what the selection or the advisory committee can do. But I think what I'm hearing, what I was trying to summarize is that I'm hearing the desire to be able to see all the recommendations that come through and see why the EAC is coming up with that recommendation. Again, we can have discretion to agree or not agree, but I guess confirming that council will have the ability to be read into those details I think is what I'm trying to hear.

Not that I need to see like six proposals is that I want the public to understand what the process is. And I don't think it's clear from this document what the process is for the public to know in a by-right development what the EAC's role is versus the council's role with respect to one or more projects.

CAN I JUST ADD SOMETHING THERE, TOO? JUST BASED UPON MY PAST EXPERIENCE WITH WEST FALLS. THE PROJECTS CAME IN, COUNCIL, THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY to hash it out. We like this one for this reason, and this one for this reason, and this is what the committee recommended. And because there were details that were made public, it was open to the community, understood we had this project and we had this project, not all the details that we were hashing out. And there was hashing out. It wasn't just, OK, thank you. Great, you made your recommendation. We'll go with that. It was definitely the council trying to understand it, and then definitely the staff sharing what they could share so people could see it. That was my expectation of how this would look. We even had public meetings, I think. Yeah, we had public meetings where they presented. And they didn't love that part, but they did it.

Yeah, so sort of the top two were given the opportunity to make a public presentation. And and they could choose since it was them being a communicator they could choose how much business proprietary information they wish to share

Can we, I guess, set that expectation or at least vet that with JLL? Does that seem like it would be appropriate in this project and process that we expect whoever bids that there will be a public-ish discussion of their proposals, at least the part that's not proprietary? Maybe that would allay some of the concerns.

I think some more clarity on that process is the request tonight, and we can provide that, including that question.

I think we should be asking the developer if there are specific items that they consider very proprietary, they should flag those, and those should be the exception. But if there are things that they would be really upset if we put out public, they should be telling us up front.

Yeah, I think the risk, you know, our procurement staff kind of don't like the public element of it because there's a risk that the top-ranked respondent takes some of the ideas from someone who doesn't get the proposal, you know, doesn't get selected, and they would say that that's not fair and maybe have a cause of action. So that's... that's the thing to balance.

And that might be part of, you know, we don't go public with anything until we have everybody's bids so they can't poach what other people have done. But once you're past that point, that's something to work out and what can we legally do and procurement would be okay with. But I think it sets the expectations with the developer that certain parts will get shared. and they should expect that, but it won't be shared until a certain point in time, until we're past the evaluation and the evaluation committee has made their determination, and then maybe stuff might be out there.

Yeah, I think that makes sense.

So I had a question more content, not as much process on this one. So I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding on page 15 it's under scenario C. and you read through it, Wyatt, where you talked about portions of the site located along Shirley Street and Maple Avenue can reach five to seven stories in height, with the greatest heights concentrated along Maple Avenue. But I was curious, I guess, is that the, and I was trying to figure out north, south, east, west, but is that the east side of Shirley that's closer to Maple, or are we talking about both sides of Shirley?

Since Jack is sort of working the land use side of it.

But Shirley's, I'm saying like, because the other side of Shirley is the one that bumps up to Winter Hill.

No, Shirley's up top with, isn't Shirley the one that's against the slowing down?

No that's Gibson. So so my point is like is this said to me when I read this it makes it seem like you could put a 7 story. Something on the side of surely that's closest to winter Hill in my reading that correct. I thought we were going I thought we were talking about something that was a little bit lower on that side of surely.

Jack would you like to describe that.

yeah sure so yeah the the intention is is to have and i think the rfp says specifically yeah well i guess it includes maple avenue and shirley but the way um that the feedback that we've heard is certainly the intention that the tallest um parts of the building will be closer to maple avenue in front that and um along gibson street where bull america that doesn't have THOSE KIND OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE ZONING PIECE. THAT WILL PUSH THE HIGHER HIGHS AND MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS SOUTH MAPLE.

OKAY. SO YOU THINK THE ZONING PIECE WOULD, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER IF WE SAID SOMETHING LIKE, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHICH SIDE, I THINK THAT'S, YEAH, OR WHICHEVER. East or whatever, but the, however, north-south, I don't know which direction it is, but I don't know if you want to say something that says something like, with the understanding that this side of Shirley is adjacent to another community, and so, you know, something like that, because to me, again, like, when I'm just reading this, I'm thinking, again, I don't know, the zoning piece, I know it's something separate, but I just think, like, oh, okay, both sides of Shirley, we can build seven-story things, which seemed off to me, so...

THERE WILL BE KEY NUANCES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DEVELOPS THOSE CAVEATS WHEN YOU'RE WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR THOSE KIND OF LEVERS THAT ACHIEVE THE VISION HERE THAT MIGHT NOT BE That level of detail might not be as appropriate in an RFP document. Okay.

I understand. Thank you. Thank you.

And I have some content ones, but to your comment about the zoning, the zoning versus the RFP, obviously some of the elements in the RFP are really coming out of the zoning. And we don't have that yet. And so I'm still worried about that we're getting ahead of it. I think it'd be important for us to know what are the elements within this RFP that are being driven by zoning and which ones are really RFP issues. An example of something I still have trouble finding is we've talked about flexibility with the reconfiguration of the right of ways and the roads. I don't see that being a zoning thing at all. It's something we probably want to give the developer that option to be flexible and innovative. But that's an example of something not zoning, RFP, but then we're talking about base angle or bulk angles and five to seven. And to me, that's clearly coming out of the zoning. And so I think it's very important for us to know what elements here are coming out of the zoning and what elements are RFP specific. And I can't tell.

Sure. So yeah, I mean, there'll be the, the zoning will be in a way. So the RFP will be obviously kind of more specific in some things and less in others. Um, so, but zoning generally, right. Defines the box. that you can form development in. And so there are specific things in the draft that went out for the Planning Commission on bulk angle and when that applies and when step backs and setbacks apply based on, you know, your geographic position if you're relative to a residential district, things like that. But the RFP is I think meant to be more, you know, generic in some ways because we want to see what some of that creativity we get back is. And so I think that kind of goes back to the the tandem schedule idea where, you know, we have our kind of North Star ideas that we heard from the community. And that's, you know, proper transitions and setbacks, buffers. Higher highs and more intensity towards South Maple Avenue We know that the zoning has to capture that and so we can at least kind of put those concepts those ideas in the RFP Without getting too prescriptive that we might eliminate Creative things that fit within those North Star ideas that we get back that we hadn't thought of yet things that maybe the zoning doesn't even address and so I think that's part of the idea for the schedule, but also how those two pieces work together. Does that help paint a better picture?

Yeah, I think it'd just be helpful, maybe in the next version, just items that are identical to what's in the zoning or basically the zoning being brought over, just put them in a different color or something simple like that. And we're just talking about during the draft process so that when it goes out there, obviously, They would be cleared out but I think it's helpful to understand not just us but the community as a whole to say Okay, this is stuff that's going that's being fed from the new zoning. These are things that are really RFP specific Can I just briefly interject?

I think the thing that's important for the community I understand is that their inputs actually feeding into the RFP and then feeding into the zoning draft changes See that should be the reverse

Well, it should be leading into the zoning which then feeds into the rfp that's going kind of parallel parallel, but I think it's that's a very important.

Yeah, but I think that the point that Jack's made that I heard is that the North stars that we heard from the community that the guardrails right how high how big the setbacks those are things are in parallel getting reflected in the comp plan the smaller plan and then the rfp and the zoning changes. And so they're all consistent. I mean, we can color code them. But I imagine that what the Planning Commission is seeing on Wednesday night will show five to seven stories, highest density on South Maple. Make sure you taper back 25 feet, 10 foot step backs. All the numbers essentially is what's going to be in the zoning ordinance that's being proposed. If the Planning Commission has alternative recommendations, I imagine we would then update this RFP before we release it on June 22nd.

Can I have clarification as to whether the North star is the, um, four meetings or whether the North star currently encompasses all the public comment we've received. Cause to me, we kind of talk about the North star of like the zoning and the RFP, like, We keep going back to what we heard this in the meetings, right? and I'm not gonna get into the weeds of like deduping the numbers and whose City Council versus Housing versus Planning Commission and how many actual residents were at the meetings versus the public comment that we've received because I think we've gotten now a large cross-section and it and it Points right like there are definitely themes right and I understand capturing the themes as we are but to kind of consistently say I Oh, well, like the public, the North Star is seven stories. I'm not sure. Like, I haven't have heard a North Star of seven stories based on the full scope of public comment at this point in time.

So, I mean, ultimately, I mean, that's so the exercise was to help determine some of these things, right? Those those meetings. And we continue to get feedback on those ideas. So another like thing that's running with the zoning is the small area plan text amendments. And those have not been, those have been drafted as draft amendments that'll help kind of define that vision that the zoning will ultimately develop the foundation for the scaffolding. But even those, the text maps haven't been adopted yet, right? So I think all this input we continue to get from the public as we're continuing to synthesize what we hear. So I would say nothing's been approved yet, certainly. We continue to refine as we get input. So yeah, so something like seven stories is very specific. But we know that the highest high should be towards South Maple, for instance, and that we need to create that plane from Winter Hill.

I think having been to those sessions, I think what we heard very clearly is we don't want high density development. So people said, we don't want 10 stories, which is why I think you're seeing it capped. I think staff had presented low density, moderate density, kind of high density, and showed examples of what those look like. So I think balancing the, hey, we want to do more affordable housing in Falls Church and meet these policy goals. We don't want 10 stories. It feels like the five to seven reflected both the spirit of those conversations as well as the public comments we've been getting. So thank you.

Maybe one thought that we will take away from this conversation is we don't want to get into a situation where what the council does on first reading is different than the words in the RFP. And so we're going to sync those up so that there's not confusion there. And since that's still kind of moving along, this language will be modified to reflect what's ultimately done on first reading.

Justine has her hand up.

Justine? Yeah, thank you. I just have a couple comments. One is, I know that we're going after LIHTC, or I know that the assumption is that a lot of these developers would go after LIHTC funding. Is there anything that we could put in the document, the RFP, that would suggest that they look for, that we would encourage others sources of funding, whether it's the social housing, something similar to social housing, like what's done in Montgomery County, or other ways of funding this creatively beyond just LIHTC. I know LIHTC is the most common and most popular option, but would it be reasonable and would it make sense to include a suggestion for developers to look at other affordable funding options? without it being a requirement.

Yeah, I would support just general broadened language that whether it's LIHTC or another financing mechanism, that we would be okay with that.

Yeah, and I'm looking for, we'll take that note and plug it in where it's appropriate.

Justine, do you have others? Yeah, and so I think also in the spirit of keeping things open and so not, So not saying that they have to find other sources besides LIHTC, but saying that we would encourage it. Regarding the ESC's comment, I believe that their comment was based around suggestions from an affordable housing developer on better environmental practices for building standards. My general concern that I have is that I think of the term called everything bagel liberalism, which is a term that was applied to the California rail and all sorts of other things, which is why did California rail not happen? And it partly didn't happen because there was all sorts of requirements that were suddenly added on to the high speed rail project, whether it was They had to serve rural areas, and then they had to have union labor, and then they had to have minority-owned businesses doing it. And so there's all these really worthwhile goals that then got added onto this rail project and then made it very expensive and infeasible to do. And so in the same way, I do like to think of, like, our goal here is affordable housing. And so if it is possible to add on the ESC's request, that would be amazing. But I don't want us to lose sight of, like, what it is we're trying to do here. And if adding on some of these other requirements make it that much more difficult to accomplish our primary goal, I wouldn't want to, like, burden the project anymore. So to that extent... I would also like to have, if we do incorporate the ESC's suggestions, that we either do it in a way that says that we would have preference for projects that do, you know, this thing or have it not be something that is absolutely mandatory or, I guess, better understand the requirements to make sure that they're not adding significant costs to the building itself. So that's my second note.

Could I just quickly chime in on that one before we get to your third one, Justine? So generally, I have the same reservation because if you look at our SC process and our voluntary concessions, we love everything bagels. Everyone's got a little bit of something in the VCs. And so I generally have concerns about trying to throw too much at this project, especially if we have a goal of trying to Make some serious progress on affordable housing goals that said before we kind of make the modifications that the ESC is asking for I had sent to staff a suggestion of Enterprise green enterprise green community certification was actually used in Alexandria And so given that there is a nearby community that looked has an affordable housing project under development It's probably worth looking to them of what the requirements are. I assume they have similar financial constraints and I would not want this to be like a LEED Platinum project, but knowing that this certification is coming from an affordable housing developer and owner, they probably understand the realities of how to finance this, and so they probably, the ESE recommendation probably comes with some of that in mind. So generally agree with Justine, but I would say maybe let's do some research with Alexandria of whether this is good to add, and then we can consider the ESE's comments.

I'll just add, having sat in that ESC meeting, the Enterprise Green Community Certification actually gives you more points on LIHTC applications. And Matt, who is on the ESC, who works in, he's a consultant for green buildings, said every single developer who's going to reply to this knows this standard of buildings. that there's nothing new or tricky. And some of the things that we have listed in there, like Earthcraft and LEED Gold, and there's one more, Energy Star, that's kind of the everything bagel. That's like, yeah, try this one, try this one, try this one. But the Enterprise Green Community Certification Plus Zero Emissions is actually like the baseline standard that affordable housing development should have. So it was super interesting to hear them talk about all those different things because everyone was talking, well, what does this mean? What does this mean? And he basically said, this is the one that will really make a difference in a LIHTC application and also just any developer who's building affordable housing knows about this specific one.

And hopefully long-term for residents, lower utility costs and a greener building. Right, right. Cool. Sorry, Justine, I just wanted to interject with that.

Do you have more comments? That's helpful. I just want to say then, you know, thank you, Mary Beth, for chiming in on that and Leti too. So then to that point, if this isn't something that is unduly burdensome and is something that we can do more research on and just make sure that it's... you know, not going to scuttle the project because of this, then I would support including it. And then I guess my final thing is, so like, just so that I'm totally clear, basically in September, We, the city council would be able to say to look at all the different proposals and say hey now you know what we don't like any of these, we're not going to move forward with any of these and maybe we need to like completely redo an RFP and issue a new RFP like that, that is an option we have in September. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. That makes me feel better about this process because just knowing that we do have that layer of control. Great. Okay. Thank you. That's all my comments.

Thank you. Are there anyone who hasn't gone yet? Have I gone around the room for anyone who hasn't gone yet? Okay. Do people have second rounds of comments? Laura?

uh more questions and so throughout this rfp document there's mention of the city's tenant relocation uh code and so i just wanted to understand that a little better does that mean that the developer is responsible for funding relocating the tenants and um i could i tried to find it in the code i couldn't really find a lot of

specificity inside if you could talk to that a little bit more so that's going to be on your work session coming up it's basically that that when when tenants current tenants that have a lease are displaced because of either major maintenance or redevelopment there is an obligation that they are housed during that period of time and that the developer pays for that now a financing scheme like this that's all kind of goes into the pro forma and it becomes part of kind of how the overall project is financed and we would you know so that's something we'll keep an eye on okay okay so that would be something the panel could look at exactly how I just want to make sure you know I know when we've met with the community we assured people that you know they weren't going to be

for lack of a better term, kick to the curb, you know, that we would watch out for them. So I just wanted to make sure. So that would be something that the panel could see how that was going to be covered. Okay. And then, um, One other thing, this is just a quick question. On page six, the RFP timeline, there's a line that says panel interviews. Is that just the meeting with the panel? Is that just what that is, is meeting with the panel? Yeah, meeting with the EAC is the idea. Okay, thank you. That's all I had for that. I have a question about the staff report, but that's all I have for RFP right now.

I skipped Mary Beth.

I do not get to go. I have two kind of big questions, but one is a little question. On page 10, we're referring to the Falls Church housing inventory by housing type, and it says that Virginia Village are the only garden apartments in Falls Church, but that's not, I mean, we have other garden apartments. We have the fields, we have the one right down the street here on Maple Avenue, whose name just escapes me now, Columbia West. Channel Terrace, all of those would be considered garden apartments, but the thing that's unique about Virginia Village is not the garden apartment in this, but that it's individually owned, not part of a larger complex.

And I don't know how much that actually matters in the RFP, but it's one of those things that I keep... We had struck that in other places in the RFP, so this was just a footnote that was a good observation.

So then the way this table one is like a multi-family apartment is what mixed use plus channel terrace plus the fields or is it just mixed use? I'm just wondering how that how everything gets sliced and diced there.

Yeah I think that goes back to the affordable living policy that's how it was done there so I think we're borrowing this table from them but I'll check on that.

Okay. And then this is like a bigger question which is with this RFP you know when we did the RFP and the Comrades of Agreement for West Falls we had a 99 year lease. Does this content. What does this contemplate. At least does it contemplate us giving the land to the developer because we own it and they're going to develop it for us? Does it contemplate them buying the land from us? Is that part of the actual RFP? Yes.

So ultimately that kind of gets into the overall financial plan. And so they'll tell us what they need. Our past is that with our prior with Wesley, we contemplated we were just going to turn title over. just I think that's in my mind anyway that that's probably going to be necessary and I'll express one other opinion also that while there are nice things about a ground lease they are also very complicated and you just it seems to me this should be a fee simple transfer in my opinion

So do we want to say that in here? It's not so in there.

It does say Okay, it says Vision a fee simple transfer, but we'd be open to other financial.

I think I think it kept it even because personally I didn't like Why give away the land so I would at least you know zero dollar lease or something, but I think you have it kind of even I

Yeah, so I would recommend sort of expressing a bias towards fee transfer because I think the respondents would be allergic to a lease. I think they would have a highly negative view towards it.

And also, if I remember correctly from West Falls, we can't hold a lease longer than 40 years, which is why we got the EDA involved with West Falls. And I think the intent is the EDA eventually gets out of this as well.

Yeah, we can get, that would be a good thing for James Lang LaSalle. I'm giving my opinion, but others might have better.

Yeah, I'd like to hear JLL's opinion on that. Okay.

And then the other just big question as we, and I think I read it in here, I just want to make sure I read it properly, is The RFP is related to the 10 properties that the city controls, possibly an 11th. The zoning is the whole property so that those individual ones that are still individually owned would follow the zoning that we're creating for the whole property. I'm not sure I've got that totally correct.

That's correct, yeah. So as proposed, it would be a new overlay district effectively replacing the MUR that is over it now.

I thought it was nine, probably 10, not 10, probably 11.

City controls nine properties.

Okay, so it's nine, probably 10. But eventually it could become 11. And if in the process then of going through this RFP, the city gets control of an 11th property or a 12th property, Did we slide that in?

Did we say to the... No, it would be part of the same overlay, so we wouldn't need to slide it in. Okay. It would, you know, under the rules of the overlay, if the city's plans for the property or our selected... respondent's plan for the properties meets the tests of the overlay that allows redevelopment with higher density those tests will be to provide an affordable housing component or to meet an open space need those would be two sort of standards that have to be met first and then you can access higher density for the rules of the Overlay District. And that's what the Planning Commission is going to be wrestling with on Wednesday night. We're going to go a deeper dive into that when it comes back to you in two weeks. Okay. What I meant was slide it into the RFP.

Yes. Our RFP is for... Right, nine, possibly 10. That's right.

So there is an expression in here, and I think that's something that we need greater clarity on there. I think we should express that, just this concept.

Yes, like in the next six months, someone decides that they actually want to sell in the city. They see that we're pretty serious. This is moving along. They're like, I think I should get in on this now. How do we incorporate number 11 or number 13?

All right, and then I would also, I already mentioned the ESC thing, but I would, their recommendation, when we get there, I think should just, I hope that we'll be able to incorporate it. Anything else?

Okay.

Art? All right, so that was my list of content items. Most of them are pretty tame uh... for instance you talk about two-bedroom uh... i think we probably want to put in there two-bedroom or larger because if the developer can come in with some three bedrooms i'd be great not to hold them to it but minor you talk about interior setback between properties with in virginia village but don't really talk about what happens with lot consolidation I think we've all kind of assumed you could take two adjacent lots and have one building across both, but it doesn't really say that, and I don't know if that's in here or in zoning, just to be clear. I mentioned the right-of-way. There's a comment in here about the non-residential uses, that there's a preference. towards uh... daycare and so forth but it the way it's written it feels like that's a preference over residential use and i think we'll we've really been talking about is if we brought in non-residential use on ground floor we have a preference towards daycare and uh, what's listed there, but it reads it like we would prefer those over ground floor residential. I'm not sure we want to maximize the, uh, residential. Um, you, let's see. So you also don't really talk about, um, design character. We're going to get into this with the urban, uh, the urban, the, the next subject, but, um, I would prefer to see something that we kind of touch on it with keep with small town, but our recent architectural style of the city has been to go seriously urban style and people don't like it and that actually goes against what's in our comp plan. So we really do need to start stating that and say, you know, we're looking for that small town character. and some of that is not extreme it's like use divided light windows instead of a single pane or have some sloped roofs in there and it's just it would be important i think to communicate that to the developer ahead of time because at this stage they could go either way they could just like oh we'll just go in this direction and it's no big deal um The so those and then all the way back on page eight, I think you made a reference as you're describing the property has a rich transit environment. And I feel like that's an overstatement because we've got a property that's 30 minute walk away from the nearest metro station. It's near two bus lines, one of which is every 12 minutes, which is good, but the other one is every 30 minutes. I wouldn't describe that as a rich transit environment. We're good. We're just not... It's a bit of an overstatement. I think we can maybe delete the word rich. Now for the... Oh, and then last one is in 4.8, you talked about 120 days... from initial submission to conceptual site plan. I feel like from what you've just said about schedule and so forth, 120 days to site plan, you're talking about from the submission in kind of the end of July, August, September, October, November, Do we really expect site plans by the end of November? Because what we're gonna get back in the end of July is more conceptual than, this is not your true proposal where it's like, things are gonna be a bit more conceptual than we might otherwise expect. To get from there to site plan, That seems kind of fast, and I think that needs to be reexamined, that timing. And that might have been still based on the previous dates. Now for the tough ones. The plane angle, and we've talked about this. The base plane angle, you're talking about starting it at... the higher grade level. So if you're talking about 45 degrees from where the ground hits the property line, but we're in an environment where there's an increase in grade, so basically that's bumping it up maybe five feet. I'd appreciate it if you kind of, and if you think about, take that to the extreme, where if you have a retaining wall on the inside of a property line going up 15 feet. If you take the base angle at the top of the retaining wall, you're really giving a lot of extra height versus keeping the base angle, the bulk angle starting at the ground level the grade for the building itself and just extend it over to the property line and using that. I think in this case it might be about five feet less, but more realistic in what you should be expecting. And the other one is, and this is the tough one, the feedback we got from people they were asked about heights and five to seven and put in five to seven well we all know you put in five to seven that means seven From my conversations with people over what's been built, the community considers seven high density. It is not medium density, it is high density, according to the community. And when we look at that, even above that, yeah, of that no, five to seven is high density, or seven stories is high density. And when you give somebody a range, what we should be doing is taking the middle. So first off, we shouldn't put ranges in here. They're too vague. And I think that needs to be changed to six. We take the middle. When we talk about three to four, that's three and a half. Take the middle. I don't think the three to four really changes things because everything is really driven by the bulk angle. But that maximum height, I really am uncomfortable with seven. I think the community has spoken. They have said they don't want that high a density. But I think six is much more reasonable. And I think it gets us, we're still getting to where we... we wanna get to. I think we'll have a much nicer community there. So we have that one. Let me just double check. That was... Oh, one last thing. You changed the term to stable rent in the RFP. What does that mean? I hear it and I think rent control. I don't think that's necessarily what we're thinking because we do need to be able to adjust for inflation. So what is, I'm not clear what stable rent means.

Yes, we'll clarify that a little bit. I actually had a little bit of input on that wording, and it's a little too generic. But in our communication with the existing tenants, they've been worried about now that the city owns the property, the EDA owns the property, what's going to happen to their rent? And we've said, well, we're going to keep them stable. There's going to be inflation increases, but they're not going to go crazy. So that's where that word comes from. But we can be more, I think we could clarify that.

Yeah, I thought that was what we were trying to go towards, but I read it and I was like, I'm not really clear.

The intent is that residents who currently live there, when they return, they would be paying comparable rent. That's the other part of it. I think that's what that section mentioned, I think. Well, for their AMI levels, I think they go through the similar.

For existing tenants, yeah.

Not for, the rents for future tenants would be adjusted based on their income and what the AMI levels for that building are. But for existing tenants, they would be.

I think the wording just needs some more work.

Justine has her hand up. Justine. Can you hear me? Yep.

Great. Yeah, I was curious, what are the, like, how many stories are the other buildings on Maple? So that I can get some context for the five to seven stories. Like, how tall is, or what's the height of Pearson and Tax Analysts and 455 Tenor?

I believe they peak at six stories. It could be wrong. They kind of fluctuate in height. I think the average height might be like, I think it's 55 feet.

I guess, well, so then I guess my other question is, I guess 455 feet. Tanner is, um, and maybe I actually, maybe I'm wrong about this, but maybe even Pearson. So Pearson does taper in some of the directions. Is that correct? Or no, it's, it's, um, it doesn't taper.

They do taper.

Do they taper the same amount, which would be like, um, uh, I don't know, to three or how many stories do they taper to? Do you know?

I don't know specifically. Um,

Okay. I guess I'm just interested in the context around the buildings and specifically because we are asking for lower density on one side. I guess also, you know, I guess the art's point about not wanting, you know, flat roofs or whatever else, having, I guess, more... Ability to go up a little higher in some points to have more variation in the roof line and other things like that. Might be helpful for architectural details, while also trying to maintain. As much affordable housing as possible, and so while I hear our point about, you know, the six stories on on Maple, I guess I'm wondering if there's flexibility that we can have um or there is still way that ways to provide flexibility saying maybe our our preference would be for something that um is similar to what else is on the street already which maybe on average is six stories um but we would encourage um to have variations in the roof line and and other things like that such that it could go up to seven stories in some places or I guess what I'm trying to say is I just want to make sure that we're not necessarily saying it has to be exactly this height and then losing some of the flexibility in terms of what the streetscape looks like.

Question on the current underlining zoning for the quads that are closest to Bowling Alley. Those are B1 and not RM. And the height of B2 is 85 feet by right?

I think it's 75 feet.

75, which is six or seven stories?

Six or seven. That's correct.

I know middle schoolers here to joke about six, seven, I guess.

But looking at a street view... Justine it looks like the tax analyst building is kind of four to five There's a step back there and then Pearson Square, I guess is five and six So We won't get into the height of Quinn that's kind of I think people are not happy about that I I

So then, I mean, and I guess like, you know, there's all these trade-offs where it's like maybe we could get a little bit more park space or we get a little bit more community space if we get to seven stories. So then I guess, I don't know, there seems to be like a lot of different things that we're weighing. And so I guess I would be a little... I don't know if there's a way to get a realistic, you know, we would appreciate six stories, but like knowing what the trade-offs are. And so I almost don't want to say like absolutely no seven stories, but saying like, what are the trade-offs if we, don't have seven stories or if we go for six stories, what would what would we be losing or gaining? And so keeping our options open in some way.

And so this is hearing the discussion between that and then the earlier discussion about kind of the parallel process between RFE. This feels like a place and I mentioned this second, third time now where I would love to have JLL at the table. because we've hired our real estate consultants to give us advice. I think the tricky thing we are navigating with the RFP is how to balance the community guardrails of what we perceive the community wants. I don't think it's universal that people don't like seven stories. I think it depends on the context because I think A trade-off is that you might have more green space and open space, as Justine said, if you go one story up. And that might be a trade-off we'd be willing to make. So how do we balance those guardrails, whether it's in the form of ranges of heights and density setbacks, while being flexible and open enough in RFP to not stifle any creative options we get. Because I would hate for us to say, we only get six. And people are like, well, that's not financeable. That does not hit the sweet spot of what we need for LIHTC financing. And then not turn anything in or turn in something that we don't like either. So I think that's the tricky thing that we're navigating right now. And given that we have real estate experts who we've hired to help us with this, I would love for them to be at the table to give us advice on that question, as well as this parallel process that some of us have angst over. and how they feel the market might respond by having the zoning and the comp plan and small area plan in parallel, whether they think the market would respond favorably. I presume we've already run through this with JLL. They have not said, red light, stop, don't do this. The market's not going to like the fact that you don't have zoning decided before you do the RFP. Otherwise, staff would have told us that. So I assume that JLL is telling us this feels okay given this information you're putting in the RFP. But rather than us continue to deliberate among us, which is healthy, I do think having the experts at the table probably at our next work session would be helpful to give us some sense of assurance.

Yeah, I guess my concern with putting seven stories in there is that that kind of takes away that flexibility of we're basically saying go ahead with seven stories and you don't have to trade anything off for it. I would agree with asking them to say, hey, are there elements of our limits that you could trade off or as part of their response? So put in six stories and then say, hey, what are some of the trade-offs so they may come back so they have the option to come back and say hey if you let the building half of it be seven stories or six and a half or whatever it is you could have this much more green space have something in there to give them the ability to provide that information um i think we put seven stories in there's goes seven stories we lose all negotiating power uh there are no trade-offs

Maybe the language is that when you respond, let us know that you might go lower in density and height depending on a trade-off with other things that we've put in the RFP, whether it's parking, open space, whatever.

We can reject those, or we could decide to take them at that point. We then have control. But I think putting it in right now, we lose that option, that flexibility.

Did you have other things, Art?

That wasn't enough.

Yeah, that was officially Justine's turn. And then I just wanted to go back to Justine before.

Yeah, no, I guess I would very much like to talk to the consultant that we have and have them for whatever the next meeting on this is. But then, yeah, I think something maybe this is language that we do put in the RFP. It's somewhere is like, I guess, understanding what the trade offs are. So And that comes to like even things that we put in there that we're expecting, knowing that there's still flexibility one way or the other if they let us know what we could gain or what we could lose by doing a certain thing. And so as you mentioned, let even parking and understanding how that factors in would be useful to know. And so that we have a deeper idea as to like what their decision points are.

So on parking, if I could jump in, because that wasn't my comment. So we can debate whether we are transit-rich or just decent transit, whatever language you want to use. But I know right now we noted that we'd be flexible because we are transit-rich. I would encourage whoever responds to actually consider shared parking arrangements. Because anecdotally, and I think from some of the data collection, the three adjacent garages, 301 West Broad, Tenner Hill, and Pearson, are over-parked. That would be a really good way to bring down their costs if they actually consider some shared parking arrangements all within developments within a block to actually help share that resident parking and not have to Dig two stories or whatever they have to do here And so I would highly encourage we suggest shared parking arrangements instead of having to park all of it on the site I know that we've also heard concerns from the non city properties for street parking and so if there's again a flexibility that the shared parking arrangements could extend to the not just our parcels but the ones in the neighborhood I think the residents would appreciate that too was there anything else Justine you still have your hand up that was it okay I'll take it down sorry

Erin. So I'll try to go quickly. I'll start with high level questions that I don't need like long answers. Getting to Leti's question about JLL and sort of hearing from them. Is there a point at which council is going to where you anticipate sharing whatever pro formas that JLL is preparing and is that going to be like in closed session at some point? Like where does that fit on the calendar?

Let me get back with Council on that, but we will get them scheduled with Council, and that is something they are working on.

Okay. And then similarly, the RFP talks about not only the construction costs, but like a 15-year sort of operating cost. when JLL is doing the pro formas, are they going to capture budget implications? And it's not because I'm looking for like a net positive revenue, affordable housing development, I just think for like fiscal planning, right, that we can't sort of have our head in the sand as to budget wise how we need to be thinking about how we're financing or subsidizing sort of like implications for overall planning in terms of the city so so i would say we'll do our own fiscal impact analysis using our model so that we can compare apples to apples got it jll would not do that Okay, the RFP talks about tenant relocation policy. Who is administering the ADU program once there's like, so the affordable housing covenant would like run with the land if there were a fee simple transfer. that RFP is sort of silent as to the ADU program. Right now our HHS office, right, like administers the ADU program as to the mixed use buildings. So who ultimately is administering like the program and the RFP seemingly should incorporate that and also actually have like that component contractually in the agreement.

So it's a good point. We would want the proposer to handle the ADUs. Most of our mixed use projects, we have an MOU with them and they handle the ADU process per our rules.

Okay, so yeah, so consider whether that needs to be kind of clearer at the point that we're talking about the tenant relocation policy. I'm gonna go through, not like page by page, because I have comments on each page, but I'm not gonna share comments on each page. I'll provide some written things for where I think the language can be cleaned up I Understand what you're talking about when you're saying preferred scenario and wanting the developers to kind of say like we chose this and we think it's Like we think it's preferred or optimal relative to these other things I think that the use of preferred scenario in like the actual RFP should be something we consider not using so like I think it's clear if you talk about a something in terms of like the development submission or the developer proposal instead of seemingly talking about a preferred scenario when we like we are the people who ultimately have a preference as to what gets built and sort of it toggles between like the city's preferences and the preferred scenario among the three like options that we're putting out and so I think you should just use some other nomenclature than preferred scenario even though as part of the RFP packet, you are asking them to explain their rationale for choosing scenario A, B, and C relative to the other scenarios and why that's optimal. in their view. For the submission instructions for communications, we say no contact with city council, city manager, or staff. And I had a question about whether the EDA and the evaluation committee should also be included among those entities that don't have contact with anyone in the RFP process. For section two site background and context, I have some suggestions just like making this more Virginia Village specific, getting rid of like a lot of the City of Falls Church repetition that I will include in sort of more detailed comments I'll send in. I had the same reaction to art on parking and the transit rich environment. I think in the community conversations which I was at, that we heard those concerns about parking. I would support Leti's idea of including in here, having respondents explore shared parking agreements, but when we went through the Quinn process and during these community meetings, the parking issues came up and I don't think that we can say we're transit rich when we know and studies show that oftentimes when you are you have lower income populations that they need more reliable cars because they have less flexibility in terms of work hours and, you know, are not the people who are necessarily, you know, have virtual like remote work options. Um, and can't like wait around for a bus for 45 minutes that isn't coming reliably on schedule. Um, The housing market snapshot I think could be clear as to the units as Mary Beth said maybe the way to break them down is to say mixed income residential or like multifamily residential or residential multifamily whatever it is that is like the mixed income apartments versus like the residential multifamily that are those sorts of apartments that we're talking is not having commercial Spaces, but it doesn't make sense as the tables are currently sort of constructed And I don't know what it is that we're trying to like capture the Newer mixed use it could be just use the nomenclature we have on the where students live chart Yeah, we categorize it.

Well, but yeah, I don't know whether the data Matches this but we we name them different things right like new mix use and Yeah, older resident mid rise. Yeah, garden.

Yeah. But then yeah, so just I just did second cleaning that up and making it like meaningful and why we have it done a certain way. For the affordable housing analysis. We talked about the 6% of the city's housing stock, but we never include what the projection is for 2040 and what 6% is. And so we talked about the gap of 400 units, but we never actually have a baseline to say this is what we This is like the projection of what we need and so I think it would be helpful for it to be in there. And then I think that to make this clearer, like it was taken out of the housing commission report or the affordable living policy, but you could probably just collapse tables two and three and not do this like 2024 versus 2025, 2026 sort of breakdown of things. And then just add a column for what's in table three to what the expiry date is, if any, in the current table that's two. And then you could include, when we're talking about other things, whether it's through special exception processes or, you know, Avoiding expiration of existing units. I guess we now also have you know the potential under the faith and housing bill for additional affordable Units in the city to help meet that gap for site control and conveyance I'll just get that one for now because I think it got somewhat cleaned up on on the preferred scenario in section 3 of I think this is again a place where someone needs to go through more carefully and kind of how we're talking about the language because something's carried over from the earlier draft. So in scenario a like line paragraph two for example We're talking about once renovated the city owned units and the quadplex is when I think we should just be talking about like the refurbished units or the expanded units like they're potentially no longer the city owned units right like they're now these people's units and we're talking about like the future unit and so we should just think about ways of talking about things. in the future sense of what you're planning for and not relative to the ownership structure as it currently exists, because it starts getting confusing as to like city owned, the city owned versus the privately owned, the things that are in the RFP versus the things that are subject to the overlay district. So I think you should just clean it up and use Different and better language there in scenario be the same way we say that the that B needs to incorporate elements of C but then we Like include the elements in C and B regardless and so either we should cross-reference things in C and not include them in B or we should include them in B and then include them again in C but we shouldn't cross reference C and then also include them in B. Just for like clarity as to what's carrying over and what isn't carrying over. I had the same question as Art in scenario B paragraph one on the infill development scenarios it says you know it needs to incorporate scenario C paragraphs one A, B and C. then one scenario CC is the multifamily ground floor building uses and the RFP reads as though those are required for scenario C and then the evaluation criteria they potentially fall out I think we need to be like much clearer as to are they a mandatory requirement are they not a mandatory requirement and I thought that difference between scenario b and scenario c might be that for low density infill development we we considered those like residential only structures and it wouldn't make sense to actually have the multi-family ground use requirement in the lower infill development scenario and then you would be including it in potentially the higher floor development scenario so we just like need to clean that up and figure out where it is because it might be that it shouldn't be in either place as a mandatory requirement and if it is a mandatory requirement it should be in one place and not the other um I'm going to stay away I guess from the zoning issues I still think that we're going to need to like work those out and I get putting something in here, but I think the danger of putting the placeholders is that the information has gotten ahead of the conversations. And the other concern I have without going totally into the zoning that I'll just flag at this point is that I read this paragraph or this section of scenario C1A together with what I gleaned from the planning commission packet on Wednesday to basically allow like a seven-story stick building in one of the privately owned quadplexes if someone on South Maple decided to develop their single quadplex that way and I don't know if that's like an unintended consequence of the zoning rule but I don't know that that's necessarily what we were trying to facilitate and so we need to think about things like that in terms of not only our parcels but what the overlay district is because I read this as if someone comes in and says they'll do 12 percent you know, affordable housing on their lot that like we're going to have a seven story singular building at like whatever address excels maple. And it's not clear like this seems to downplay the relationship to the other existing quad plexus in a way that I think is going to like potentially detract from the overall cohesive like nature of trying to retain any community feel to what's currently there. Cause it seems to be that all the, you know, the, the edges and the transitions are relative to winter hill and big chimneys for good reason. But then it seems like we're like, and don't worry about transitions to the interior lots so that you have an X story building next to the current quadplexes. Um, For hybrid scenarios, we haven't made clear in the RFP at all whether the submissions have to encompass all of the city-owned properties. So can someone come in and say, we want a fee-simple transfer of the bowling alley lots, but we wanna just leave to the city and do nothing with the tax analyst's lots? And so I think we need to be clear as to when we say a hybrid scenario, is it because our expectation is that someone is making, or that the RFP is dependent on someone actually doing something with all the city-owned lots, or would we consider giving, making a land contribution as to some but retaining holdings as to others. The policy goals and preferences sometimes repeat the things that are in the mandatory requirements. So again just to review that more carefully and then I think that what Justine was getting at in the LIHTC funding is in Section 4.4 with the development team past performance. So we say that in a development application that someone has to provide three examples of successful like LIHTC funded projects. And I would think that we would wanna include something that says, if three such LIHTC projects are not available, that that team should include similar projects financed through other means to ensure affordable housing so that it's not dependent on someone having three LIHTC projects to be considered for the RFP. In the proposed business terms under 4.5. I don't think it's clear as to what we're always talking about so the proposed business terms could either go to the city's land sale and leases or it could go to it sometimes it reads as though it's the developers land sale or leases in terms of any affordable homeownership opportunities and so I would just say that That should be clear. Again, the parking issue, likely we might want to say more than we do here, given that we say that parking, we don't take up parking and we seemingly won't take up parking in the zoning changes, but then we leave parking like completely open to any waivers or modifications. So I think we need to like, probably hit something in the middle. And then for the evaluation process and criteria, I raised the earlier issues about just wanting more clarity around the role of the EAC relative to council. And then as far as the evaluation criteria itself, I didn't see any criteria that actually captures in a point score the like the compatibility with the neighborhood more generally. So everything's like sort of site specific but then doesn't include things relative to Big Chimneys and Winter Hill in terms of the points themselves. And then for the zoning as we move to zoning I would ask I know that we referenced June 9th and June 11th dates probably would want to have a kind of town hall or like community meeting or library sort of based meeting for the community at large and not just sort of the Virginia Village and Winter Hill things that are currently in the Planning Commission report. And then at those meetings think that it would be very helpful to have like actual renderings on what the max like zoning is so that people can understand it and provide like meaningful public input on it. And that's all I have.

Okay.

Others?

one quick comment about the the housing and just the categories and this doesn't need to be in the RFP but it's information I would love to get which is how much housing do we have within a quarter mile of the city I mean we focus within our borders and everything is within our borders but I think it's good for us as the council to understand you know What's within a quarter mile and what's coming? Because we have all the housing in West Falls. We have up in Seven Corners. There's two developments happening. It'd just be good for us to understand that.

I think with a quarter mile, I think it's just the Quinton Homestretch project.

No, not within Virginia Village. I'm talking about within the border of the city.

Sorry, I...

We're not gonna be able to get that to I'm not sure to think about how we get that but sorry I forgot one minor thing that I also think should be reflected between versions three and four in the in the housing in the housing breakdown we talked about a mixed-income community so like be a paragraph before, for example, we talk about helping to deliver a mixed income community and then balancing ownership needs. And I know we've talked about this in terms of like a mixed income community of like affordable plus market rate. mixed income here is like not clear because it says more specifically and then the mixed income is only mixed income in a range of affordable percentages and then we talk about ownership needs but the a b and c only talk about renters and so I know we're trying to retain flexibility, but we have not given really any clear direction as to what the ownership options are and to the extent there are ownership options, are we also talking about affordable home ownership options? Are we talking only about... Like market rate of ownership options to offset. What are the renter AMI percentages here? So like we're talking in two different ownership structures, but then the a B and C only you're talking about renters and not owners and

I had a quick comment slash question about on the staff report and first I wanted to thank staff for including the procurement timeline I thought that was really helpful so one thing I wanted to make clear mr. trainer so I think it was July 13th there's the schedule to hold the pre proposal conference and and then we give the developers a tour, is that right?

Is that in?

It's not there, but then I think I read in the RFP. So it seemed to me that July 13th there was going to be a pre-proposal conference that people could zoom in on. or, but also that same day that there was going to be a tour. So if that was something that, you know, I think the, you know, Some people in city council might like to attend to see that. And then also that night, if we could get, so that would be, I believe, the July 13th meeting. If we could get some sort of report, Wyatt, about just sort of some comments that came in from that, you know, questions and just sort of a brief update on how that pre-proposal conference went. Just to kind of give us an idea. I think that would be really helpful. And... Looking again at this same timeline, so where it says, let's see, in terms of addendums, so when we talk about addendums, mid-July, potential release of any RFP, that's the zoning piece, is that right? So it says mid-July potential release of any RFP addendums. Is that just like if we're, that's where, that parallel process comes into play and if a zoning.

Yeah, probably the small area plans and yeah, zoning. I know first reading I think is either I think it's mid to late July. So, yeah, it would be kind of both of those pieces.

Okay. And then, you know, I know this whole timeline is tight. And, you know, so we release the RFP. And then, again, you're looking at this mid-July pre-conference meeting with interested parties. And then the RFP is due, I think, like two weeks later. So is this something that I'm wondering if, will we hear that feedback from developers like, hey, this is just too, we just can't get it done. We came to this conference with questions, and now the deadline's in two weeks, we can't get it done. So this is something that could come to us, and then we could tweak the timeline if we needed to. I mean, I just hate, you know, I understand why the timeline and the tax credit and all that piece, but I would also, if it's turning off some potential great ideas from developers and things because they just can't get it in, is that something that we can flex that timeline somewhat? Or extend the deadline, I guess would be.

Yeah, I mean, one addendum that we're allowed to issue is an extension to the deadline.

Okay, okay. Okay, because that would be something, you know, if someone said, hey, if we had two more weeks, we'd definitely put in a proposal. You know, like, so I don't want us to limit our options.

Yeah, if we get a lot of feedback on that on the July 13th, then that would be something we would consider.

Okay, great. And then we could get some sort of update at the council meeting that night how that call went or that meeting. Okay, great. Thank you.

Just as far as the proposal conference goes, and Ms. Flynn mentioned the council members and others can't have contact once RFP is issued. Is that the starting, like can we have contact now with the developer? Or are we in the process?

Well, the RFP stands for, and this is fairly standard language, there's a no contact period once it's issued. So that's the window.

That's the fairly, okay. So like the pre-proposal conference, we couldn't attend because we couldn't be in contact.

Well, it does say outside of the pre-proposal conference or outside of a public meeting. So a potential respondent could come to a meeting and ask a question in a public meeting. It's meant to be no contact. Non-public.

No private. Got it.

That's I usually don't see that happen but in theory it could happen.

Welcome Dave. We are wrapping up the conversation.

Thank you.

Just a couple quick things. I remain optimistic we can get to a win-win here, and I hope we do. Just a couple things for the RFP. The first thing is that I'm personally interested in making sure that both lower density or lower profile as well as higher profile alternatives be considered. that if it's a higher profile that we'd be very careful to maintain good setbacks, step backs, and that most of the suggested most of the building, if we're going say three, four stories, four stores for example, that it be next to the Bowl America. And finally that there be required for shadow or what are they called, shadow tests, as well to make sure that we're not degrading both the park and the surrounding neighborhood. I think we can get there and I hope we do and this is a critical part of it in a way I think the RFP is the most important part The zoning sets the framework, but the RFP actually is is the kind of detailed study and hopefully a proposal That can be the win-win that I hope for so those are my comments. Thank you. I Oh, and by the way, specific amendatory language, I can get some of that to you if that's helpful.

Yeah, if anything that you share with me, then we'd share with the whole council. And we do plan to come back with the council at your next work session on this. So we'll be talking about this document again. We've gotten lots of feedback on it, so it will change next time you see it.

Thanks.

Thank you all, appreciate it.

Yeah, so we've had a lengthy discussion.

I think a lot of my comments and questions were, we kind of sprinkled them throughout. So we talked about JLL parking. I think the remaining one is if we can find time for a walking tour in advance of actually the guided site tour when we actually have an RFP issued, I think it would be helpful. So Debbie's not here to make fun of me, but I did run through Winter Hill as well as the back of Virginia Village. And one, now that the trees have leafed out, the trees actually do a really good job screening everything and they're actually quite tall. I think they're probably at least 45, 50 feet tall. And then if you actually look at the back of Pearson and how it abuts Winter Hill, I guess councils before me did a really good job thinking about kind of the setbacks and setbacks and tapering to that community. And so I would encourage whether we do it formally or informally, actually look at kind of what was done on South Maple and understand the grade changes on South Maple and the differences of what it makes to Winter Hill and how the trees over time have grown and how I think it's been very compatible against Winter Hill. So I would encourage either a walking tour or maybe a council can go out informally as well. We could do a field trip.

Yeah, we're looking for dates to do that. Great.

Okay. I think that is it. Thank you, Jack.

Thank you.

We'll see you again soon.

Are you doing the urban master plan? 9.30, are we okay with continuing on?

Looks like Cameron's here for the next one. Do people need a break? Five minute break? Five minute break, okay, 9.45. All right, it's still really cold, or maybe it's just me. But if it's just me, then I'll just continue draping myself in blankets. I'll come back to you. Okay, it's 944. We ready to get back? All right, is cameras back on? I don't want to jinx in case we have audio issues. Okay, they're on. Okay. Welcome, Cameron.

Hello, all. How are you?

Thank you for joining us. I think we're ready to jump into new urban design guidelines.

No, art is very ready.

So this is just an initiating resolution, and I'll turn it over to Cameron to sort of lay out the concept of the scope of work. We'd like the council's feedback on that. And with any further council direction, then we would request for this be on the agenda for your next meeting on June 8th. Mr. Garris, thank you very much.

All right, if we jump into this. So this is, in short, an effort to create a new urban design master plan by consolidating the two existing plans and guiding documents that are housed under chapter three of the comp plan and using the opportunity to introduce a few new relevant topics. And so if I jump. So jumping into how is this aligned with city council's goals in regards to good governance? Is the staff being proactive in updating complaint guidance and eliminating confusion with two competing documents? Indirectly, but in a meaningful way, the plan impacts housing and economic development. There's a strong correlation between good design and first floor retail and streetscape and where people choose to shop, eat, spend money, and ultimately live. The plan advocates for the most fundamental form of transportation, walking and improving pedestrian spaces in the city. And also, importantly, the plan spotlights the subject of sustainability, an aspect missing from both previous documents. So on the left, I'll start with the right. The right's probably what you're most familiar with if you've dug into the city's plain library. This is the 2017 standards. There's a 2025 amendment. And ultimately, pros, this is a very concise document. It's very nuts and bolts, focuses on utilities, measurements, materials. It's made for developers and staff, reviewing staff to kind of look at and get quick details. Cons, it's lacking a lot of the overarching information and guidance that the larger document to the left has. And in some places, it reads a little more like a public works construction manual. AND THE DOCUMENT ON TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS MUCH LARGER FROM 31 TO 113 PAGES, IS A 2001 GUIDING DOCUMENT CALLED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND THIS WAS CREATED AND TIED DIRECTLY TO THE COMP PLAN CHAPTER 3 OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER DESIGN. IT PROS IT GOES VERY MUCH INTO DEPTH INTO ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN DESIGN GUIDANCE, BEST PRACTICE. Scaling, detailing, streetscape, it covers everything. The cons is way too lengthy for anyone to really absorb and read and also is often too prescriptive as well. SO, ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR IS CLARITY. BECAUSE THIS IS A PRIMARY REFERENCE DOCUMENT TO THE COMP PLAN, WE'D LIKE TO PRODUCE ONE REDUCED PLAN THAT CARRIES OVER RELEVANT GUIDANCE AND CUTS AWAY OUTDATE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION THAT'S BEST SUITED FOR OTHER PLANS OR DOCUMENTS. AND WHILE INTRODUCING A FEW NEW To give the best visual representation of what I'm talking about when I'm saying streetscape, this is a borrowed image of showing primarily looking at first floor retail store frontage going from building face to curb. The only way I would amend this image is to show it going at least into the parking lane because you have things like streeteries, you have a bump out for the curbs and things like that. But that's generally the space we're talking about when discussing streetscape and urban design in this document. So I'm happy to go back to this later on for questions. But on the right column is a generalized format of showing old concepts from the two combined documents. And these are things that really in the last, since 2001 or 2017, guidance really has not changed. The plan is to carry over all these concepts, maybe make the language more concise, but carry over them to the new document. The middle column is reserved for items that we think maybe should be revised or revisited. And then finally on the far left we have new concepts which we would like to add and will be the center of the drafting of the plan and also any public engagement we have in future dates. So before this, we had initial outreach and scope going to all these various boards and commissions to kind of get a first impression and read to receive some general comments. Overall, Kurt and I received that the general guidance was this is a worthwhile effort. Guidance to make it short, simpler is better. Incorporate advice from small area plans and echo some of that into the current document. Importance of tree canopy first floor retail streets gate public spaces things like that and of course every board commission had a few specific items they had pointed out and highlighted and We hope to continue the discussion as we reach into the public engagement portion of this process and I said before as why it said looking for machine resolution Next Monday, and then we can kind of begin work into public charrettes in the summertime a few more public engagement activities in the fall and then starting to write the draft, but I'm happy to Open up and answer any questions

Great. Thank you. I know this was a heavily anticipated update, and so thank you for coming. I'm going to go with Justine first because I think she's planning on – she's got other commitments at 10 or 10.30. So Justine?

That is correct. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll lower my hand. So just a few things. So looking at the new concepts, the old concepts, and the old concepts carried over with no change – I was interested in terms of the scope of this. There are some things that might be nice to update that wouldn't be like a huge discussion. And that would regarding like, so old concepts carried over, like regarding parking. I think there's general consensus in terms of like, urban design that parking should generally be put in the back, not the front next to the sidewalk with like lots of curb cuts and so things like that. I'm wondering. Is there room in this like as we're as long as we're going through and updating things? Are there simple things that we could? Just go ahead and update and say, like, you know, for design guidelines, we generally do not want parking next to the sidewalk. It should generally be in the back of the building and not right on the streetscape. Are those things that we could easily incorporate if there is general consensus that that's a good practice to have?

Certainly, yes. This is not an all comprehensive list of potential updates. You know, things can carry over, especially as they come out through public engagement process or talking to boards and commissions or with you here today. You know, it's kind of odd, but going back to the 2001 document, it does go into depth. So in that document, it does talk about having parking in the rear and things like that. So some of that guidance still exists, and it really is kind of carried over and just highlighting it instead of being buried in a 113-page document. Okay.

Okay. Um, okay. So that's helpful, but so there, there still is, um, room to, to make updates, um, like as, as we go through this process. And so even though it says old concepts carried over, if through the, um, discussion that we have going forward, we do want to make a simple update, um, or like clarification or something like that for something that is being carried over that currently says no change. We could still make that change.

Correct. I think for minor adjustments and things like that and tweaking guidance or strategies, those are minor enough that we could make adjustments as we go.

Okay. And then I was just wondering, in terms of flagging block size and layout and site layout, I guess that would include things like pedestrian pathways and other things like that through a site or making sure that places are accessible, how to describe it, to make sure that there are pathways through sites. Yeah, yeah.

Correct. Those were added as new concepts. Site layout kind of is an older concept, but for example, in 2001 document, you'll find they talk about site layout and the average typical development they're showing is maybe an eighth or maybe a fourth of a block size, while in the last 10 years we've had You know, West Falls Church Development, Broad and Washington, larger projects which take up entire block sizes. There's not, even though we have, you know, good developers and architects who are creating good projects, we don't really have anything in the books in terms of what we'd like to see for a larger project like that. How is that split up? In terms of block sizes if you're building kind of out things like that or for example, like you're saying Pedestrian streets or alleys or shared search streets or alleys connections through these larger projects. So those are all guidance that are missing from any previous documents and We thought would be good to include Okay, that makes sense and then I guess

My final question would be about the architectural preferences and storefront design. Like, is there – this came up with CICT, specifically that walkable – places and spaces encourage people to go outside and walk around, whatever else. And so a lot of that comes down to how we design things and whether there's enough transparency or other things like that. And so is there room to include some architectural preferences that are updating the architectural preferences that were already included in the 2001 design document?

Yes, for things like storefronts, specifically on the first floor where you're having the most you know, eyes on the street. You know, I think there's definitely language in that 2001 document that can be carried over that's, you know, gives vague but important advice to developers of saying, you know, transparency is important on the first floor. These type of, you know, general forms or heights are, you know, a pattern recognition for people walking by and, you know, they've improved the building's facade in XYZ ways. You know, being able to talk about architecture without getting too prescriptive is kind of a fine line. I know ADB had a lot of comments on that. And that's something we would definitely work out through the public engagement process. But specifically for store fringes, yes, I think that will be included.

Okay, so yeah, thank you. So it generally sounds like there's flexibility here. So even though we've like sort of outlined a direction, there's still flexibility in terms of what the community engagement process is like and what the board engagement process is like to shape what this looks like going forward, but hopefully not expanding the scope so much that this becomes bloated and we can't.

Yeah, there's between the two documents, there's a surprising a lot covered. So if anything, our job is to what to reduce and what to make more concise, while while keeping what's important. So

Okay, perfect. Well, that covers all my questions. So from my perspective, this is really exciting. This is exactly the sort of thing that I was hoping that we'd undertake at some point. And so I'm really glad to see this moving forward. And yeah, I think there's a lot of useful things that can come out of this for future development projects. So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Who else? I know Art does.

I've got lots of stuff for this, because I am excited for this. As soon as this came up, because I came on council, I'm like, how can I get some of this character and stuff updated? And I'm like, well, here. And then all of a sudden, you guys came up with this. And it's like, wait a minute. I was picturing these little things, and you came up with this bigger idea. And this is so much better than anything I was thinking about. So I am totally on board with doing this. I do have some comments on where you are. You've probably heard a lot of them. The biggest one is that the comp plan vision was updated in 2017. Talked about small town character, you know. And the architectural design guidelines are 16 years older than that. And I've reviewed that, and the AAB has reviewed it, and it is... I have issues with not bringing them into, giving them some revisions, especially around the architectural preferences and that one more than anything else, and shrink it way down. We don't need to be telling people how to do a canopy over gas station pumps. It's in there. We don't need that anymore. I would suggest And I think you're heading in that direction, which is really leverage the boards and commissions to the point of maybe even having them do a draft for you. I look at architectural preferences, and when this comes out, it's going to be something for developers. Developers are going to take that section, for example, and hand it over to their architect. and the architect is the only one who's actually gonna use it. So we have architects on the AAB. So I like the idea of having architects write to architects. And the rest of us may be like, what does this mean? But as long as those two understand, It's great. But I think the fact that that document is so old, it's over 25 years old, that the pieces in it, I don't think we can just cut, paste them in. Other ones like crosswalks, sidewalks, those are much more recently done. They're very up to date. Yeah, we just drop them in. um that's the biggest thing is really grab the boards and commissions let's let's really use them uh i i don't think we use them enough um and i i think they would love the opportunity in fact i know the aab would be it would be excited to uh to help out um the second thing i had another thing i had was um the first two items and maybe this has changed what your envisioning the developer info page, the DRC reviewer page. I think in the earlier versions you were talking about checklists in there for those. While those sections, this should reference checklists, I want to make sure we're careful that we're not putting things into a master plan that we want to be able to revise frequently. Planning hands a checklist to the developers you're going to want to be able to oh wait we got it wrong let's update it but there's no there's no um policy pieces in that checklist really so let's figure out a way to do it so that that can be updated administratively without having to come to council i think it's just because bringing it to council would be just overwhelmingly we don't want to add that but look at the pieces that are in there the I also noticed that it seems like street types, which was in here before, I guess it's now pedestrian streets and alleys.

I was maybe thinking that that terminology was going over people's heads. I was trying to make it a little more... normal language for people to understand. But same idea, yeah, same thing.

Well, I guess in my mind, the idea was we have different types of streets. We have this, you know, we have this state routes. We have major connectors and so forth. And there are some rules that we have that I feel like could be incorporated into here, such as, what are standards for closing a road? A local residential street, you gotta notify the city, you fill out a form, the DPW drops off some barriers, you're done, versus a state highway, maybe we wanna say, okay, you can only close a state highway if council signs off Is this a place to be capturing those things? Something to think about.

I agree with the need, but I feel like street closure policy we talked about is like a separate policy decision. I don't know whether you put it in design guidelines. It may not be the right place. Because people who are probably closing the streets are not the ones that are the developers, probably the users of the street eventually.

Well that's the question is who are we necessarily looking at parking is kind of in that boat as well where it's like how much do we want in there I know it's a priority I've been asking about when we're going to get to it feeding into this makes a lot of sense but is it the right place getting to how far away from. a home or a business should parking exist. You don't wanna have, you don't wanna say, oh yeah, you get credit for parking that's half a mile away, but two blocks maybe. And the other question I had is on the staff report, you have this Board of Commissions and public charrettes, and by the way, I had to Google the word charrettes. I had not heard it before. Can you explain what you're thinking here? Are these aligned with the boards and commissions or are you gonna be aligning it with the sections in the? Can you explain that part?

Yeah sure is definitely an old playing term of basically gala people and gather ideas and We talked to our talk of city clerk's office about what's the best way to do this? How would you? know how would you advertise what you're saying if you had all these different people from different boards of commissions and we realized it was best just to publicize it as a public meeting so it would be invited anyone who had to come from these various different boards and commissions who are people who we talked to previously during the scoping phase And, you know, the structure of the charrette is to be determined, but it would be kind of a similar presentation and then break down into groups, ideally mixing groups and then in with members of the public, but also you know, carefully thought of developers, people in construction, people in DPW and staff and people who have really grounded experience in development. So, you know, we get the good ideas from boards and commissions, but also we're getting the real knowledge base of people who go through this process regularly and they can say, this is what I deal with and This is what I like to see or this is what halts me in my progress. This is a barrier to this type of thing. So it would be kind of a very multidisciplinary group of people, but also a heavy focus on those boards and commissions meeting once at least, potentially twice. With a group this big, maybe it's better to have two different meetings. And then that would be like our big main takeaway of gathering information before the planned writing phase in the fall.

Yeah, I think it's so big. I worry that it would just be too big, even with two of them. I think maybe you might want to take a look at those sections and maybe break it out to say, you know, we're going to be covering these four sections during this one or these four sections during that one. And, I mean, I'm going to use CACT as an example. There's some of these sections, they are going to give you a ton of feedback. And then there's others, like tree canopy, I don't really expect you to get much feedback from CACT. It's... It really, I think there's some groupings here that I think would be helpful and kind of just to shrink them down a little bit. Because if it's too big, it's just, you're not going to get what you want.

Yeah. And that's also part of the reason why the scope is the way it is. Ideally, this session is looking at the new concept section and the updated revised section of that chart. And obviously open to if people want to carry over and revise other things or if there's new concepts that people bring up during that meeting. But yeah, this is a large scope and more means may be required.

Correct. And before, I would definitely recommend take a hard look at those old concepts and say, You know, there's some that, especially the ones that have not been updated in 25 years, probably should move into the blue column, to the second column. Those are my big ones, because it is just the initiative.

Okay, other comments?

Erin? I can go quickly. I'm fine with the initiating resolution, generally fine with the scope of the work. In terms of boards and commissions, something that struck me just in reading the staff report and then the initiating resolution itself is that I had never realized that the design guidelines were actually anchored in the historic and cultural conservation district. terms of like the authority for them and it makes sense right in terms of like ensuring an aesthetic across the city and sort of you know some cohesive development and the state code provision you know talks about sort of you know tourism and kind of amplifying these like historic areas but then it seemed to me that maybe you know as the harb liaison we should probably put this on a herb agenda as well for a group to look at not because it matters for the application of the ordinance to those site-specific applications that come in but i do think that it may matter just in terms of broader ideas about this you know the dis the district is the entire city but the protected structures are now something like 100 structures and so they're really only a percentage or a little over a percentage of the parcels in the city and it in an appointments committee for example we're frequently talking about you know how do we create connections between different experiences in the city whether it's someone interviewing for eda you're interviewing for arts and humanities council and so i guess in thinking about urban design guidelines i would like to to maybe think about like what is a nod to the historical like structures and places that anchor this urban guidelines and like make the whole thing important and how do we kind of like capture that in some places in the guidelines themselves in terms of saying like these are things that are supposed to be promoting tourism in the city or creating links between different areas of the city so that if you're in you know founders row right or something that gets developed about around founders row you know to go look at the thing that's over at Falls Church or like go over into the Broadmont area, right? So so even though the design guidelines don't apply in the like neighborhoods so to speak In terms of like, you know, like the more residential neighborhoods How do we do things through the guidelines that create links to those areas that make it an overall like? Experience in the city that brings people to those places and has them have them like spend more time here and because they think it's interesting and they come for a morning, do something for an afternoon, stay for the evening, and how that kind of like ties in so that it's not just like, oh, it's, you know, where's the trash can placed? But like, why does it matter in the broader scheme of things and also in the context of our like economic development council strategy? So anyway. So more just like, Can we keep the tie in to things broadly while also in the weeds of the guidelines generally?

I think that fits in well with site design and responding to context well. Yeah.

Thank you so much for this presentation I were you thinking and I'm not sure if it's appropriate but I for the Arts and Humanities Council because they have like a they like to have input on public art, so would that be a council that maybe to Because I didn't see anything in here about arts and humanities.

We could bring arts and humanities into the fold for the Charette.

Yeah. Yeah, just just in terms of I know that they're they feel very passionate about public art and I know that's that's piece part of this and in terms of the goals so if you could just remind the public you know goal for I don't really think that you hear I would say I would bet most of the public doesn't know what city center is you just don't hear that term much anymore and so when we talk about that we're talking about sort of George Mason Square, that area, like where, I don't even know exactly what is city center, what would you define that as?

Downtown site plan for a small area plan is what I think of. Yeah.

And And then you know goal five I really like the enhance the gateways the city to make them more attractive and create distinctive set up sense of place I don't know if it's appropriate here But also one of the things we've been talking about is, you know There's several places where you come into the city where we don't have that like if you're coming on Grove from Haycock There's no and then there's also by Arts House Lincoln from Arlington. My point is not only does it create a sense of place, it also slows down traffic because you can sort of say you're entering a neighborhood now. So I don't know if you want to actually add that in there because I think it's like a win-win to have that kind of signage. You're creating a sense of place and you're also informing people like, hey, you're entering a residential area. Slow the heck down, you know? Yeah, yeah. But thank you. This is really interesting. Thanks so much for your presentation.

Thank you.

Comments or questions over here? Sure.

Dave. Thanks very much. First point is the issue of prescriptive versus principles-based, and I think you're moving more toward a principles-based approach.

Correct.

How does that fit into the context of a weakened planning commission as a result of state legislation. In other words, previously we had very broad planning commission authority and a long time for them to operate in comparison and prescriptive guidelines. If we're moving the principles guidelines, we have to be very careful, however, that the environment the sort of the structure of planning has been dramatically changed by state legislation, both to reduce the role of the Planning Commission and also to create very aggressive timetables. And until that's changed, we need to keep that into account so it don't become so principles-based that there's no effective result. If you had a fully authorized planning commission, as you had before, you could say, well, you could be principles-based, but you had the planning commission there with lots of citizen involvement. You don't have as much of that anymore under state. So that's a general context issue, which I think we need to grapple with and hopefully can be raised with the boards and commissions. The second issue is And here I'm going to make a distinction between resilience and sustainability. The sustainability work generally focuses on what we call in climate areas mitigation. That is doing those things which slow down or when otherwise positively affect climate change. And that's what sustainability fundamentally deals with. Resilience deals with what's called adaptation, which says, OK, the climate is changing. There are certain threats, certain risks we have today that we didn't have 20 years ago. So I would urge the addition of a section on resilience. And there's a lot of good literature out there from the building industry, from other industries that have an interest in risk. as to some ideas that we might want to incorporate there. But I think that's very important to think not just about what we're building and how it appears, but its ability to contribute to environmental sustainability, but also its ability to best protect our citizens. Now, it does bump up against code, but I think we ought to be talking about code plus, IN THIS DOCUMENT.

WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE IT.

PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY WITH RESILIENCE, THAT IS, STRUCTURES THAT WILL WITHSTAND DIFFERENT TYPES OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES.

THERE DEFINITELY WILL BE A STANDOUT SECTION FOR GREEN BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE, STAINABILITY, AND RESILIENCE, AND WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE THAT BE A STANDOUT.

WE CAN HAVE A SECTION ON RESILIENCE THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. Thank you, especially again in the context of climate change and increased risk of natural catastrophes. Those are the two points that I wanted to make. And there are a lot of other issues you could talk about. You could talk about parking and how best to provide for walkability and all those other things, but I assume that's not for tonight.

Right back to you, Ethel.

Thank you. Cameron, can you take me back to page four of seven, the chart? I'll just reiterate sort of a couple things that Justine said. Some of these things that are old concepts probably are going to end up moving over into revised or expand. And even I think about signs and wayfinding, right? I mean, the picture in the old document is the old sign, and now we have a new sign.

For example, I guess not so literally copy and paste. OK. But for example, the stance on the advocacy for street furniture, for example, guidance hasn't changed in the last so many years, things like that. So maybe the exact strategies and goals we could look at and see what applies and what needs to be revised and carrying some of those over. But ultimately the strategy goal and advice will not change. But photos updated, text definitely updated because a big portion of it is that we had pages of text on just a small subject like furniture and we're trying to get down to like, you know, concise.

Yes, yes. Okay, that's good. That was sort of what I was envisioning, I was thinking. Yes. It's also really kind of fun to look at the 2001 version and see what worked and what didn't, what got tossed and what didn't, what are the things that matter now that didn't matter in 2001. And then even how our mixed-use buildings have fit in or not fit into those design guidelines. Things are a lot more modern now than they were in 2001 and we're okay with that. So I do like this and I would like to make sure you use the word one-erf in here please. Ah, yes. Because that's one of my favorite planning words and mixed used words, one-erf. IT'S LIKE AN ALLEYWAY.

IT'S PEDESTRIAN OR SHARED STREET.

I THINK IT'S AT WEST FALLS. BLOCKED OFF. WHAT I USED TO CALL THE LEG DAY STAIRS NEXT TO THE DAYCARE. AND THEN THERE'S LIKE STRING LIGHTS ACROSS. THAT'S KIND OF THE WOONERF THAT I REMEMBER EY PITCHED TO US.

YES. AND THEN FOUNDATION ROW SUPPOSEDLY HAS A WOONERF FROM WEST STREET INTO THE PLAZA. BUT IT'S...

It was the one on the other corner of Broad and Washington that was like, wait a minute, that's an entrance to a garage, not a warm-up.

Anyway, but I think this is great. And I'm glad that a lot of different organizations and viewpoints will be pulled into it. And thank you.

I think everyone's gone. So I will start with some broad comments and then a few specific ones. So one, like everyone else, we're really glad to be taking this on. So thank you, Cameron, for the presentation. I agree that the original urban design guidelines from 01 were definitely too prescriptive and too lengthy. I tried to make my way through them. I think I got 60% through. I actually gave up at gas station canopies. And I was like, I can't read this anymore. So I guess given that that's the universal feedback, a thought on kind of who is the end user? And so while we have an approach and we have some thoughts on what we think we need to update and not, uh, I would suggest that we actually talk to the end users of who's ultimately going to use this document and understand from them what they would find helpful in terms of content, length, format, like what things they actually want guidance on so that it does become used. Cause my sense is the 110 page document was not being used. which is why we occasionally get feedback that buildings were not meeting design guidelines. Although actually, frankly, if you talk to people who live in those buildings, they actually think their buildings are wonderful. So I don't think it's universal that people don't like our mixed-use buildings and the architecture of them. If you talk to the residents, they love their buildings. So I would suggest that we, as part of the process, talk to the end users and understand what document ultimately would be most useful so that this next time around, we actually create something that does get used. And then building off what Aaron said, if this document is supposed to shape what development is going to be, could we also marry it up with what is the vibe we're trying to create? So I know that EDO plus planning is going to work on kind of what our broader economic development strategy is, like that vibe should weave throughout the document. Rather than, to address the concern about principle versus prescriptive, like if we think prescriptive is actually not going to be useful because it doesn't allow for enough creative flexibility, and I don't have a better word for it than vibe, but whatever the vibe is that we want our urban community to feel like, should feel like it's woven throughout all these different components. And that feels currently, I mean, the vibe very much was clear in 2001, which is village. I don't think that is what we are now. So we need a new vibe that weaves through this new version of the document. So that's kind of my first kind of broad feedback. And then just like the RFP, my comment on like, how do you, Have it detailed enough that it creates kind of guardrails so people know what to expect, but create enough flexibility so that we are not creating, what's that movie where all the houses look exactly the same? Truman Story. Yes, Truman Story, right? You're not creating kind of a Truman Story kind of like community, like the cookie cutter. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because I do think that since 2001, we've had 25 years of mixed use development. Because 01, I don't think Broadway had even opened yet. We've had 25 years of development in Falls Church now. We've got a pretty eclectic mix of architecture. And then in the past five years, we've had this resurgence of what we call adaptive reuse, old buildings that have new life breathed into them. And I think that's actually one of the things that makes us pretty unique is that we do have kind of like a funkiness in that vibe. Like we have a mix of old and new, not everything gets redeveloped and that's intentional. And so I would encourage us again to maybe not be too prescriptive to allow for that kind of flexibility. But again, find kind of that economic vibe that we're trying to create. And then the word that stuck to me as I was reading the 01 document is, how do we ensure that this version actually is timeless? Because maybe I don't know that's possible. Maybe things always look dated. But the 01 version felt very, very dated to me. like kind of like old movies in the 90s. Sometimes they are still good after 20, 30 years. The old document, there are many parts of it that did not. And so I would encourage us to think about the design guidelines as something that can be more timeless and enduring rather than something that really looks out of date within 10 years. So that's kind of broad feedback. Some specific things. If we go to that chart, perfect. I do think that there are probably some things like others, and I won't go into detail now, but that we'll likely want to touch again. So storefront design is one that I think we talked about wanting like transparency guidelines or what happens during construction. I think we had a good lesson learned that we don't want vinyl covering up storefronts during construction because we want people to be excited about what's behind them. That feels like a pretty clear guideline that we want to put in there. Another one that I've gotten a lot of feedback about, which is really an evolution in the past several years, is car share and deliveries. I think with the past several mixed use projects, we have designated areas where people can pull off. That feels like another thing that we've learned in the past 20 years that we want to be maybe more prescriptive on, right? And so maybe that guidance that Dave talked about, when to be principled, when to be prescriptive, depends. There are probably some places where we want to be very prescriptive. because we've learned this does not work. We don't want delivery trucks blocking a whole lane of Broad Street. And if those are here to stay, that probably can go in there and be pretty prescriptive, but maybe the vibe and the architecture could be looser and allow for creativity. So car share, accessibility is another one. I think we spent a long time on the accessibility plan. I would like to see that because we've leaned in so much to our walkability and multimodal that, again, another of big selling point in the past 20 years is we really have evolved to be that 15 minute city. So we are very accessible and walkable. And so I would like that to be reflected across all the different concepts. Transparency, I think that's it though. But overall, I think we're really excited for the work and the approach that you've laid out. And I know that, again, your scope is to try to limit it so that it doesn't become a brand new 110 page document. So I would encourage you that like before you jump in again, if the end user gives us feedback that says, Hey, we really think the most useful version of this is 30 pages and no more than 30 pages and it's gotta be a lot of images and these are the categories that really should be maybe the, the guiding thing going into this. Cause I worry that if you just translate everything from yellow over and then add the green stuff, we'll be at like 150 pages.

Yeah. And that exact question, which is how the document be concise, but also what kind of what born the idea of the developer one pager, maybe it's not one pager, maybe it's a centerfold, but if you could, you know, pull aside developer and get all the things across you want and a front and back page, what would it be? What would it show? Is it illustrative? Is it text? Is it whatever? So that, that kind of question is this kind of what's driving this project a lot of ways.

Yeah. If you let us come up to design guidelines, we'll, we'll make it probably a hundred pages. So I would work backwards from maybe from what is useful and then what are the must haves and maybe there are other things that we can leave more vague.

The other thing that worries me is it's big and it's going to take a lot. I don't want us to say, wait a minute, and just have it go on and on and on as trying to get it done. So maybe there's some phasing or something so that we get version one out while we're working on 1.1 or something. So at least we're out the door with something instead of waiting for... Yeah, so it doesn't take three years to get it all done Yeah Okay, any final?

thoughts for Cameron Dave Yeah, just one

In thinking about our place in the region, we're not Arlington and Alexandria, but we're not Fairfax County either. And so it would be useful to explore similar documents for similarly situated communities. to see what may be some ideas we can glean from that in Virginia or elsewhere. It's too easy to say well we're like Alexandria. Well we really aren't. We're like Arlington. Well, we really aren't. We're like Fairfax County. Well, we really aren't. And how we've evolved and where we want to be is relevant and distinct from those other jurisdictions. So it might be useful to try to hunt for some. And I want to go back to the resilience because there is a lot of information from the building industry about resilient construction and everything from the roofs to everything else. And I think in the era of climate change, we really want to build in a resilience element.

And I think to tie into, like you're saying, there's a lot of information about certain topics and also into a lot of your timelessness comment that talking DPW of, you know, how do we make sure that we're not constantly updating these standards as things are happening is to, you know, we can have the vague outline or try to be a little more fluid, but then to reference specific documents like, you know, NACTO guidelines, things like that, which will be the most up-to-date version as it progresses over the years. So to find trusted establishments which we're comfortable directing people towards and referencing them is one way to make sure that the most up-to-date resilient information or streetscape information or whatever is kind of given to developers.

Yeah, there's great information from the building industry, great information from, for example, the Insurance Institute for Building and Home Safety. So there are a lot of good sources for resilience best practices that we can somehow refer to.

Okay.

I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Cameron. We look forward to when you're back.

So we have one item on consent, and that is the annual fuel purchase contract with Mansfield Oil. And it does have a biodiesel component and our unleaded fuel component. When we were doing the budget, there were a lot of questions about fuel prices. procure fuel through cooperative purchasing so we work with COG on that to get the best price for the city and so asking for this contract to go on consent next week.

I was really interested about the biofield is that have the school buses eyes been using biofuel or system say for maybe 15 years. I did you know that Mary Beth. The only reason I bring it up is because when I was on school board and we were criticized for the one year, my last year on school board, we were criticized because instead of buying two electric buses, we bought a diesel and an electric because of the cost difference. Because back then, It was like you could get three diesels for the price of an electric. But anyway, I didn't know about this biodiesel. That's very interesting to see that the school board says run on that.

It's not 100% bio, so there's a mix. Okay. I can get a little bit more information.

No, you don't. I was just interested. I hadn't heard that. So I mean, even if it's not 100%, it's still reducing emissions and helping the environment a little bit. So better than just pure diesel chugging buses. OK.

Thank you. No more questions or comments on that? Relatedly, I think we had gotten a comment about schools buying propane buses. FC can maybe flagged it to us that so I don't know whether that's I mean it's not our decision because we don't get to make that capital purchase but just for staff awareness that we got some public comment that they were concerned about buying propane buses and I don't know if they're I assume they're not flammable well motto uses natural gas for the for its bus system not propane though

I don't know exactly what it is, but it's compressed natural gas.

One general comment is this, and harken back to, I think you would come to say, you know, the threshold for budget approval or contract approvals, and it's like Last time we had the RFP consultant, which was Les, and I'm like, I would want to have that as an example of something that does come through us. I look at it and say, this is an example of a contract which, honestly, we've signed off on the budget. I don't feel a need for this to really come through council. So figuring that out is kind of that balancing act. This is a great example of dollar amount really isn't the criteria.

So Google says natural gas and propane are different. Natural gas is primarily methane.

Yeah, propane is very different. Explosive characteristics are very different.

Methane we just need to get a bunch of cows and After that the methane, okay Okay It is 1030. We have office hours on Wednesday. Anyways, I don't know whether we're gonna go through schedule tonight since we will be in City Hall at 9 a.m. Anyway, if that's okay with people is there any final things to talk about tonight?

Yeah, there was some public comment from we're a

Yeah. Yeah.

So there's been a couple of things last century. One says, you know, staff have been in discussions with Whittier for years on this. And it is our observation, I think, with staff went back out after this winter. They felt like the sidewalks were in worse shape than they had been. And so an intervention, I think, is more of a priority than we have judged it to be in the past. And we have a new sidewalk standard. So we kind of asserted we're going to use the new standard, which I think we have rights to do because it's in the public right of way, even if the site plan said the original installation was different. We're going to work through that a little bit more, so I'll keep council informed about our thinking on that. But it was a good point. We got an email about following the site plan, so we need to put our heads together on that.

Can we just link? Relatedly to pavement and disintegrating pavement and whatnot, I can send a picture in of this, but it brought in Washington on the East Broad Street part of things when you are walking eastward from the Whole Foods towards Creative Cauldron and Little Beast, the public parking garage entrance and exit now. there are large square pavers that line the two sides, like the border into the public parking garage and then the actual brick pavers start again. Those giant square borders

are now like totally all broken and they're completely uneven and they're like pedestrian tripping hazards and why if i could no we did identify that uh recently as obviously an ada and safety issue and uh planning has notified uh the developer because we're responsible for repair um we can check on the timeline that was about a three weeks ago maybe a month now all right thank you so

Any final council requests? Okay. Thank you and good night all. Good night.

Thank you, council.