Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I think we can call the Wednesday, March 4th, 2026 meeting of the Falls Church City Planning Commission to order. Uh, Mr. Trainer, can you call the role, please? Mr. Pinsky, here. Mr. Duncan, here. Uh, Chair Kont, I'm here. Mr. Stevens, here. Mr. Kinsky, here. All right. And Mr. Kraner and Miss Freedellander are absent. Yeah, I haven't heard from Mr. Kraner, so hopefully he'll join us tonight. Miss Freedellander will not be joining us. Um, okay. Any uh changes to the agenda? And if not, can we have a motion to approve the agenda? Madam Chair, I move to approve to adopt the meeting agenda. Um, second. All in favor?

I I Okay. No speaker series tonight. Uh Mr. Trainer, do we have any uh petitions this evening? Uh only for public hearing items. Okay. Okay, great. Uh and no written correspondence this evening. Okay. So that brings us to our action items. Uh the first action item is 6A, the CIP public hearing. Uh would you like to introduce the item or we just go right to Miss Sabsy? I think we can go right to Miss Hopsy. Great. Thank you. Welcome, Caitlyn.

Thank you. Good evening. Um Jack, I think if you want to pull up the um attachment to the PowerPoint, I think I was just going to do a a quick if I can propose to the planning commission, I'll do a quick sort of synopsis and summary of um the last time I was here. uh the presentation of the proposed fiscal year 27 to32 CIP and the staff report tonight. Um we are back after the last uh formal presentation of the capital improvements program last meeting um tonight for the public hearing and action to formally recommend for the planning commission to recommend the CIP as proposed. Um the uh request tonight is is that and um I think I'm just going to go through like a quick 10-minute summary just for um where we are now. Uh if you can go to the third slide maybe. Um the proposed 27 to 32 CIP uh program totals 162 million. That is uh higher than last year's total driven largely by new grants that we discussed. Um the guiding theme this year is sustaining a state of good repair. the emphasis um on reinvesting in and maintaining existing infrastructure, facilities, utilities, and transportation systems and um prioritizing uh life cycle replacement, reliability, and long-term asset management. Um the CIP reduces reliance on capital reserves this year and debt relative to last year and defers major new facilities. Um, for example, the property yard and public safety headquarters uh shifting to the 10-year pipeline pending additional feasibility work and long range funding strategy. We talked about the three

priorities which on the next slide I think we have or next one. Thank you. Um, next one. Thank you. Um, the first priority of infrastructure reinvestment was sort of the core priority and directly reflects the state of good repair theme. Um some key actions aligned with this are the systematic um traffic signal infrastructure replacement program um of the facility condition assessment in collaboration with the schools to inform future reinvestments in facilities. Um near-term facility upgrades. If you go to the next maybe one or two slides, I wish I had a clicker. Sorry. Uh next one. the uh facility reinvestment priorities that we talked about uh shared some near-term facility upgrades at city hall and property yard continued planning for major long-term needs like public safety headquarters and uh property yard and uh we also talked a lot about sewer investments um and storm water and increased regional treatment costs tied to Alex Renew in the um sewer program their generational rehabilitation program um and uh Yeah, this approach is is about addressing deficiencies, extending useful life and deferring projects that expand or increase our facilities um in this fiscal year. Uh the second priority was progressive multimmoal transportation, advancing accessibility, if you go to the next slide, maybe advancing accessibility and safety uh consistent with complete streets and vision zero. Some highlights include the shared use path and some corridor improvement projects. Uh missing links and NTC programs, uh funding those and leveraging those to advance some safety and accessibility goals. Um and continued pursuit of state and federal grant funding to support transportation um which does remain the largest portion of the CIP supported significantly by grants. It's funded 90% um by grants. Um

the third uh priority is strategic project development. I think that's the next slide. Yeah, there we go. Um, which, uh, represents sort of a shift, uh, toward front-end planning and scoping in the capital plan this year. Um, and includes investments in master planning, systemwide storm water and sewer studies, preliminary engineering and pre uh, scoping, and dedicated annual project development funding for transportation and storm water. However, a recent adjustment reduces, and this is not in your staff reports because it it just happened this week. Um, we have reduced uh the storm water project development funding by 50,000 in fiscal year 2027. Um, this modification is intended to moderate the near-term financial impact and phase investments responsibly um and to help maintain a storm water rate increase um that's more manageable, not to exceed 7% in fiscal year 27. Um, that update, like I said, was not reported in the staff report because it was just like a very recently uh developing um thing that we changed. So, um, but overall the impact to the storm water program is only 50,000 in fiscal year 27 that we're reducing, um, over the entire six-year total. So, we do still have 100,000 a year for storm water project development in fiscal years 28 through 32. Um, and um I think that represents less than 1% of the total storm water program, the six-year total of which is 8.7 million. Um so that 50,000 is there is still 50,000 remaining in fiscal year 27 and that will still go go towards supporting strategic strategic planning and long range investments including um identifying and applying for new grant sources in storm water. Um uh I think the next slide 10-year pipeline. We talked about the enhanced 10-year pipeline now has a dedicated

section this year um with expanded project sheets that outline the project uh purpose and benefits and the readiness level and other key considerations. Um projects enter the pipeline based on infrastructure needs, facility assessments, master plans and community priorities. Um and it the pipeline will serve as a planning framework and as an engagement tool allowing the planning commission and the public to help shape long range prioritization um before projects are shifted into the six-year plan for funding. Um in my staff report I did uh note that as one of the I think the only action for followup is that staff will uh follow up with the planning commission to schedule a future work session to engage on 10-year pipeline projects and development. We can talk more about what that looks like. Um, but I'm thinking, you know, early on sort of pre FY28 CIP development that we um we uh engage in that conversation. On the next slide, we talked about funding sources. We can skip to the next one. Unfunded projects and the delay of $10 million uh into capital reserves and what the impacts of that are. Um, capital reserve funding we've relied heavily on for the last 5 years to fund CIP projects. Um and so that is a priority for us in going into the next couple of years identifying um you know either replacing that $10 million in the capital reserves or identifying other funding sources um to advance these priorities that we discussed. Um the next slide we talked a lot about sewer and storm water. I wanted to give you all the update about the the uh reduction of 50,000 in the storm water um project development. Um I think that's kind of the the highlights that I wanted to hit. Overall, the proposed CIP is um you know structured around fiscal constraints and discipline while also prioritizing good

stewardship of public infrastructure and facilities aligned with the priorities that I laid out. um prioritizing reinvestment over sort of expansion and new projects and priorities. Um strengthening the 10-year pipeline as a long range decision framework. Um and uh leveraging grant funding. Um acknowledging that, you know, sustainable sewer and storm water reinvestment will require uh rate alignment over time. Um and um yeah, I think that kind of summarizes what I wanted to talk about with you all tonight. In the staff report, um you know, I did update the staff report to reflect some of the discussion and the highlights from the last meeting. Um the action for followup on the 10-year pipeline, um sort of the general feedback and support uh that, you know, tried to, you know, um synthesize all of that to support um your all's motion for tonight. Um I think on the in the draft motion um that was provided earlier this week. Um and yeah, I'm ready for any questions or comments or um do we need when do we open it up for Okay.

Yeah. And thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much, Miss Sabsy. Um should we open the public hearing at this time? Yes. Um appreciate the report and uh the re the reminder of uh the slide the slides again. It's very helpful. Uh so this is a public hearing so we'll go ahead and open this item to the public. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Yep. Um the first uh speaker slip we have is uh by Jeff Peterson. Great. Welcome Mr. Peterson.

Um let's maybe try this one. Yeah, either one, Jack. Yeah. Just make sure the mic is on over there. Uh, do you have a green light? See green light. Green light. Okay. Yeah.

Good evening. I'm Jeff Peterson, 205 Tyson Drive. I chair the Falls Church Climate Action Network. We're a local nonprofit organization working to help Falls Church residents and businesses address climate change. You can find out more about us at our website at fallschurch uh ccan.net. For many years, the city deferred proposals to make investments to better manage energy to protect the climate on grounds that we did not have an overall plan and set of priorities to spend funds wisely. Today we do have a pretty good climate plan for the community and for the government as a whole. Uh but the CIP before you tonight makes only very limited investments to implement the adopted energy plans. This is a serious underinvestment that will doom future efforts to meet the 2030 goals in the plans. We are just simply not putting our money where our mouth is. The false church climate action network urges you to recommend that the city council amend and strengthen the CIP to better implement the adopted climate and energy plans. Uh here are just a few recommendations. First, the CIP should fund and accelerate the project to put solar power on the roof of the community center. This project will pay for itself over time. Doing it now means we can get a 30% grant from the federal government and save even more money. Second, we now have dedicated funds in the CIP for costs relating to things

like IT upgrades and traffic signals. The CIP should include a new climate and energy fund to support a range of small projects that would help implement the energy plans in diverse ways. Third, the existing fleet replacement element of the CIP should be upgraded to provide a public plan and schedule for city vehicle purchases, including electric vehicles and buses. Finally, there are several critical topics that need to be added to the 10-year pipeline element of the CIP. For example, as the city shifts to and and the community shifts to electric vehicles, the city needs to invest in a public charging network. We need to start that investment soon. And perhaps most importantly, the 10-year pipeline needs to recognize that the best way to make significant progress toward our climate goals is to join with nearby jurisdictions, investing in a virtual power purchase agreement for off-site renewable energy generation. Other improvements are needed, but that would be a good start. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Mr. Peterson. Our next speaker is my Anderson. Welcome, Miss Anderson.

Good evening. Oh, is this working? Okay. Good evening. My name is Mai Anderson and I'm a student at Meridian High School and a resident of Falls Church, A21 Ridge Place. Um, I'm here tonight because students in the city care deeply about climate energy issues and not just as an abstract political issue, but as something that directly affects our future. And students at Meridian are well aware of this fact. We have classes on sustainability and technologies and a very active environmental club. Um, and I'm here tonight to represent the fall church climate action network. I work with Mr. Peterson as well. Um, I'm the student representative and I'm here to talk about the capital improvement plan and why we should prioritize these issues and the long-term investments because essentially the capital improvement plan is a long-term investment and climate and energy are long-term realities. The decisions we make in this budget will shape our city for decades and I want to make sure that it's a good one. Um, firstly I want to speak about solar. Uh, the community building solar project is a strong step but clarity and urgency matter in this. Um, if we are investing in solar infrastructure, we should prioritize it sooner rather than later and moving projects forward, especially when paired with roof replacements like at Marielle and Henderson is fiscally responsible. Right now, time is running out to commit to solar on the ME roof because the tax credits are going to expire soon and this is going to raise the effective cost of the solar by over 40%. So, any roof structural improvements needed to support solar panels can qualify for the tax credit which ultimately lowers capital costs. So installing a uh solar when the roof is already being replaced is efficient, cost-effective and forward thinking. Leaning solar out of these projects feels like a missed opportunity and I think that the students in our school really care about that and they understand the importance of implementing sustainable development goals and these plans that are forward thinking. Uh secondly, our school facilities planning should explicitly include energy and climate resilience, not just safety and access. Uh students spend most of our days in these buildings and energy efficient schools

lower long-term costs, reduce emissions and models of values our city says it supports. When we expand facility assessments, climate energy should be a part of that core framework. And third, school buses matter. Whether diesel or electric, buses are a significant investment. If we are serious about long-term financial planning and mission reduction, funding bus replacements through the CIP provides transparency, structure, and the ability to pro finance responsibly over time. Electric buses in particular would directly improve air quality for students. And students are often told that they're the future, but we're also the present. And I'm here to say on behalf of students at Meridian and the FCC can that this issue matters to us. And if we want to be a city that prioritize these issues, we need to match that with rhetoric and our actions. So I urge you to prioritize climate energy investments with the CIP, not as optional add-ons, but as core infrastructure for the community we are building. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much.

Any additional speakers? That's all we have. Okay. Uh with that, I think we can close the public hearing and uh move on to discussion amongst the planning commissioners. Any comments? Anyone want to start? Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to start out, uh, where does the school facilities funding that's on the list connect with the things we just heard about in terms of climate action projects?

Um, yeah, I think we've tal the last time I was here, maybe the last time in November as well when we talked about the energy action plans. I think that's um difficult to sort of capture in the CAP. We have a lot of progress that uh that are happening on the energy action plans both the government operations and community energy action plans that I think is in our operating budget. So which is separate from the capital plan and budget. We do have some active and ongoing um uh projects in the CIP that are not reflected in this plan because they were funded and appropriated in prior years like the um uh EV fleet replacement. We got a grant through HUD of $600,000 to purchase um and uh electric and hybrid vehicles to replace our City of Falls Church fleet vehicles. That's ongoing right now. We actually received I think we received six of those vehicles already um for facilities um staff and we're working on a PO right now to purchase um electric uh or I'm sorry um chargers, charging stations and install those at the property yard and I think perhaps in the in the back um city hall parking lot as well. So like I feel like there's a lot there are things that are happening that are not reflected in this year's proposed CIP. I think and that's why I in the staff report I didn't mention this earlier but in the staff report I did have a couple bullets of you know I noted that last last meeting um I think request for better communication and integration of those energy action plans and how um those are being implemented in light of our our goals maybe that needs to I don't know if that accompanies the CIP or if that's a separate sort of item um that maybe we need to do an update on in the future. I also noted the request to accelerate the rooftop solar at community center rather than delaying by one year um until

fiscal year 28. We talked a little bit about that last time that that is um we are ready to accelerate that project that is a funding issue and that you know in light of this year's budget and funding constraints and being in a really tough you know fiscal climate and environment this year um that we weren't able to fund that sooner in fiscal year 27 the school facilities. So, I did we there were some questions last meeting about the school buses. Um, the school buses are purchased and approved through the school board. So, I did confirm that. I didn't note that in the staff report, but I did sort of follow up on that question to get a better understanding. Um, the schools purchased an electric school bus in the last couple of years, also through a grant. Um, and I'm not I don't want don't quote me on this. I I'm not from as familiar with the school board's, you know, budget and um but I I feel like they did the fleet manager told me there were plans to approve two new propane school buses. So like renewable propane rather than um 100% electric vehicles. I don't know very much about renewable propane or the energy and climate benefits of those. Um but that would be through the school board. So again, not reflected in this proposed CIP budget or plan. Um I feel like I don't know if that's a good answer to your question, but I feel like we have a lot of things going on in sort of different shops um and maybe a a future action is is getting better coordination um of all of that information in one place.

Thank you. That's a good good start, I think, on the response that I would hope for. um strikes me that this issue is a little bit like you know affordable housing and that it's something we've talked about and it's been here there and everywhere but it took some number of years for it to become sort of part of the regular uh round of discussions come budget time and I think I think we're uh at that point now on that issue but I think we do have a ways to go. Um uh so what you're basically telling us is uh what you're asking us to approve tonight in this particular area uh has some uh good ideas. Perhaps they could be uh packaged uh explained u prioritized in a way that would make the community feel that we're not just paying lip service, we're actually doing things. Number one. And number two, you know, is it in our capacity to ask the schools to allocate their efforts and funding with a special eye on these concerns. I don't know what else is in the school CIP that I mean I've looked through the book and so forth, but in terms of prioritizing, I don't know if that's as important or equally important or less important than some of the things that we're hearing about here tonight. But before this gets to the council, I think it would be helpful for some combination of all that to be explained and alternatives to be explored uh wherever there's money on the city side for sure uh and on the school side as well.

Right. And I think the draft motion um that was that is provided here it does you know recommend additional resources for you know master bike plans and energy plans and acceleration of the solar uh solar rooftop systems. So I think that's a good starting place. that is something that can be explored um once you know we present once budget is presented to council and we start getting into like budget markup that's that um is a priority that we can look into. It is it is similar to affordable housing as well because like affordable housing it's separate from the CIP. So I I don't always feel like I I want to speak on it because I'm not an energy expert or and it's not really in this scope. it sort of overlaps at places and I can speak to those but it is sort of sometimes an awkward thing to address. I'm I am in you know in support of the recommendation to explore those alternative you know options. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. I think if we just at least for my dime if we communicate that a little more forcefully that would be a good start. Uh, I know the budget process is underway, but we still have some weeks or months to go and hopefully maybe the economic climate improves as it has in some past years towards the end of the budget cycle and money becomes available that in in January or February did not appear to be uh available. And if so, I'd certainly recommend that some of the things talked about here tonight would be uh included in planning for uh outy years certainly or immediate u if if possible and I'll defer to others. The question of buses interests me. There was an article I think in the post recently about was it McGomery County that had a flap over their electric bus fleet. Anyway, when I read it, I thought I'm going to ask Tim about that and see what what what we should be doing because other jurisdictions are having some issues. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Stevens. Do you want to um I'll defer to my colleagues? Okay. I'll come back. Uh no further questions or comments. Good job to Mrs. Sabi and team. One quick question. Do you happen to know and I don't know if you know this um but based on some of the conversation from the speakers tonight do you know if the federal tax credit is still available for solar on roofs because I believe in the new legislation it canceled it after 2025 that it's not they did for for residents but res yeah this is for commercial and schools uh public buildings are considered it's still that's still open. Yeah. So we get till the end of uh next year till the end of next sorry end of 27. Yeah.

Okay. And that's installed and operating. That's for PPA and leases. Correct. Because we did have that we had we did meet the December 31st, 2025 deadline for the solar for Aurora House. That I knew that that was a deadline for Aurora House. Yeah. I'm afraid that if the community center rooftop solar is not

a PPA or a lease that it would not qualify for the 30% tax credit. But again, I'm not an expert on this, but I think the the MEH would because it would be purchased. It would it was a it was a PPA proposed as a PPA. The cost of the roof replacement at ME um I'm sorry the cost of the solar rooftop at ME in the CIP was always to replace the roof that 950,000 that was in there was to replace the roof in order to support solar. The problem was that with that is that that roof wasn't really that old. So we like I from a from a sort of fiscal perspective it was like do we replace a not really old enough roof for 950,000 in order to to execute a PPA to get solar

does that make sense financially and yeah so that that's been sort of the issue with the ME rooftop solar and I think the one thing thank you for that and one thing I don't think I know is like do we have any idea what the payback period is on solar like at what point it becomes cost effective to have installed it. I don't know those off the top of my head. So, I think they're different for each building and I I'm I don't want to say something wrong. So, I Well, you also Unless Mr. Stevens knows. No, it it does vary. And of course, it's not as good as it used to be because of the, you know, difficulty with uh with credits,

but uh but it it will still pay for itself. Uh it just takes longer, but that's the the beauty of a of a public situation. We have time, you know, that's that works in our favor. So maybe it takes 20 years instead of 15 years, but it's still going to come back as reductions in our budget for energy. Yes. And there's the financial considerations, but there's also the our energy goal considerations and that moves us in that in the right direction on that and the demonstration that um you know for the rest of the community that this is, you know, a community for the community. I think Mr. Duncan wanted to chime in on one thing. No, you're good. You're good. turn.

Okay. I can make a few comments and if you'd like to close us out.

Uh well, for right now, I I don't have any uh new to say beyond what I've said in the uh in our work sessions, which is basically that overall the plan is very good. Uh the quality of this year, I think, uh strikes me as higher than some of the previous CIPs that uh that I've gone through. Problem I have is is uh basic inconsistent with the speakers that we heard tonight. it's basically that we're not doing enough to implement our energy plans and as a consequence we will it it makes it much more difficult to achieve our goals. So, uh you know that's just that's a big concern that I have. Um and you know I've always supported the CIPs in the past for all eight years that I've been on the the the commission, but uh at this point I'm I'm kind of having a lot of trouble uh seeing that that's the right thing to do for this year.

Understandable, Mr. Stevens. Um, and I'd say for my part, I mean, I agree with Mr. Stevens that like it's clear that there's been a lot of thought in this. I really appreciate like the strategic focus that you've been bringing to the CIP. Um, and the, uh, state of good repair theme, I think, is an important one. Um, we've been underinvesting in our public infrastructure, I think, in a in a lot of in a lot of various ways. And so I think there's a lot of catchup that we're having to do and that puts us in a tough spot on um in terms of the funding that we have available for other priorities. Uh so yeah, it's it's a it's a hard time. Um I do think that the commission would be very interested in having you come back to discuss those 10-year pipeline projects and how we might prioritize and triage those those projects. Um, I think the motion that we had drafted, we might want to think about amending. Um, and I guess at this point, is anybody ready to make the draft motion and then maybe we can discuss it for discussion?

It's actually quite brief. Yeah. Unless there's any other discussion on this. Uh, Miss Obsy, your suggestion of also um providing an update on the community energy action plans would be and and the government energy action plans and and maybe that's a request for staff

maybe. Yeah. And I'm not sure if maybe that would align with like the council strategic priorities or maybe that's something that staff maybe Kurt and I brainstorm on something. I I'm not really sure what that looks like. I think it's clear that like we need to again improve communication and integration of that information like somewhere here because there there is a lot of overlap with the CIP CIP is a very good opportunity to talk about those issues. Um and I think some of it is the sequencing like the timing because by the time we see you at work session we have a you know a couple a week. Yeah. Yeah. And there's the one discussion and then we're here at public hearing. So, oh, you mean the sequencing between the two meetings for at planning commission? Yeah,

I mean, yeah, I mean, if we want to have a 10-year pipeline discussion, when is that occurring? If we're talking about these energy action plans, when when do we want to have those discussions so that they can really influence the CIP that is developed and brought to us at work session? Yeah, definitely like plus one that thought like if there's a way to have a conversation about Sorry, I'd like to plus one that thought and if there's a way to have a conversation like an ideation type conversation outside of the advance level discussion about what's past the CIP uh in the 10-year plan like the chair was saying I think that would be a really useful non-presenting kind of presentation more of an open discussion I think would be really useful.

Okay. Okay. We can talk about what that looks like. I think I um am fine with coming quarterly for the CIP updates that we provide to council. I'm happy to do that. We h we have usually in November we have the CIP development kickoff um with planning commission. I think for 10ear pipeline I was thinking something sooner than November like in the summer um uh you know pending sort of our staff work plan and how how much we get done you know to that we have to provide. Yeah. and to be cognizant of the fact that you have been here a lot and it's late and I don't want to like just make you keep coming to these things. I think it would be a useful time sometime in the spring or summer to have a discussion about what comes next after the CIP.

Yeah. Yeah. We always appreciate having you and all of your expansive knowledge of the CIP, Caitlyn. It's terrific. Um okay. Uh any further comments or discussion? Sorry. Is the discussion on the draft motion or I think we need somebody to make the motion and then we can discuss then we can discuss it and second the motion and then we can discuss any uh changes that we might want to make after the discussion tonight. Uh Mr. Kinsky, do you want to make the motion? Are you volunteering? It's not quite it's not very long.

That's the reason I'm volunteer. Next one will be long. I won't do it. Um uh draft motion. I move that the planning commission recommend that the city council approve pursuant to section 6.19 of the city charter and section 17.08 08 of the city code, the FY20 27 to 2032 capital improvement program as presented on February 18th and March 4th, 2026 as summarized in the SIP budget pages 2.1 uh 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 and 2-6 based on the following justifications. s the SIP is consistent with the comprehensive plan, small area plans, and elements of the master plans. The SIP provides both investment in new and reinvestment in existing facilities and infrastructure. The SIP attempts to balance the city's many needs with limited available resources, both financial and staff. The SIP uh compiles uh complies uh with the adopted fis financial policies and the SIP makes good use of grant funding. Furthermore, the planning commission recommends additional resources be made available for implementation of the master bike plans and energy plans. acceleration of plans to install solar energy systems on Mary Ellen Henderson and the community center could help implement the city's energy plans and if implemented by the end of 2027 qualify those projects for a

30% tax credit. Great. Thank you. Is there a second? Sorry. Do we discuss it first before we second it or do we then discuss we second it and then the motion is on the table and then we can discuss any changes. Is that correct? Okay. Uh for the purposes of getting to the discussion part, I will second the motion. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any discussion on the motion?

Um I think my thoughts here are that if we are going to recommend additions, we should also recommend where we would make tradeoffs if we are going to ask for this. like I I am in favor of adding this information about the bike plan and the energy plan, but I think it has to I think we have to also participate in making some of the hard choices of what would come off if we want to add these in. So yes, I would love if like Mr. Duncan was saying there were additional funds that were available that we could have like if the economic situation turns around or there's a change in in the next couple months that we have that opportunity. But I think it is in order to pass this to city council, we also have to say what we think would be dep prioritized from this particular conversation.

Um I worry that might be a little detailed. Uh I'm not really prepared to make the that I know I don't know that there's one project. To me, if you think about that chart that Miss Sabsi shared, how we addressed the 800,000 shortfall, the anticipated 10 million shortfall, right? Like you pulled money back from a variety of different projects over the next um seven years. And that may be sort of what what the end result would be if we were to want to. So, I think I'm comfortable with recommending that the city council prioritize these projects and they can figure out the best way to do it. I hear you. on on the instinct to want to help um with how to do that. But there's no obvious choices for me or one big thing.

There's a little bit of good news from what I understand the second quarter uh from the fiscal year came in reasonably good. Hotel taxes were down but other retail taxes were up. Um so uh but I agree. I mean it's kind of tough for us and there's a whole lot of moving targets and it's very difficult for us to I mean I agree but I think the challenge I'm seeing in this is that if we say if we make the motion as written um recommends additional resources like if those resources don't exist are we saying this is not this is below the line I think that's what I would want to make sure that we are comm

that sucks right like as a conversation I understand that but I think there is is an important conversation to recommend to the city council and say this is money if there is money, we should do this as opposed to we should do this even if there's not money and then we should have a trade-off conversation.

I I have to agree with Mr. Polinsky there. Um I one option and I agree that there's a lot of detail that we wouldn't be able to get into and we might end up recommending killing something that's very important. But we might want to add uh that something to the effect of uh recommends additional resources be made available and urges staff to submit uh I don't know if we'd call it lower priority projects or projects that could be considered um as offsets because I agree you it it's not our job to just say spend more money there. There was a certain budget and if we're going to add something, we should ask staff to assess the priorities of the existing projects and offer up suggested deletions or delays or reschedulings.

Uh thoughts from you, Mr. Duncan as a former member of council as to what council might be expecting or you know interested in hearing from the planning commission.

Good good good thoughts. Um just trying to figure out how we could be most useful. So the staff went through a pretty exhaustive process of pairing down right and that's what we've talked about at our last couple of meetings. Uh what we're basically asking for is a continuation of that uh attitude for as long as the financial situation looks like it looks today as we go through the budget process and uh see where we come out at the end. So is there some way to memorialize that, you know, we have done the the first round of work to try to bring aspirations in line with resources. Uh and we encourage continuation of that effort by staff. And in the meantime, as a planning commission, we would suggest prioritization of any available resources um to be directed at, and this gets into then the details. How how detailed do you want to get? Do you want to say I mean, do you want to pick between the babies of master bike plans and energy plans? I mean, from what I'm hearing everybody else talk about up here, the energy plans are, you know, would get the first seat at the table just because they're so overarching and cover both city and school side. And then my last question is, so with this language, we're committing to try to put solar on the roofs at both Marielle and Henderson and the community center by the end of calendar 2027. I mean, is that something we're really committing to try to do?

Yeah. Have a lot of thoughts. what I heard you say was not that that

I'm not Yeah, I would have to get back to you about the tax credit eligibility for a community center in in any time after December 31st, 2025 because that was my understanding. I think ME would be different. It would qualify for a tax credit by the end of 2027, calendar year 2027, because it would be purchased through a PPA. Um I I believe I would have to verify that. Um, one of the complexities about and as someone who is very familiar with that process that staff went through, I can attest. I do I did feel exhausted by it. No, I'm just kidding. Um, it it's it's it's complex. There's a lot of complexities, especially when you talk about operating budget. if revenues are are you know coming in better there's a more positive forecast for operating budget that doesn't necessarily translate into more funding for CIP to get more that money sort of spoken for in operating to get more into CIP then I mean

we start talking getting into like you know even more complex conversations about how to do that then within the CIP when we rep prioritize things if we're talking about moving things from one fund to another so Solar is in the general fund. It's funded with it was proposed to be funded with capital reserve. We cut capital reserves. So we had to move shift that to unfunded. Um bike plans for example if you wanted to shift that priority because bike the uh bike master plan project is funded. That's funded with 30% money in the transportation fund that is not eligible to use for solar rooftop. So like then we get into sort of it's a it's a puzzle. I mean, it's a crazy, you know, Rubik's cube of of funding sources and programs and eligibility and um I I do think that you can, if I may,

please

for the motion, I do think that you can be more specific and provide more details for exactly what you are recommending. So, if you want to recommend that, you know, the energy the um community center rooftop solar project specifically be accelerated and funded in fiscal year 27 or if you're okay with it being funded in fiscal year 27 and fiscal year 28, whatever that is, then I would I would call that out specifically and ask I think it's okay to ask council to have to make the hard decisions. um uh and and ask them to consider they get I was going to make a joke about they get paid the big bucks. Um but uh they uh but I think that's okay to ask them to to do that. They have, you know, budget is being presented March 23rd. They have until May 11th. They have, you know, two almost two months of budget work sessions and budget markup. That's certainly a lot more than two weeks that you all have to do that. So I think that's okay to say, but I would call it out very specifically in the motion what you are requesting or recommending that.

Thank you for the council. That makes sense. It's helpful. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, that's a good I mean the the thing about the energy action plan items that we've heard about tonight and that you've wrestled with and staff level is um you know uh it's everywhere in general but needs to be somewhere in particular to give us a feeling that yeah we really care about that. I mean you know it's a $160 million CIP program over six years. It's roughly equivalent to the $120 million that we spent on the high school which took at least six years. And I think there are those in the community and on this board who would who would like the same sort of civic attention that we dedicated to the high school which was very important worthy and I supported it. uh that sort of same intensity and and effort to dedicated to the energy action plan generally but some things in particular. So I don't have any golden words. You guys are better at editing on the screen than Jack is good at that. And I I would I think that's a good suggestion to try to be a little more specific if we can and and worry less I would worry less about whether we've got the money to do it today on this day of early March. Uh you know a lot's going to happen between now and when the budget gets passed in six eight weeks from now.

Yeah. I mean ultimately it's council's decision as to whether we have money to do these things, right? So, I kind of view our role as trying to give one element of input from the community on what we think is important, but uh it would be nice if we could do that and also tie up all the financial issues, but that just seems to be stretching it a bit.

I would agree with Mr. Stevens. Um I mean, I'm I'm comfortable with the motion as written. I think if if there's a way that we can um especially call out MEH, uh maybe maybe there's some wording changes that we could make there or we could just talk to our council colleagues and let them know or they can watch the meeting and and hear about the um So your understanding, Mr. Stevens, is the community center would also be eligible for

Yeah. Now, there there obviously there are ways that you have to um kind of come up with the financing to meet the requirements of the tax code, which I'm certainly not going to hold myself out as as an expert in that. But people that I talk to that do dwell on these matters uh seem to think that that we would be able to do that. Now the other part of that is that whereas with the Aurora house we ran into problems with the roof not actually being ready for a solar system and it required some additional uh effort to uh to make it so in the case of the um community center and this is even mentioned in the text of the CIP uh it is ready to accept a system. So, uh, you know, it seems like if this is really an important issue for the city, we would we would move ahead with with something where we are able to put it on, uh, right now. So,

yeah, I would agree. Do you feel like the the language here in the motion captures that?

Uh, yeah. Although I may not be the best person to ask because I'm not sure I'm going to vote for the CIP. So maybe one of my colleagues would would be who who intend to vote for it uh would be in a better position to recommend some language. I think starting on line 33 of the staff report, those bullets that I provided of the discussion we had, um there is some language about the request that my sort of you know interpretation of the last meeting was I heard a request to accelerate rooftop solar implementation at the community center rather than delaying it by one year considering the project's readiness and staff capacity and to align that with current rooftop solar installation at Aurora House. That's something that you could maybe uh use use language from if you wanted to like I said if you wanted to call out specific details in your in the recommendation

I did not provide anything on me specifically I don't think

what do you think madam chair I No, it's like my least favorite thing. Editing by editing uh live by committee. Um I Do you have a s suggest a wording suggestion, Mr. Kinsky?

Potentially. Uh just to throw this out there. And again, I am I'm inclined that if we're going to recommend, we also need to recommend potential offsets. And I understand we we have to be careful about an offset that's going to, you know, be pretty more disrupt disruptive. We don't have the time or the expertise to evaluate that year. Could we could as a suggestion could we consider so I'm agreeing with you and I'm wondering if there's a way we can say in the way that we word this we recommend

it sounds like the in terms of the benefit of the the biggest benefit we would get is the 30 30% tax credit for going with uh I think MEH is the one that is most likely in addition to the million dollar roughly million dollars that we'd have to spend on the repairing the roof to support the solar and if we said I think if we said what do you think about I guess my question would be for you. What do you think about saying instead of to I think a very valid point that we're not going to go line by line in a very already well researched and structured CIP and say not this one not that one say we recommend accelerating the ME imple the implementation of solar on ME and the cost that would come with that something like at the with offset somewhere else and let council figure out where the offset like let discuss to do that. Right.

Here's what I was going to suggest. Sorry, I did mean I didn't mean to interrupt, but actually

No, that's all right. Uh, no, it's it's a good point. So, I think you you could say as an alternative to what it says is is the planning commission recommends additional resources be made available for implementation of the master bike plans and energy plans. forens in particular leveraging uh the tax credits for ME solar or whatever whatever particular projects we want to add in there and then uh simply say and recommend staff evaluate the existing program to identify to city council potential projects that can be delayed or cancelled to maintain the topline funding. level by fiscal year and then put it back on Caitlyn uh you know just to because you you've obviously sliced and diced this by fiscal year and you know you have a pretty good sense of where the priorities are. I mean, not everything is going to that is in this program is of the same priority, and we don't know that, but staff probably does know that um and could make some recommendations to city council.

Yeah. I don't want to dissuade you from any from your motion at all. I you know I support the prioritization that I think you all are I support I think the spirit of of the motion. I don't I also don't want to give the impression that it would be real $950,000 in fiscal year 27. I don't know that it's realistic that we have the things that we can rep prioritize or defer or I I don't know. I don't want to say, you know, again, that's an exercise that like we can't really go through tonight, right here, right now. I would have to go get my laptop and get my spreadsheets. Um, but I Yeah, I just I don't want I think you all should make the motion that feels right for the planning commission and um and I I think that's

Yeah, I just Well, if you don't think you could come up with 900,000, um I just wanted I just wanted to be like transparent about that. So like I didn't want to get I understand but maybe maybe the we don't say make a recommendation to maintain the top line but make a recommendation to within the the funding constraints that we are working within. Yeah. Yeah. So there may have to be an increase to the top line but you may be able to mitigate that to some degree with some offsets. Yeah. You know,

I think it's good to remember too that, you know, I think one of the things that we are trying these these motions are we're these this is a recommendation to council and one of the things that we're trying to do is just signal to council the things that we as planning commissioners representing the community think are important to the community. So, this is not sort of like a binding contract that council is signing, you know, or that we're sending to them. And so I' I' I'd prefer to keep it a little bit broader in spirit and I'm comfortable um with this language. I don't think council's going to read this and say, "Oh my gosh, where are we how are we going to balance the CIP?" So I I I'm not concerned about that part of it. Personally, I think that's a that's a discussion for for council. I think what we're trying to do is signal that we really think these energy plans, it's really important that we're investing as a community in bringing these energy plans to life and also the bike plans because those also help us meet our energy and climate goals. Um, so I' I'd prefer to keep the language a little bit broader like this. I think Mr. Duncan had a term earlier. He said, you know, maybe we could um if it makes people feel better, change out the word additional in that first sentence for any available resources uh instead of additional resources. I don't know. Does that make make it feel differently land differently for people?

No. Um I get the point like I I get the point of like what you're saying. I think the the thing I would say is like do we think this is important enough that we're going to ask council to trade something off? And if we don't I think this is what Mr. Stevens has been getting at like this is not above the like do we consider this above the line or not above the line? I think for Mr. Stevens, this is above the line, right? That's what I'm saying. Like like we are

I'm not even getting that specific. I'm just saying this is an area that I think is important. We adopted these energy plans and this CIP does very little to implement it and as a result we're not going to make our goals. So I'm really just highlighting that issue and fundamentally it will be city council who decides you know what's the right mix of issues that uh that get funded and and um and with that we proceed work on.

So maybe actually it's uh it's sort of grounding that first sentence in that the larger goal Mr. Stevens. So maybe it's um furthermore, the planning commission recommends additional resources be made available for implementation of the master bike plan plans and energy plans in order to meet our community energy goals. Our community our goals for reduction in greenhouse gases. I don't exactly how the wording is there, but reminding council that these two things are critical to our ability to meet these objectives that we've set for ourselves in these plans. Yeah. Well, that's certainly consistent with the spirit of that first sentence.

I think yeah,

I I'm go with that wording. Um I think if City Council wants to increase the resources for the bike plan and the energy plan and they're against a brick wall in terms of funding, they will do exactly what I had suggested, which is they're going to turn back to staff and say, "Where are the offsets?" Um, so we don't have to say that out loud in our resolution, but I think it it it's it's inevitable that it's going to happen. They're not just going to add money to the SIP budget.

I mean, I mean, they could could raise taxes to do it, but like that isn't that is an option. I'd have to kill you if we did. Did you have a comment, Mr. Duncan? Uh what was my comment? Um those are the complexities, Mr. Kinsky, that I'm talking about is

I think Mr. Kinsky and I are are on the same general wavelength. I mean, what do I want to achieve with my precious vote on the planning commission in this particular in instance? Here's what I want to achieve. I want um publicity to rumble out from this lengthier than expected discussion which says, "Wow, boy, that planning commission, they're really serious about these energy plans and we're going to have to do something about that." And now is a good time to send that message because it's still again very early in the budget process. Many things will happen. Money will become available. Money will disappear. it'll come up in places as you least expected it. And if council is facing a room full of students from Meridian High School arguing for the future and Mr. Peterson gives his all his eloquent remarks, um then it's their job to hear that and weigh it against all the other needs and wants. It's our job is a little different. I think our job is to try to look down the road and say in an ideal false church 10 years from now, where would we be? Well,

if we want to get there, we're going to have to the the journey of a thousand miles needs to begin with single steps here and now. And sending that message, I think with the language that you suggested would be useful.

That's helpful. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Um, yeah, I would just add I've always seen sort of the motion that planning commission makes as as a recommendation and and a request. The recommendation being, you know, the motion that you all are making that the CIP, you know, as summarized, it meets all of these things, the the five things that are listed there, right? It's consistent with the comprehensive plan and financial policies. Um and then your furthermore is sort of your request that the planning commission is making to council. We request that you either identify additional resources or find available resources whatever that looks like in the proposed capital budget to accelerate these priorities of that. You know that's sort of what you're communicating and in that furthermore part that's your request. the recommendation you're making is based on, you know, the CIP meets these boxes that we that it needs to meet. That's sort of what's laid out in the city code. And then the last part is your request.

Yeah, that's how that's how I see it, too. Do this. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Uh I'm not sure where we are on this. Are there is there I know apparently um is there uh we've had a lot of discussion on the motion. Is there a specific change that somebody would like to make to the motion or are we ready to vote on the motion as it is? I I thought we had all agreed that at a minimum we would um add uh master bike plans and energy plans in order to achieve the city's stated goals. Okay. Is that is it

Sure. Uh so could you help us with that edit? Yep. So after plans, the last plans in order to achieve the city's stated, how do we want to phrase it? Mr. Stevens energy goals goals adopted goals. I shouldn't be

city's adopted goals. The city's adopted energy goals. They're just goals because that would cover bike plans, too. Okay.

Sure. Okay. Okay. Any other edits? Not to suggest change of horse, but your bullet point that you shared there further down is is is a good one, too. And certainly that should remain within the staff report. And I I like that language change.

So, we have an amendment by Mr. Kinski. We have an amendment. Yes. So, um we just need a second and Does the maker of the motion have to then So we need a second for the amendment. Yeah, I Mr. Duncan seconds the amendment and then does the uh the maker of the motion was also Mr. Kinsky, right? Do you accept your amendment, Mr. Kinsky? Yes. Okay. So, we'll vote on the amendment. This first vote. This is I we haven't voted yet on the motion, right? So, can we just do the motion vote? Um, right. If he's if the maker of the motion accepts the amendment, I think we're okay. Okay.

Are there any other changes that anybody else would like to make on the motion? If not, I think we can do Okay. a roll call vote, right? Since we haven't voted on the main motion yet. Okay. Uh, okay. Ready for a vote? This is the vote on the mo on the motion, not on the as in not on the edit. Yeah, on the motion unless there's any other discussion. I don't think so. Okay, we're ready. Okay, Mr. Pinsky, yes. Mr. Duncan, yes. Mr. Stevens, no. Mr. Kinsky, yes. Chair Koma, yes. Thank you. The motion passes.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Sopsy. We're I'm confused now about the motion and the amendment. We're We're done. I think we're done. I think we're done. Thank you for your patience, for your counsel. Appreciate it. Yeah. Good discussion. Good discussion. Yeah. Um All right. That brings us to our next action item, which is the tree canopy zoning amendments public hearing. Our second public hearing tonight. Great. Welcome.

Good evening, uh, Miss Kmont, planning commission members. Uh, good to see you tonight. Um, I'm here tonight after the city council's, uh, first reading of the item. Um, since the the first reading, uh, the urban forestry commission and as of this morning, the ESC have supported shown their support for this uh, item. Uh, since I last saw you, uh, there's only been one substantial change uh, and it's been fairly minor. Um on line 572, the uh fee in lie of uh due to hardships uh went from $750 to $2,000 based on a comment made by council during the work session. Uh, and since then I worked with the city attorney to to figure out a fair cost. Uh, that balances between u encouraging folks not to want to use it. Uh, and also to protect small businesses and adaptive reuses so we don't price them out. Um, so other than that, that's the the the considerable change. Um, and I'm happy to take any questions if there are any.

Uh, great. So, this is a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open this item to the public. Is there anybody here to speak on this item tonight? Okay. If seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Uh any discussion? Uh Mr. Stevens? Yeah, just a quick question. Do you happen to know if there's any uh legislation brewing in the general assembly that would also affect uh trees? Uh there is, but it would not affect our current code or any proposed code. Okay. It's it's for the conservation of trees and uh the city we use the replacement code. Okay, good. Thank you.

When we this Hi, but thanks for coming back. Uh when we had a conversation about this um earlier earlier this year, I think we did uh maybe late last year. Um we had a discussion to understand we were we had an ask out I think to understand the effective cost difference or the um tax revenue changes that we would expect on an average new development based on this new zoning level. Do we know roughly what that would be? Like if there's if we if we raise the tree canopy to 10% of the zone, how what does that change in terms of tax revenue from that particular area? So I think what makes that calculation or response somewhat difficult is that it almost presumes that you are introducing the requirement once the approvals in place or perhaps the concept design has been presented. I think part of the advantage of having the minimum uh live in the ordinance is from the very beginning someone approaches the city about a proposal or an idea, we can begin to work with them at that very early stage to ensure that the building is structured such that perhaps there may not be an actual loss of density.

And we creatively solve for meeting both the requirements and maximizing the potential economic benefit from that property. And because there's so many variations of how that works, the creativity that's on the applicant side, our ability to kind of keep maneuvering and responding to their design proposals, I'm not sure if we're going to ever going to get to a point where we can quantify any kind of fiscal impacts of that. Uh, but it's something we can definitely look for in the next year or so and some of the site plans that might come in and how people are responding to the new regulation. The other part that I'll highlight is um and I forget which page in the staff report this is but um the team has done a really good job of summarizing the last 12 to 16 site plan approvals uh that we've done in the city all of which have far exceeded the 10% number. Uh so we are considering a baseline figure but we actually with some additional work that's starting to take place for this year plan to get to a much higher tree canopy figure. And perhaps in those conversations uh from a policy perspective, we may get a better sense of what fiscal impacts might be uh in front of us and if other trade-offs have to be considered.

Maybe another way to say it is at this relatively low level of tree canopy. It's not necessarily a zero sum game, but uh you can build in the trees in your design early on and I think you're saying maybe wind up with a better project. It's possibility is there. Certainly a better experience for the community. Yeah. And if if I may add to that, uh studies have shown there is a study I believe it's included in here uh you can charge higher rents with treeline streets for the businesses and people who shop there tend to stay longer and spend more money. So that the calculating the apples to apples I think as as Matt has mentioned is pretty tough.

Okay. Yeah. I think I don't know if we looked at this last time we had Quinn and Nini and Econ on there. Um maybe we did. Um and I just missed them. Um but I remember we talked a lot about Madera. The 3% of Madera was the sort of the call out there in terms of like if they move to 10%. What would be the difference? Uh was the question. But it sounds like the expectation here is that we are going to increase the number of trees and not lose any money. Is that the general assessment? I think so. Yes. Okay. Yes. That's you see you can't have your cake and eat it too. Okay. Do you have comments, Mr. D?

Sure. We got to keep beating this horse for a little while longer. In the interest of full disclosure, I talked to Charles about this a little bit before the meeting. So, this chart that's up there now, table one, uh, drops out the high and low as I understand it from what Charles told me. Uh so Madera 2, Founders Row 2 does not Modera uh does not show up on some chart that you have that calculates canopy performance. You thought that there there was something left off at one of the Did I misunderstand you? No, we we did drop off the the high and the lowest um tree canopies on here to try to balance the numbers a little bit because they were both pretty they were outliers. So, kind of drop those off to kind of make it more representative of of the projects.

Okay. So Madera Madera is listed at number five with 3% and something dropped off that had a a bigger number above 26 or 31% looks like is the other high. We're not quite sure what that other high is that we dropped off, but we think it might be Stratford. I believe it was uh Godfree in Enza Virginia. Ah, okay.

Okay. All right. Interesting. Uh Okay. And uh the other question I had, maybe this is for Matt more than anything. How do you think that uh this will affect our negotiations with applicant developers when it comes to maintenance of the trees that we have previously known as street trees but uh allowed the developer to include in its application. So you will no longer uh get credit for uh the street trees that are like along Ellison Street behind Founders Road 2. There's eight. The developer would not get credit for that. But yet in some instances when we get development applications, we require the developer to maintain those trees and clear them of debris and snow and water them in the summer so they don't die. Uh, is it your experience or your expectation that we'll still be able or should we even still be able to require that the developers take care of those trees or is it preferred for the city to take over the maintenance of those trees, the street trees that that the developer is not going to get credit for planting? I can start for those who want to chime in, but I I view it as something where they're not mutually exclusive. So, I think simply because one's not receiving credit for a street tree uh should not preclude them from uh providing maintenance uh for that tree. So, I think some of it is just the cost of doing business. Um, and I think if we're dealing with the private property uh piece of the equation rather than our rightway, I think the uh maintenance should fall on the property owner, uh, I think the crediting or calculation of

the requirement that we are updating uh, should be a whole separate and kind of decoupled conversation. Okay. All right. Well, I hope so. I mean, that would be the ideal world. So uh for Madera on number five the 3% number on site tree canopy excluding street trees. Uh so the canopy number including street trees is something more like 9%. Is that right? Is that how I'm reading the chart? Combined tree canopy total. Yes.

Okay. So when those eight trees that are planted along Ellison Street reach their what are we aiming for? 20-year is that when we grade them to be fully leafed out? Uh according to state code we uh we need to charge the 20-year canopy coverage calculation.

Okay. So, so after 20 years those eight trees will have reached u their limit or their capacity and at that point that 9% number will look like a leafier environment than you see there before the area was developed where there were some scrub there were not really trees but they were scrub bushes and so forth. So if you can just stick around for 20 years it'll look great. Anybody who thinks it's a little thin on trees right now, just keep in mind that we do have eight street trees and in 20 years they will hopefully restore or improve upon what was there before Modera was built. Okay. Just wanted that for the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Uh Mr. Stevens Oh, I'm good. Did I Did you already go? No, Mr. Kinsky. Oh. Um, thanks and apologize because I was not at the last meeting when this was discussed. So hopefully I won't uh go over the same ground again. Just confirming um the 10% number is the uh equivalent to is is applicable to the last column on the chart up there. Is that correct? So when we say 10% that's the combined tree canopy total for our project. Now

the proposed amendment would only count the trees on the property within the property lines of the subject site plan. So it be the second column I think. Would that be the first colum the f the onset? I think it's the one with the 25% bonus. That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. The second column. Is that the second column? Yeah. with the bonus.

So, um, that all sounds good. The the 10% seems rational and actually somewhat conservative based on Arlington and Alexandria and Fairfax County, if I'm reading that correctly. But then you say on line 247 in the summary that you want to revisit this. Is that correct?

Yeah, we're um Matt and I are going to work together uh with planning staff to create guidance documents um based on these. So, uh this is just kind of a starting point for minimums that were allowed by state code. So, with these minimums in place, uh we'll be able to create other guidance documents that interact with with this code. So, so are you anticipating uh a code that would have a higher minimum? No. So, this would this is the code. You're not going to revisit the code. That's correct. You're just going to uh create guidance documents based on this code of 10%.

That's correct. I see. Uh okay. Uh I was just it it was a little confusing the way it was worded is that this was somehow you were going to relook at this and then raise uh but I'm I'm a little confused if if the if the code says the minimum is 10%. Um h how do you create a guidance document that says they have to do more? Can you take that Mr. Matic or Sure. Yeah.

So, first the reason that answer is valid is because the state prevents us from requiring uh I'm going put air quotes around requiring uh more than 10%. So, that's as high as we can push the ordinance itself, which is why I think we've landed on this recommendation is because we're limited to going any further than that. What we've proven with past negotiations and Charles's help and Cameron and everybody else is that we can effectively achieve much more than 10%. And in fact, if we are effectively leveraging our policy documents to do that, who knows how high we can go and still have feasible building uh proposals in front of us. So to help us with that, knowing that we've pushed the envelope as much as we can with the ordinance, our next target to set a higher tree canopy goal or what I would say expectation with developers is to look at guidelines, standards, master plans, and those type of policy documents to set our new expectation for Tree Canopy and let that be the starting negotiation with developers when they come in to redevelop properties. And then we'll see where we end up. Uh but it's going to be between this minimum because now you can't go any lower than 10%. And we'll see how close to the target the expectation we can get and the expectation could be anything from 15 20 to even 30%. Uh depending on the site perhaps but that analysis is still ahead of us. But if the code says 10% minimum, then everything above 10% is voluntary. Or are you planning to provide other exceptions such as to height and things like that to get a higher tree canopy?

It would be voluntary. It would be voluntary. Okay. All right. Um that that makes sense. Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you, Mr. Kinsky. Mr. Stevens, um I can uh put the motion forth whenever Oh, okay. Yeah, I have a I have a couple questions. Um, everybody else went. Um, uh, so

you noted in the staff report that the, um, tree canopy coverage number was a little hard to pin down. This is line 186, Jack, table two. I'm just curious like when what which of these three or four kind of measurements do you think is maybe when will we know? I mean, I'm I'm interested in tracking the city's um tree canopy coverage over time, obviously, to understand how we're changing, and it seems like it's a little unsettled right now as to what the best way to do that is. So, do you have a front runner? It's been confused for decades.

Yeah. or or can is there one that we can commit to or like what's the plan for tracking this so we're not kind of looking at different data sets over time and and sort of yo you know ping ponging back and forth as to whether or not we're meeting our goals. Uh that's a great question and it's uh an initiative I've been chasing to get a accurate tree canopy calculation for the city. Uh currently I'm working with the council of government's uh tree canopy subcommittee uh through CIPY. Uh we're um discussing ways to maybe do just a regionwide tree canopy survey instead of you know Arlington's doing theirs, Fairfax is doing theirs. We're not doing any because we don't have the funds for it.

So there's been speak of maybe suggesting that we do just a regional tree canopy cover uh assessment for the whole region. Um you know, how that's funded is still in the works and um so that would provide us real data. Uh I'm exploring with our GIS person to maybe reach out to either Arlington or Fairfax and see if there's data that we can just purchase from their vendor because I mean obviously they're flying probably right over us to come turn around. So they may have that data but that's in process. U if but if I had to commit to a number um I would say right around 42% tree canopy coverage is would be I think a rational Yeah. three out of four agree. Yeah. Um

I was going to say the COG model I think is good. They do all of the greenhouse gas emission studies for all 24 jurisdictions. Uh and that's that was a great relief. The city used to do our own and it was very laborious and so having COG take it over uh not only does it offload you know resource effort but you get a consistent set of measurements throughout the region.

Absolutely. Um, and then you know this maybe just think of our special exception criteria like are those the kinds of policy documents that we might consider amending in the future to sort of strengthen our interest or so that developers understand that this is something that we're particularly interested in. I know there's a lot of competition to get into those primary criteria but are those the kinds of discussions that you envision the community having in the future? Mr. Matusk,

they are. I think what we're also kind of brainstorming is in addition to tree canopy, you know, there are other kind of streetscape elements, bofilic design and and other ways to achieve very related goals. Uh part of what we hope to kind of ascertain uh is kind of working with a very broad stakeholder group uh of participants, not just kind of members, representatives of boards and commissions, but really the development community folks that kind of deal with this have to comply with regulations, building code, uh best practices, and have a much better sense of realistically what pencils out on projects, what is working in other sites, other jurisdictions. Uh, so I I think throughout the course of the year as we head into those conversations, um, we'll get a better sense of what might be in play for Falls Church.

I'm really looking forward to hearing what what you learned and it sounds like based on the letter that we received in today's package that the ESC would also be happy to help support that effort. They sent us a very nice letter on um, uh, their uh, intention to research green building standards going forward. And I agree that as a community like this is definitely something that we need to be more proactive about addressing. Um yeah, Mr. Duncan,

just ask a quick, this is it may sound a little silly, but if uh if I want to stand up on my soap box and say that we're going to recover for the canopy loss that we've experienced of just let's just say 1% because that's sort of in the vicinity of the Chesig Bay cog numbers and the others. How many actual trees are we talking about in the city of false church? I mean, any speak on every tree, but I know public trees. We have about 12,000 trees that the city staff maintains.

Okay. So, let's just say that we're going to use only public trees to restore us from the 1% canopy loss. So, we're talking 12,500 trees we would need. No, that's not right. How many are we talking? Are you talking about like uh like 1 percentage? 1% of 12,000 is going to be well remember that like a lot of what I don't know what the balance is between public trees and private trees but my understanding is that most of our canopy is in our our neighborhoods private private property where we have less right so a calculation based just on public trees would be kind of conservative 20 trees yeah I mean

is that if we if we got the city to rally around arbor day this year saying you know this year and forever going forward until we get really exact numbers, which someday hopefully we'll get. We're committing to plant 120 new trees as our stake in the ground that we're going to recover that 1% that we lost. That would be a reasonable number to aim for. Okay. All right.

I I can add that, you know, I think it's possible to come to a number. I don't think we have a a firm number for you tonight, but um you know it would be significant if you consider the entire area of the city in in square feet and then you go back through the tables and see what kind of square footage we get per tree. Um 1% would be pretty significant. So we don't want to have that lost uh in this discussion at all. And that's kind of why we're recommending tonight that the 10% um kind of gets approved and then we can continue doing what we can to keep preserving and replacing trees in the city to get as close to replacing that 1% as we can.

As you've uh no doubt heard the mayor speak often about her uh interest in metrics for anything that we do. And it strikes me that uh you know it would help uh if we had a target that we had reasonable assurance was reasonable to aim for year in and year out just to give people some sense that they could get their hands around this issue and do something about it.

Support the neighborhood tree program. um the tree canopy assessment that you mentioned. I mean obviously it's better if we can like hitch our wagon to a broader regional assessment, but this is something that Fairfax and Arlington are doing regularly, I understand. Um so is that something that we should think about adding to our CIP future CIP recommendations? Like a a a project I'm not sure if it would hit the cost threshold for it's not,000. Yeah. Right. Uh well, it may be. I I haven't gotten a cost uh estimate yet. I'm kind of working with

uh some others to kind of get that mo moving, but I don't have just I don't have any idea what the number would be for what our or what our flyover would cost. Okay. Well, maybe we can keep it in mind. If you if you do get the number, um I think we'd be interested in knowing what it is because it's it's important. Um Okay. I think that's it from me. Uh Mr. Stevens, did you want to make the motion? Yeah, sure. Uh, first of all, credit staff. I like the length and the composition of the motion. So, uh, appreciate that very much. Uh, I move that the planning commission recommends that city council adopt TO25-22 amending zoning regulations related to commercial tree canopy minimum requirements in the city of Falls Church. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Kavinsky. Second. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Turner. Mr. Pollinsky. Yes, Mr. Duncan. Yes, Mr. Stevens. Yes, Mr. Kinsky. Yes, Chaircom. Yes. Thank you. Motion passes. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks for coming out tonight. Thank you very much. Great seeing you. Thank you.

All right. Uh, brings us to our minutes from the February 18th meeting. Mr. Duncan, did you catch something? Your eagle eye. I didn't see anything in these. It seems like there was something on the line 169ish, Jack. I I it was just a little typo. I can't remember what it was now. The number stuck in my mind, but uh 168 or 169. What did I find there that I haven't invented this? Scroll down a little more, Jack.

Oh, updated. It should be update is there we go. It's a tense issue on 16 line 169 169 doc planning commission as an update to the city's comprehensive plan. And then somewhere and I don't have the number for that but there was a reference to greenhouse gases rather than greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases.

It's not it's not gases at a house that's blue or yellow or green. There we go. That's the only thing that I saw. A masterful job as always of capturing lengthy and sometimes Yeah. I hope AI has been helpful to you, Jack. These are uh 100% handmade uh minutes. So, artistally Jack's recipe last few months. I think we need to put AI in the budget to get Jack off the hook.

They're very good. I think they're very accurate to our discussions and they have a lot of detail which is really helpful for the community. So, I appreciate it. All right. With those two slight additions, corrections, I move approval of the minutes of the meeting as presented. Second. Second with Mr. Pinsky. All in favor? I I All right. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Uh no work session tonight. Uh so that brings us to our information items. Any commissioner reports? Just just credit to our chair who hung in there uh very late on Monday to hear all of it. Council discussion. So we appreciate you doing that.

A lot of media items on their agenda that evening. Yeah, that was good. I would like to hear from Mr. on Virginia Village timeline stuff. So, I'll hold my I'll hold my credits for that. I think Mr. Matusk, we're ready for you. Director's report. Thank you. I do. Oh, sorry, Mr. Kinsky.

That's all right. Um I did um I reached out to um Miss Meister, Cindy Mester um and Jack uh about the cable franchise agreements. I just wanted to give an update. Um, and rather than let me just read you what Cindy wrote back. I asked her a couple of questions about timing of the franchise agreements and and um particularly about our leverage with regard to uh the dual polls and things like that which we've been discussing. Anyway, so here's a response. Uh the city is working to extend the uh existing franchise agreements under current terms for four years and then we will do a full RFP process for longer uh sorry I just lost it. Uh a AI has tried to summarize that for me. It just jumped in. Um uh and then we will do a uh uh longer refine uh uh refined terms. Uh this is an administrative effort uh under the city's managers authority uh the federal state code requirements for RFPs are complex and longer work plan item. uh also the industry is changing as we know and that cable is uh going to be less used in place of streaming. Uh the RFP process concludes community includes community surveys, public hearings, uh commission input and council actions by ordinance. So I asked her about the um dual pose poles. Under the current agreements, cable maintenance and dual double pole removal is required. Um and

staff is continuing to coordinate with the cable companies and Dominion uh to initiate citywide cleanup through their regional work and order uh and work order system. Um and then I asked her about the legislative process which we said we wanted to pursue. Um although included in the city's legislative program as recommended by the planning commission, there is no 2026 general assembly legislation to mandate undergrounding of existing lines or nor a state budget or rate authority to cover the costs of undergrounding. similar to what we do with power lines. So, uh, that was her response. It looks like right now all they're going to do is extend the existing franchises. We probably won't even see that. Um, it'll probably go directly to the city manager for approval. And then sometime four years from now, uh, they will redo the franchise agreements and that will include public engagement. I would only suggest that um since we are all concerned about the dual polls if there is a requirement in the existing um franchise agreements we need to the city manager or to to really push that as hard as possible. I'm not quite sure what the penalty is. Um, I guess the penalty is you wouldn't get your franchise agreement renewed. Uh, but it seems to me like we need the city manager to enforce that requirement of getting rid of those dual polls.

So, okay, good. Thank you, Mr. Kinsky, for staying on that issue. Uh, Mr. Machusk.

All right. So, Monday evening, uh I know some of you joined us for uh another update on Virginia Village. Uh staff has gotten to a practice of returning to the council every two or three months uh with some status updates uh better understand uh what's happening behind the scenes, what we're queuing up for the next couple of months. So this week's update uh allowed us to highlight uh really kind of the more intense public engagement efforts that we are targeting for March and April which as I think we all agree need to be the first steps in this longer process to reconcile the vision for that property since it currently lives in several different documents. kind of straddles two different small area plans um and doesn't really quite uh conveniently match up with the recent objectives of achieving and expanding affordable housing on that property. So, what we're doing is kind of looking at a number of different venues uh week nights and weekends to uh target as many folks as we can, both those that live near or at the property plus uh residents that are elsewhere in the city boundaries. uh because I think a lot of people may have opinions about this uh and through that effort we hope to really largely verify that previously established guidance which I think took some time to develop and went through a meaningful process. We believe a large number of that is still valid and we want to kind of confirm that with the community and make sure that we carry it forward. Uh and if there are any other adjustments additional you know modifications that have to be considered March and April will be the opportunity to do that. Uh so March is when we would kind of have those interactive engagements uh and uh see where the community might be on this and in April we would follow back up with here's what we heard here's how we think we need to synthesize this and really at that point have a sense of to

what degree if at all the two small area plans might need to be amended. uh I think at a minimum the feedback we've collected so far suggests that the guidance now that we are proceeding in this path should live in just one single small area plan. So there is a likelihood that the uh downtown guidance might shift to uh the other area plan which already includes the majority of Virginia Village. Um, but we would anticipate that once some of those engagements conclude, we would come back here, I believe, on April 15th for kind of a summary recap of what we heard. Uh, that would be followed by another council work session. And at that point, which is shown on the slide here, we would be shifting to the next phase of engagement, which is taking us into May and June. And at that point, once we understand what changes may be necessary to the small area plans, we may also better understand if that guidance needs to be better memorialized or documented in the city code. So, we're starting to now bleed into setting the groundwork for how would we review any proposals if a developer uh comes in to in a phased approach redevelop portions of this property. So May and June are those opportunities for the more detailed, more technical conversations about here's how we think we can uh document all the feedback we've heard. So we'll have a lineup of different meetings that we want to attend getting into initiating resolution, first and second reading, and we believe late June, early July, that process should conclude. Uh the reason we're using this graphic to highlight that is because we're being very efficient with our time this year. uh being mindful of some of the tax credit deadlines that are approaching in March of 2027. And as we do that, planning and housing staff are going to be working with some uh economic uh real estate consultants to help develop a

request for proposals that we would want to issue uh at some point uh in early May, midmay, by which point we probably have a good sense of what the vision updates are. uh in that two-month window from May to June would allow folks to uh react to the RFP, we would have uh obviously opportunities to meet and answer questions. If the boards and commission process highlights any final tweaks and adjustments, we can always issue an addendum to the RFP, which is quite common. But really, we want to get to a point where late June, we are beginning to receive proposals for the RFP because what that would do is give us really the month of July and August to establish a selection committee that will then review those applications and work uh through the end of summer to identify the development team we would like to partner with. And that takes us to a second half of the year, which we'll present uh in the next couple of weeks. But we just wanted to highlight what to expect over the next six months because there will be uh getting busier and busier. So, um what you'll see is this item will be in front of the council again on Monday the 9th for the initiating resolution. And that's kind of the typical process where we want to make sure everybody's in agreement that we should proceed and start that engagement and there's no surprises about why we're doing it. So, that was the update Monday evening. And I know we had a lot of clarifying questions about, you know, the schedule and uh what's included and when. So, pretty good highlight uh video to watch if if you haven't been catching up, but a lot of it, I think, is in our presentation and staff report as well.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Matusk. Yeah, I agree. It was a really helpful presentation on Monday. Um any I think we were there, Mr. Pinsky, you were you didn't attend, right? Yeah, that no worries. Um do you have any questions? Uh No questions. Uh because I have not reviewed the materials, it feels unfair to ask questions that are probably solved by reading those. Um but mostly just interested in the uh selection committee like who's on the selection committee. How does that get chosen? Um and how does that RP process work? Um because of the disparate ownership current disparate ownership structure, like how are how would we bring people in? But I go take a look at the presentation before u like spending a lot of time talking about that.

I mean I I know some initial thoughts because I think internally we are discussing it. I think there are some natural uh I think targets for this selection committee, planning commission, housing commission, EDA council, maybe some staff. So I I think we're going to work through that over the next few weeks. uh but really make sure that by late June I think everybody that needs to be there um is uh participating. I think we have a kind of specific target schedule for when those folks can reconvene and have conversations. Um so I think we have some breathing room to develop that but uh we'll certainly be looking for representation from the key groups. Has there been any consideration, and I don't know if this is a thing that even happens, of like having current or former residents of Virginia Village involved in that selection committee?

I wouldn't rule it out. Um I think it's something we just need to discuss with leadership and and kind of assess what is a meaningful number. Uh we don't want it to be too large. Um but at the same time, I think we want to make sure a wide range of voices can be heard. Okay. Thanks. Um yeah, we had a selection committee on the um high school and to select the vendor for that and it it worked I thought very successfully and you know very positive outcome. So hopefully this will follow in the same footsteps. Great. Um Mr. Duncan

just wanted to thank Matt for a masterful job in laying out what's a very uh complex and uh involved process in a way that made it seem manageable, doable. U applaud everybody's commitment to keep working on this through the summer. Don't uh don't get anything accomplished unless we work 12 months a year here. And uh it's good that I think the meetings of v various groups involved are going to continue and work will not take a big 90-day pause after Memorial Day. Uh just a request that our meeting schedule planning commission gets plugged into wherever our name popped up on his tenative calendar. Uh so that we know, you know, to be prepared for whatever chance uh to take whatever opportunity we can get to influence the process early on. um and by being ready for having read all the materials prior to the meetings where the planning commission is supposed to be heard from. But thank you very much for all the work. Uh and I have to pass the kudos over to a number of staff who are kind of using this opportunity to really bring planning and housing into the fold. And I think you're going to see a lot of uh common faces and sub, you know, subsequent meetings as we provide updates kind of what we heard. Um Jack's been playing a pretty critical role uh a lot of the staff report and presentation. So uh you'll see a lot of familiar faces as we go forward.

Always happy.

Yeah, thanks for adding that. Sorry. Jack did a great job. Dana, Brendan, others who yeah, hopefully we'll get uh get to see a lot of in the coming months um so that we can keep moving on this. I uh made a wise crack at the meeting that I was an old man in a hurry when it comes to this issue. But uh it's not just uh just my particular bias for action, but uh I pulled up a copy of the news press which talked about the urgent need for affordable housing and how we're facing a real dilemma of losing some of the units that we have. And we really need to get to work on this. And I looked at the date and it was uh in 2007 197 19 years ago. So that's just a indication of how long we have been trying and I hope that we have finally reached a sort of moment of critical effort that will push this across the finish line in the next foreseeable future. I I think the one thing I'll mention on the schedule because it's come up since day one and it's going to keep coming up, but I do suspect as we go through this schedule, you get into spring, you get into early summer, I think there will be less and less anxiety as we're going to continue to prove that this is in fact executable. Uh but most importantly the bigger picture and why I think this is as aggressive as it is because we only control what we control. There's so many other variables that have to happen beyond this year that could just naturally delay this. So I think what we're trying to do is play our part. Even a minor delay uh or let me put it this way even the most aggressive schedule which is what we're following still we're 5 years away from delivering a building. M

I mean 2031 like that's that's the aggressive schedule.

You know if we pause if we take our sweet time if we kind of not be as efficient with our resources that that quick very quickly balloons to 20 33 four or five um and you know we have existing sites throughout the city that have expiring ADUs. We're being very mindful of that. Um cost of living is going up. There's a lot of pressures to really deliver on this as quickly as we can. Um, and I I think this council has been very strategic about the purpose behind some of these recent acquisitions. So, I I think we are in alignment and we want to make sure we bring everybody along with us. Um, and I think as you'll see, you know, the reason we believe so boldly and why this is achievable is we're not drafting a brand new vision for an entire neighborhood. We are simply revisiting a very well-defined set of guidance for a particular site. That's a very different exercise. And I think we're being mindful of not just erasing all those past efforts, but making sure we can reaffirm them and just keep moving forward with what's already on the books. And I think once people realize that, it kind of changes the mindset of how achievable this is. So I I'm hoping that the next two months really highlight that and once we come back in uh April, we're kind of having a different perspective on it.

It's definitely aggressive. Yeah. But I'm glad we're moving quickly on it. It's an urgent urgent need. Um I have a question about the um boundaries. There was some discussion in the meeting about whether we would do we need to touch both of these small area plans or could we just do I mean I don't know Jack if you can pull up the staff report you can see um the boundaries for on page two. So, Virginia Village is almost entirely in the South Washington, right,

small area plan, and there's just a few lots that are city-owned in the downtown. So, I think I heard you say, if I understood the exchange correctly with Mr. Bregman, that it would be pretty easy to adjust that boundary to pull everything in Virginia Village into that South Washington. Is that correct? I I think it's a matter of uh tweaking a handful of maps and removing a couple bullets and pasting them into a different document. So I

and it doesn't require any sort of uh community kind of I we don't have to do anything sort of like formal to adjust the boundaries for these small area plans that have been adopted you know with these particular boundaries. I mean I'm just trying to figure out logistics for how we can only touch one small area plan and not two unless you think there's value in touching both of them. So, there's a couple answers in that. Uh, legally, we don't have to touch any of them. Uh, we don't have to update anything. It's just guidance. Yeah.

And I think a clever legal approach would probably find a way to navigate within the parameters of these plans and still probably get to a reasonable outcome. I I think to really be honest with the community and and not surprise anyone, feel make make everyone feel like they've been participating in what I think is a subtle change to the direction for this property. We do want to, you know, proactively revisit those. Um, April and and March are really not to get into the weeds of exact changes to those plans, but rather speaking in a language that I think everybody can understand, not just, you know, planning experts, uh, and understand what do we mean when we say setbacks, light and air, transitions, green buffers, you know, kind of getting a really clear understanding for everyone of what we are trying to accomplish, what the intent is. And once we obtain that and everybody is generally in agreement, May and uh May and June are going to be the months where we really open up the two area plans potentially the city code and see okay how do we translate what we just heard so that in the future whether it's staff community or applicants want to redevelop this property they maybe just have one reference document to look at um and then I think by that point we'll have some answers on what that looks like and to the deg the degree to which we need to update the plans at Okay. So, I guess I would just like thinking about how we're sort of talking about this like the communication to the community that visioning step in the process. Um, just want to be clear like if you three line 325 on page 11 looking at the public engagement like that community visioning workshop is specifically for Virginia village. Is that right? Am I understanding that correctly?

Correct. Uh one of the things that uh I believe Jack's presentation Monday night highlighted was that we are not reopening the entire small area plan. Yeah. Targeted, right? This is very surgical strike just to one property. Uh and because of that, you know, a very very small percentage of that area plan actually speaks to that one property. Uh there's a lot of broader regional guidance, uh citywide guidance. Um and that allows us to I think have a much more manageable process because there's so few things that even are in play for consideration of potential changes.

Yeah. So I guess in the naming here I'm just thinking it's a little vague. What are we visioning this community visioning workshop number one? Can we can we be clear that it's specifically about visioning for Virginia Village if that's the case? Correct. just in how we're publicizing it, how we're inviting people, like just you know what's next for Virginia Village, share your thoughts kind of approach like if that's what we're trying to do with these workshops. It is and I and I think we

and I understand that it's broader like there's a sort of a broader area right um that's implicated um we have to understand how it all fits but if that's the focus the area of focus like I just think it helps to in include those terms. Yeah, and I think planning housing staff are also going to partner with our communications team and and not just kind of help with the social media push and website presence, but also kind of using the right words to make sure we're attracting the the right stakeholders and everybody understands why they're there. Yes. So, I I think having non-planners in the room is a great filter to make sure like, you know, did we get it right? Yeah.

Will anybody be confused? Uh, so that's still ahead of us in the next couple of weeks. quick turnaround, but it's exciting. I'm really happy that we're we're moving on this and uh congratulations to you, the driving force, I think, behind a lot of this with a lot of really excellent staff um helping you. So, looking forward to working with you on it. Um and and and on that note, uh our public hearing, so just for the commission, like we'll have a a work session on this April 15th. Uh and then two in sorry yes one in April 15th. Of course everybody should be um feel free to attend all of these public engagement. I think you'll hear a lot of really interesting discussion from the community at these. So I'd encourage you if you're available to attend these envisioning workshops. Um but we have April 15th for planning commission work session and then uh another work session in May, one in June and then our public hearing would also be in June. That's our our kind of engagement schedule so far.

Yeah. And the staff report I think strategically uh avoids specific dates beyond really midappril. Uh being mindful of the budget conversations, some agendas are pretty fixed. Uh so I think working with the clerk's office, the manager's office, you know, once we get maybe past this month, uh we'll have a better sense of maybe which dates make more sense. And I think the council schedule and calendar will inform when we can visit this body and have kind of a sequence of meetings that kind of allows us to save as much time as possible, but still give enough I think status updates working our way to the public hearing.

Great. Do you know if there's any expectation may probably might be too early to know but for the visioning workshops if there'll be a virtual option as well for people to join um primarily in person

there may be I think for the April ones the March ones I think we're envisioning to be really hands-on where I think we want to have a diverse audience to sit at various tables uh part of the strategy is to kind of make sure we separate uh specific groups so if a bunch of renters show up and then a bunch of homeowners show up. Can we kind of mix them up and make sure they're hearing each other? Um, we'll start finalizing the logistics of it, but I think the virtual option for that one might be very challenging if you're not there. I think the April recap that staff might provide might have a better opportunity, but I think it will be a limited uh chance for full engagement uh if you're not there for the conversation. So, but that's something we'll keep considering.

Thank you. And then each of these small area plans are almost 200 pages. So, I assume you're going to be pulling relevant guidance that's relevant to the Virginia Village decision or visioning for the community to bring bring it bring that into those discussions in a way. Yeah, we already have that. It's just a matter of kind of how best to present it and provide like a cheat sheet if you will. Yeah. Yeah. It's not everybody's going to read the 200 almost 200page small area plans. It may stop them from coming to the meeting. Yeah. Yeah, a little bit of homework. All right. Anything else on this?

Uh the only thing uh first of all, kudos. Uh I thought it's a very well thoughtout process. Um I was struck by what uh Miss Underh Hill and the mayor also reiterated about community engagement. uh you're dealing with renters who may not feel as empowered and potentially it's going to be it's going to be very challenging to get uh a good group of people who are really going to be affected. But you got to you got to get them in the room. You got to figure out how to get them in the room. Um, I think the housing staff probably has the best connections with that community and you really need to leverage them uh to get get those folks in the room. I I was a little disappointed when you the first engagement was five people showed up. There should be more than that, you know. We got to we got to figure out how to get them engaged in the process. Yeah, we're fully utilizing our resources. Um, our housing staff was able to let leave uh pamphlets for every door in that community. Um, we're going to continue to ensure outreach occurs and kind of have more of an in-person presence at that site. Uh, kind of make sure folks have a chance to, you know, talk with us, have answers to their questions. Um, and I think we're also re utilizing the resources with uh management companies or the rental buildings, the multif family buildings elsewhere in the city because I think there's a lot of interest in affordability affordable options uh from those folks.

All right. Anything else on this? No. Any correspondence? Oh, we have the letter, the nice letter from the ESC. Did everybody get a chance to read that? Yes. Any thoughts, Mr. Stevens? I hope it's successful. I agree. Yeah, I'm really glad that they're taking up that research on their own. Um, not an easy task. Yeah. So, but I think it will they'll serve as some useful suggestions that uh hopefully staff can can incorporate. So, I'm looking forward to hearing more about that. All right. With that, I think we're Octo.

Oh, yeah. We didn't do the look ahead. We got to get back to our look ahead culture. Yes. March 18th. Uh 258 North Washington Street site plan. Uh what is that, Mr. Matusk? I I can take this too. This is uh this is um a T-zone property. Uh historic property. Um not quite sure what the current tenants are. It's a it's a the one that says Paris on it. I I believe so. Yeah. Um so they've uh recently submitted uh site plan

uh that would convert it into a um uh convert not obviously keep preserving the existing historic structure but adding in addition to it uh creating a a residential uh concept. Yeah. I remember the um owner of that property came in during the T-zone um public comment period. Do you remember him? Yeah. Yeah. Does that represent our first um beyond the town houses avenue property? Yes. Yeah. And is that fairly baked? I mean, are we I'm just trying to plan my schedule a little bit for March. I'm pretty sure they're going to be here for us to listen to them on March 18th.

Yes. They've submitted. So, uh in order to meet the new the clock is ticking. The new uh clock. Yeah. We had to get them in this meeting versus um about a month later in April. It'd be too late then. Okay. Any updates to the process we've been using to capture planning commission recommendations to to the designated agent? This is a site plan which we pro provide recommendations on now but do not approve.

No no updates but if if there are recommendations on uh any improvements to the process those are certainly welcome. I think otherwise we'd stay with the kind of template memo we used last time uh summarizing the application land use and then um uh and then you and I would work together uh chair to summarize the planning commission's recommendations for the designated agent that we would put into the template in

I think that's how we did it the first time and then the most recent time with Mr. Zang, wasn't it? Uh, we had a motion like the whole commission, we wrote we wrote our recommendations live on the screen and then approved it as a group and I think I prefer that because then I'm not trying to figure reflect. So, I thought that worked well on that particular we'll see how it goes on this one. Okay. But, um, I'd prefer that if possible. Okay.

Yeah. I think there's I think what worked well from my recollection was there's a natural conversation of kind of clarifying questions, curiosity, you know, some debate with the applicant and I think at some point in the conversation we get to a point where maybe more formal comments uh kind of initiate. So I I think with each one we're going to get a better feel for that transition and kind of signal to staff that okay, I think it's time to write some things down. And I think everybody's goal is to walk away and not really look back in terms of what was said, you know, have follow-up emails about it. So I it it's something I think we're kind of gauging project by project. And I think as the year goes on and we have more and more applications, we we're going to keep tracking to see how things went and I'm sure later this year have some type of a maybe report out on, you know, the first three, four, five site plans that are following this new protocol.

Okay, sounds good. All right. Well, we will look forward to that. And I think that's the only thing you're seeing for us on the 18th. Okay. That's right. We'll um update the schedule, too, with the uh Virginia Village dates, too, that are known. So, those can be part of the ongoing kind of reminder and public record. Okay. And we cancelled the one that would have been on April 1st because that's spring break and there's a bunch of people out, right? That's correct. There's also a holiday. There was a holiday conflict I believe for the April 1st. That's why that was take care of that. Oh, okay. Great. Yeah. I'm out of town that week. So, I guess I didn't cancel it on my calendar.

Uh what was the other Oh, April 1st is the it's a holiday and uh and spring break. Yeah. So, the only So, April 15th is the only scheduled planning commission meeting for April. Would you mind recirculating our meeting schedule? Sure. Um I'm sure it's in my materials somewhere, but Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? No. All right. If not, I think we're adjourned. Thank you very much.