►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
25Th
is
that
today's
date
January
25th
meeting
at
the
County
Board
to
order,
as
we
continue
from
our
recess
of
yesterday,
the
24th
and,
as
you
will
recall,
the
discussion
is
now
with
the
board
on
this
item
number
33
and
colleagues
to
organize
our
discussion
today.
I
propose
that
we
first
go
through
and
look
at
all
of
the
RTA
topic
areas
that
are
under
discussion
and
give
you
an
opportunity
to
have
any
clarifying
questions
or
conversation
with
staff.
A
We
have
many
members
of
the
staff
team
here
in
person,
which
is
a
welcome
site
and
I
think
we'll
soon
be
joined
by
a
representative
of
the
Planning
Commission,
who
will
also
be
available
to
participate
in
that
discussion,
but
to
just
go
in
order.
Why
don't
we
start
with
the
maximum
number
of
units
per
site
to
see
if
there
are
any
questions
about
the
options?
One
I'm,
sorry,
one
a
and
one
b
or
the
general
topic
overall.
A
A
B
This
question
I'm
confident
but
not
certain
I
know
the
answer
of
I
did
want.
I
did
think
it's
important
to
ask.
It
concerns
really
2A
2B.
B
My
understanding,
I
think
this
is
for
our
attorney
that,
under
the
request
to
advertise
and
one
since
we're
scoping
this,
so
we
want
to
know
what
our
options
could
be
in
March
if
we
elected
to,
for
example,
in
2B,
if
we
elected
to
say
for
our
six
slots
that
we
wanted
a
minimum
lot
size-
and
this
is
not
likely
because
of
but
we
wanted
to
change
that
9
000
square
feet
to
10
000
square
feet
at
adoption
as
a
minimum
would
be,
would
we
be
able
to
do
that
or
not
the
thinking
to
give
you
you
know.
B
The
thinking
is
that
the
thinking
might
be
and
I've
been
considering
this
would
we
be
able
to
reduce
the
amount
of
density
or
the
locate
the
number
of
properties
wherein
you
could
have
those
say,
five
unit
dwellings.
C
Okay,
so,
generally
speaking,
you
could
require
a
larger
Site
Area
minimum,
because
that
would
be
restricting
how
much
density
could
be
created.
However,
what
is
in
and
outside
of
scope
will
really
depend
on
which
option
you
choose,
because
the
options
are
fairly
complex
and
they're
not
limited
only
to
Site
Area,
so
it
really
depends
on
which
lever
you
pull
I,
suppose
to
to
determine
whether
or
not
it's
in
scope
and
and
that's
why
we
have
five
options.
B
Got
it?
Okay,
that's
that's
helpful.
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
get
the
the
broader
point
out
there
and
mindful
that
in
each
box,
in
each
area
of
these,
the
specifics
will
certainly
matter,
but
if
we
want
to
make
change
to
allow
less
density
depending
on
the
specifics,
it
could
be
allowable
for
us.
Okay,
that's
really!
The
the
the
only
big
question.
B
I
think
you
we
were
going
to
just
go
through
for
questions
correct.
So
that's
that's!
The
question
I
had
thank
you.
Mr,
chair,
thank.
D
D
We
could
ask
staff
to
speak
a
little
bit
more
towards
two
option:
two
D,
which
is
I,
think
a
very
thoughtful
recommendation
that
you
all
have
generated,
trying
to
square
the
circle
of
the
fact
that
we
have
to
something
two
objectives
that
are
somewhere
to
some
extent
competing,
which
is
that
the
general
appropriateness
for
more
density
in
keeping
with
Arlington's
general
practice
has
been
closer
to
Transit.
Yet
it
is
also
likely,
as
the
most
appropriate
places
for
more
density
will
be
areas
with
the
greatest
lot
size.
D
Could
you
walk
us
through
a
little
bit
more
option
2D
and
how
it
refines
the
recommendation
from
the
Planning
Commission,
which
I
believe
is
encapsulated
into
c,
to
address,
that
desire
to
potentially
distribute
some
of
the
density
closer
to
Transit,
while
also
being
mindful
of
those
smaller
lot
sizes.
E
E
So
there
are
four
options
for
minimum
site
area
in
the
in
the
staff
report
and
I
believe
Miss,
Crystal,
you're,
asking
about
2D
correct
so
and
you
did
identify
the
main
challenge
that
we
have
here,
which
is
that
are
lots
that
tend
to
be
closer
to
our
our
Transit
are,
are
tend
to
be
smaller
than
the
lots
that
are
farther
away
from
transit
and
when
we're
talking
about
the
number
of
units
that
might
be
appropriate
for
a
site
or
the
minimum,
the
minimum
Site
Area
that
might
be
appropriate.
E
We
also
want
to
think
about.
We
have
some
very
large
units
that
could
accommodate
a
larger
buildings,
so
2D
sort
of
tries
to
Circle
that
square
a
little
bit
and
if
I
could
just
walk
through
the
standards
there.
So
this
would
set
for
two
to
four
unit
buildings.
E
E
If
it's
higher
for
six
plexes
and
then
the
same
of
eight
thousand
square
feet
minimum
for
eight
plexes,
and
so,
if
you
compare
on
our
chart
of
the
number
of
properties
that
would
be
eligible
for
different
number
of
units,
with
the
yellow
being
a
maximum
of
four
and
the
the
green
being
six
and
the
blue
being
eight.
E
It's
it's
sort
of
between
option
2B,
which
would
have
most
of
the
county
limited
to
to
four
units
and
the
planning
commissions
their
suggested
option.
2C,
which
is
to
be,
but
for
Transit
proximate
sites
would
be
allowed
to
go
to
to
whatever
the
the
maximum
number
of
units
is.
E
It's
it's
sort
of
a
compromise
between
those
two
that
would,
you
know,
recognize
that
we
do
have
smaller
Lots
near
Transit,
where
we
could
have
six
plexes
and
eight
plexes,
but
also
puts
a
little
bit
of
a
a
backstop
to
make
sure
that
there
wouldn't
be
six
plexes
on
on
sites
smaller
than
six
thousand
square
feet
or
eight
Plex
is
on
site
smaller
than
8
000
square
feet.
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I'm
sure
we
will
have
a
lot
of
conversation,
Mr
Ladd,
on
on
all
options
too,
to
the
two
operands
I
want
just
to
understand
a
little
bit.
The
difference
between
I
mean
following
up
on
the
same
line
with
Miss
Crystal.
So
did
we.
Actually,
you
know
is
that
this
is
the
the
pro
forma
visibility
on
smaller
Lots,
close
on
on
2C,
the
performance
feasibility
on
or
up
to
up
to
eight
in
transit
proximate.
But
this
is
not
really
the
reality
on
the
on
on
on.
E
That's
that's
correct
our
analysis
that
we've
done
with
the
with
the
consultant
and
then
additional
test
fits
of
different
unit
Types
on
different
size,
lots
that
we
shared
during
the
zoko
process.
You
know
showed
that
larger
unit
counts
just
really
aren't
feasible
on
sites
of
say,
5000
square
feet,
so
this
option
2C
and
also
option
2A,
which
isn't
shown
on
the
screen.
That's
that's
the
option
that
would
just
keep
the
same
minimum
Site
Area
that
we
have
for
each
zoning
District.
E
It
really
would
be
based
on
there's
a
maximum
building
envelope
that
you
can
achieve
On
Any
Given
site
after
you
account
for
setbacks
and
lot
coverage
and
height
and
all
the
other
zoning
standards,
the
parking
requirements,
and
so
under
that
option
2A
or
with
2C
in
the
transit
proximate
areas,
it
would
be
you
set
a
building.
Envelope
of
this
is
the
this
is
the
size
of
building
that
the
zoning
allows
and
within
that
it
would
be
up
to
the
property
owner
to
determine
how
many
units
would
be
marketable
within
that
building
envelope.
A
B
D
Franti,
thank
you
Mr
chair.
This
is
concerning
Transit
and
I
need
a
refresher
on
premium.
Transit
networks
we
currently
have
two
is
that
right?
Is
it
Crystal,
City
and
and
Columbia
Pike
I'm
just
trying
to
get
my
terminal.
E
Yeah,
so
the
the
premium
Transit
network
is
is
defined
in
our
Master
Transportation
plan,
which,
as
you
know,
is
an
element
of
our
comprehensive
plan,
and
it
is
the
the
Columbia
Pike
and
also
the
route
one
Corridor
Crystal
City
Pentagon
City
Potomac.
B
Yard
so
and
thank
you
I
did
know,
it
was
an
element,
but
I
have
not
I
know
we're
updating
our
Master
Transportation
plan,
but
I
clearly
have
do
not
have
memorized
What
premium
is
if
we
added
to
the
premium
Transit,
Network
and
I,
don't
know
whether
this
this
is
probably
a
question
that
you
may
know
are
also
County
attorney
may
know,
or
both
if
we
updated
subsequently
to
a
premium.
Transit
Networks
through
the
master
Transportation
plan
would
would
we
need
to,
under
our
code,
go
through
the
RTA
process
and
a
zoning
change
type
process.
E
So
the
way
the
text
is
drafted
in
defining
these
Transit
proximate
areas
for
the
it
was
first
for
the
purposes
of
parking
ratios
and
I
know
we'll
talk
about
that,
but
also
the
Planning
Commission
had
suggested
this
option
to
see
that
would
rely
on
the
transit
proximity
standard
for
for
minimum
site
area
as
well.
So
those
are
defined
in
the
master
Transportation
plan
and
in
the
zoning
text.
It
refers
to
those
in
the
transportation
plan,
the
premium
Transit
Network,
the
primary
Transit
at
work.
E
B
Great
I,
that's
helpful,
I,
just
wonder
if
that
it
would
result
under
2D
in
an
effective
change
in
density.
So
I
just
want
to
check.
Is
that
aligned
with
your
sense,
miscore
and
County
attorney
sense
of
it?
It's
a
reference
right
and
and
if
we
need
to
come
back
to
this
but
I
I,
guess
it
wouldn't
be
a
change
technically,
wouldn't
be
a
change
in
zoning.
It
would
just
be
a
change
through
the
definition
of
eho,
so
we
would
not
need
to
do
all
the
steps
to
advertise
and
Matt
correct
me.
B
C
B
It
would
happen
anyway,
yeah,
okay,
all
right,
thanks
for
bearing
with
me
on
that.
I
did
not
know
that
off
the
top.
So
thank
you,
Mr,
chair.
A
A
F
So
the
option
3B,
which
basically
prohibits
ehos
on
sites
that
are
bigger
than
one
acre
except
AF-
and
this
was
part
of
the
staff
report,
if
I'm
not
wrong,
if
they
are
so,
you
know
submitted
for
a
study.
F
Etc
that
do
I
understand
it
correctly,
so
the
County
Board
would
have
would
would
have
to
be
asked
to
initiate
a
process
of
studying
this.
These
bigger.
E
Sites
well,
the
County
Board
would
so
option.
3A
is-
and
this
is
only
concerning
sites
that
are
currently
it's
currently
larger
than
one
acre,
and
so
it
would
be
an
application
process
for
a
use
permit.
Just
just
like
the
County
Board
hears
use
permits
today,
an
applicant
would
would
fill
out
an
application
and
there
would
be
a
public
hearing
and
the
County
Board
would
act
to
approve
or
deny
the
use
permit.
F
But
3B
is
making
it
absolutely
impossible,
I
mean
there
is
no
provision,
so
nobody
would
say,
look
I
can
have
an
and
you
can
have
an
h0
development
subdivider
the
big
side
and
come
with
ehos
as
a
proposal
for
a
use
permit.
They
would
have
to
come
to
the
County,
Board
and
say
I
would
ask
you
to
ask
staff
to
study
the
side
with
the
with
a
with
a
plan,
a
Redevelopment
plan
right
right.
E
If,
for
for
that
instance,
an
applicant
could
request
a
special
glove
study,
an
amendment
to
the
general
land
use
plan
to
to
change
the
general
land
use
plan,
and
we
have
we
have
a
process
in
place
for
that.
That
would
be
under
option
3B,
which
would
prohibit
eho
development
on
sites
larger
than
an
acre,
even
with
a
use.
Permit
the
options
for
that
property
owner
would
be
develop,
developed
by
right,
one,
family
housing
or
to
request
a
special
glove
study.
A
Just
to
square
that
circle
on
what
I
don't
want
to
be
inferring
what
Mr
Karen
Thomas
was
was
leading
to,
but
it
doesn't
prohibit
eho
types
from
ending
up
on
sites
larger
than
one
acre.
It's
just
that
the
vehicle
to
achieve
it
wouldn't
be
through
the
ehl
program.
It
would
be
through
a
larger
study
and
review
by
staff
in
the
board
that
ultimately
permitted
something
to
be
built.
There.
E
Well,
it
would,
it
would
prohibit
option.
3B
would
prohibit
the
the
standards
for
eho
development
right
from
being
applied
to
that
site.
It
doesn't
mean
that
something
else
couldn't
happen
through
a
rezoning
or
through
other
County
Board
actions.
A
G
E
F
Chair
but
Mr
to
understand
that
so
in
a
used
pyramid,
if,
if
it's
3A
so
it
the
question
would
be,
does
the
board
agree
to
apply
the
ho
standards
or
not
right?
So
that's
that's
the
so,
and
and
if
the
board
agrees
to
apply
the
age
of
Standards,
then
all
everything
else,
let
the
setbacks,
the
trees
and
all
this
would
apply
Us
in
the
rest
of
the
aho
standards.
If
3B
is
the
case,
then
the
glove
study
could
render
more
conditions
or
more.
You
know
more
design.
E
Yeah
all
the
rest,
yes
right
and
and
we're
and
I'm
focusing
on
the
glut,
but
likely
what
would
need
to
happen
is
the
County
Board
would
need
to
amend
the
glup.
They
would
need
to
rezone
the
site.
There
would
probably
be
a
site
plan
with
conditions,
so
it
would.
There
would
be
multiple
County
Board
actions
that
would
need
to
happen
well.
F
A
All
right
shall
we
move
to
number
four
lock
coverage
allowances,
and
that
is
inclusive
of
options.
4A
and
4B.
F
We
received
testimony,
and
this
is
for
our
County
attorney
or
anybody
else.
We
received
testimony
that
was
asking
whether
we
could
substitute,
for
example,
the
detached
garage
coverage,
the
five
percent,
with
something
else
like,
for
example,
compliance
with
the
Green
Home
Choice
program
or,
for
example,
giving
a
bonus
still
within
the
maximum
limits
of
coverage
for
preservation
of
an
old
building.
Is
that
an
option
or
why?
What
are
the
criteria
to
to
attach
to
this?
To
these
three
and
five
percent?
F
Three
percent
is
very
clear
to
me:
it's
about
the
porch
right,
but
five
percent
is
for
a
detached
garage
and
one
option
you
know
provides
that
the
other
option
incorporates
that
in
the
base
density
are
can
are,
are.
Is
there
any
space
to
expand
the
the
five
percent
to
other
Concepts.
C
They
would
have
to
be
Concepts
that
our
traditional
Planning
and
Zoning
Concepts
that
are
within
the
definition
of
incentive
zoning,
so
you
know
you
have
a
lot
coverage
and
porches
are
pretty
standard
site
characteristics
and
and
layout
of
the
house,
but
something
more
amorphous
like
a
the
green
Choice
program,
which
is
not
in
itself
related
to
zoning.
It's
an
environmental
type
program,
there's
really
no
Nexus
between
that
and
zoning.
D
Was
just
going
to
clarify
with
staff
as
well
that
doing
so?
This
is
a
question
I
think
for
our
planning
staff.
Doing
so
would
also
fracture
the
premise
that
eho
forms
are
subject
to
the
same
lot:
coverage
requirements
as
single-family
homes,
correct
if
we
were
to
attach
additional
lot
coverage
to
other
objectives.
E
Well,
I
think
the
the
way
that
we
think
about
that
is
that
there's
obviously
been
a
lot
of
conversation
about
law
coverage
and
I
know.
We've
raced
in
the
draft
forestry
and
natural
resources
plan
the
idea
of
doing
a
more
holistic
review
of
lot
coverage
so
that
you
know
that
might
be
the
the
appropriate
venue
to
to
focus
any
changes
to
the
way
that
that
we
do
lot
coverage
outside
of
the
options
4A
and
4B
that
are
that
are
before
the
board.
Thank.
E
Plan
right,
if
yeah,
as
if
I
understand
there
are,
you
know,
we'll,
have
discussions
in
the
in
the
budget
process
on
work
plan
and
County
Board
priorities.
So
if,
if
the
lot
coverage
study,
if
we're
directed
by
the
board
to
to
make
that
a
priority
that
that
would
be
the
process.
Thank.
H
A
Yeah
I
want
to
say
for
me,
colleagues,
I,
I'm
I
think
that
that's
the
best
place
for
this
conversation,
though
I
understand
the
spirit
of
where
this
came
from.
Looking
at
eho
types
is
not
as
being
less
likely
to
take
advantage
of
these
additional
lot
coverage
allowances.
Is
there
another
way
to
get
some
Community
benefit
and
give
them
more
buildable
area,
but
I'm,
also
mindful
that
more
buildable
area
is
directly
tied
to
affordability
or
attainability
and
so
figuring
out?
That
conversation
to
me
is
better
left
with
lot
coverage,
but
Mr.
B
D
ferranti
I
just
wanted
to
align
and
be
since
we
were
on
this,
you
mentioned,
there's,
there's
a
reusable
stand.
Reusable
materials
also
would
be
difficult
to
enforce.
As
an
amorphous
I
mean
things
that
you
know
we
did
have
discussion.
We
did
have
testimony
asking
for
re.
You
know
if
we
could
allow
instead
of
the
garage,
require
reusable
materials
and
I
guess
that
seems
to
me
both
difficult
to
enforce
and
I,
align
with
a
policy
point
that
you
just
made
Mr
Dorsey
but
do
I.
I
C
Of
choice,
as
far
as
other
things,
I
mean
I
just
haven't
had
the
time
to
evaluate
very
specific.
C
B
A
A
D
E
This
this
question
came
up
during
the
zoko
process
during
I.
Believe
the
answer
is
about
75
days
or
so,
but
we
have
Sarah
Crawford
from
the
Department
of
Environmental
Services
who's,
going
to
probably
correct
me
on
that.
I
Yes,
hi
thank
you
good
afternoon
and
for
the
record
Sarah
Crawford
assistant,
director
of
Transportation
with
Des.
That
is
correct.
It
takes
about
75
days
in
terms
of
actual
staff
time
in
between
those
data
points
that
are
collected
and
then
analyzed,
we've
anticipated
roughly
12
staff
hours
that
are
necessary
across
that
time.
D
Thank
you
very
much.
Do
we?
This
is
not
one
I've
given
Steph,
that's
notice
on
so
I
understand.
If
you
need
to
get
back
to
me
on
this,
but
do
we
know
how
long
it
generally
takes
to
process
a
construction
permit
for
a
buy
right,
Redevelopment
in
a
R5
plus
I.
A
Before
we
leave,
this
I
would
love.
While
we
have
MS
Crawford
to
just
drill
down
on
that
a
little
bit
more,
we
can
so
about
12
staff
hours,
and
can
you
just
walk
through
what
are
the
other
non-arlington
County
staff
labor
inputs
that
go
into
collecting
these
data?
Can
you
just
walk
us
through
what
the
process
kind
of
is
foreign.
I
Parking
survey
for
missing
metal
I
can't
answer
that
our
staff
for
parking
was
not
available
to
attend,
so
I
don't
have
that
granularity
for
the
accessory
dwelling
perking
survey,
but
we
can
certainly
follow
up
and
provide
that.
A
Okay,
because
I
think
in
it
would
be,
and
if
you
can't
Hazard
it
at
this
point,
it's
okay
we'll
live
without
it.
It
would
be
helpful
to
just
figure
out
a
total
cost
to
this.
This
effort
granted
it's
not
going
to
be
borne
by
Arlington
County
or
at
least
as
as
designed
in
the
option,
but
it
would
be
helpful
to
know
that
overall
and
I
guess
you
can't
ballpark
it
for
us
at
this
point.
A
I
Okay,
so
for
staff
hours
we
have
anticipated.
The
perking
survey
fee
would
be
similar
to
that
for
accessory
dwelling
units
at
323
dollars.
That's
what's
set
already
for
the
accessory
dwelling
fee
that
doesn't
nearly
cover
the
staff
time
that's
associated
with
conducting
such
a
study,
it's
at
least
double
or
triple
that,
depending
on
the
volume
of
applications
that
come
in
and
the
additional
resources
that
we
would
need
to
contract
out,
we
would
anticipate
I
believe
it's
an
additional
four
to
six
hours
from
outside
sources.
But
again
I'd
have
to
confirm
that
okay.
H
B
You
covered
this
part
of
my
questions.
I
have
another
one
on
understanding
primary
Transit
networks
a
little
bit.
So
maybe
it's
true
Mr
Karen.
F
Miss
Crawford,
so
for
the
for
the
residential
parking
permit,
we
require
a
a
parking
study
right,
not
always
I'm.
F
Parking
program
when
we
when,
when,
when
you
know
residents,
request
the
residential
parking
program,
you
know
assignment
to
their
street
to
be
assigned
to
the
program.
Do
we
do
we
do
a
parking
survey.
I
Extensive
undertaking
that
would
be
above
and
beyond
the
level
of
perking
survey
that
we're
talking
about
today.
F
Okay,
so
this
this
would
be
a
far
far
more
complicated.
This
would
be
so
the
the
one
that
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
you
know
the
impact
of
a
building
through
a
parking
series
would
be
a
smaller
scope
survey.
B
This
may
be
for
Miss
Crawford,
it's
about
the
primary
Transit
Network,
which
I
think
is
a
combination
of
Art
and
Metro.
Bus
operators
is
that
right,
okay
and
it
goes
north,
south
and
east
west
I
I-
think
you
were
kind
to
share
a
a
diagram.
Then
I
don't
know
the
colleagues
may
know
it
off
the
top
of
their
head,
but
I
just
thought.
B
J
For
the
record,
my
name
is
Auntie
DAV,
Herrera
and
I'm
with
the
transportation
planning
department
and
we're
I'm
covering
the
transit
sort
of
oriented
questions,
so
the
premium
network,
it's
the
Columbia
Pike
and
the
Crystal
City
Pentagon
City
transitway.
It's
it
gives
a
high
frequency
bus
service
which
connects
a
major
destination
and
has
a
frequency
of
10
to
12
minutes
peaking
on
peak
time.
I
Yeah
to
expand
on
that,
the
primary
network
is
a
network
that's
outlined
in
our
MTP.
We
have
both
the
premium
Transit
Network
and
the
primary
Transit
Network,
both
very
similarly
named,
but
different
intent.
The
primary
Transit
network
is
a
higher
density
of
bus
service,
both
art
and
Metro
Bus.
It
relates
to
the
frequency
of
service,
as
well
as
the
number
of
routes
that
are
on
that.
The
the
map
is
included
in
the
MTP
map
that
shows
which
corridors
those
bus
routes
are
on
and
the
services
is
typically
at
15
minute
intervals.
B
Just
I
don't
know
to
confirm
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
advertise
5A
and
5c,
if
we
s
if
we
did
not,
if
we
ended
up
striking
one
of
those
categories,
say
primary
Transit
Network
because
of
less
frequency
or
shrinking
the
or
decreasing
the
distance
from
a
Metro
or
perhaps
from
premium
Transit.
B
D
I'm
sorry
I,
just
missed
Crystal,
yeah
I
believe
Steph
had
done
some
interesting
analysis
and
I
wondered
if
they
might
speak
to
it
about
what
the
Chesapeake
Bay
preservation
ordinance
is
20
requirement
with
regard
to
single
detached
housing
generally
translates
to
in
terms
of
number
of
trees
and
lots
of
different
sizes
to
help
us
understand
for
comparison's
sake,.
E
Okay,
so
as
as
has
been
discussed
throughout
this
process,
the
the
requirement
for
one
family
or
single,
detached
housing
in
Arlington
for
for
tree
canopy
standards
when
when
a
new
house
is
built,
is
20
canopy
and
that's
measured
for
a
a
tree
20
years
at
maturity.
So
obviously,
at
at
the
time
of
development,
it's
not
20,
but
it's
the
there's
a
there's
a
chart
that
we
have
that
shows
for
different
tree
species.
E
What
what
that
calculation
is,
and
so
we
have
calculated
here
for
varying
lot
sizes
and
again
this
is
the
20
standard
that
applies
for
one
family
development.
Five
thousand
square
feet
would
be
required
to
provide
at
a
minimum
Three
Trees
same
for
six
thousand
square
feet
and
then,
as
you
get
to
seven
and
eight
thousand
square
feet,
the
the
requirement
increases
to
four
trees
and
then
five
for
nine
to
ten
thousand
square
feet,
six
trees
for
twelve
thousand
square
feet
and
then
to
get
up
to
eight
trees.
E
You
need
50
15,
000
square
foot
lot.
F
K
Hello,
this
is
Vincent
for
a
urban
Forest
manager
for
Parks
and
Recreation
I
there
this
this
app.
This
requirement
is
applied
at
development
through
buy
right
development,
and
there
is
no
requirement
beyond
the
what's,
typically,
the
certificate
of
occupancy
or
disclosure
of
the
permit
to
retain
those
trees.
However,
I
do
want
to
dispel
the
notion
that
that
means
everybody
just
clears
their
trees
after
they
they
get
their
building
that
there's
no
either
anecdotal
or
tree
canopy
assessment.
Evidence
of
that.
K
G
G
B
I
want
to
just
check
for
understanding
with
respect
to
the
20
and
10
pieces,
because
I
think
it
was
covered
in
a
footnote.
Did
I
read,
write
and
I?
Don't
know
this
is
probably
Mr
verwall
that
there's
a
10
there's
an
acreage
standard
that
applies
to
10
and
20.
So
it's
there's
a
certain
number
of
acreage
below
which
it's
not
a
direct
multi
number
of
units
test.
It's
a
acreage
stand
test.
Does
that
sound
right
and
I'm?
B
Whoever
can
answer
is
is
I
just
think
it's
relevant
for
me
to
check
that
I
have
understanding,
but
also
staff
to
understand.
I
mean
our
community
to
understand.
If,
if
that
is
the
case,.
K
Thank
you
for
that
question.
I
can't
answer
that,
because
it
is
a
either
site,
Zone
business,
Commercial
or
industrial
are
10,
and
then
you
and
it's
units
per
acre
after
that
for
residential
I
will
briefly
share
my
screen
in
the
Chesapeake
Bay
ordinance.
It
calls
out
10
15
20
and
it's
units
10.,
it's
20
units
or
more
for
10
per
acre
between
10
and
20
for
15
and
less
than
10
for
20
percent.
K
B
There's
density
based
great
thanks,
I
just
I
some
instances
I
feel
are
community
members
who've
not
quite
seen
or
known.
That
and
I
also
feel
like
it's
important
appreciate
you
just
showing
that
on
on
our
screen.
Thank
you.
A
Questions
well,
I'll
start
off
with
one
just
for
the
benefit
of
our
public.
Can
you
give
us
a
a
sense
of
the
Genesis
of
the
number
of
42
that
is
included
in
option
7A.
E
Yes,
so
that
that
number
refers
back
to
our
consultant
analysis
that
was
done
during
phase
two
of
the
expected
amount
of
new
construction
that
we
would
expect
for
for
missing:
middle
housing,
which
was
19
to
21
Lots
per
year
being
redeveloped
and
so
to
taking
the
larger
number
there
21,
but
also
reflecting
that
the
consultant
didn't
consider
conversions
of
existing
buildings.
So
if
you
wanted
to
take
an
existing
single,
detached
house
and
add
an
interior
unit,
so
it
became
two
or
even
three.
We
didn't.
E
E
Yes,
so
the
the
consultant-
and
this
is
detailed
in
the
Consultants
report
that
can
be
found
on
our
website,
but
basically
they
looked
at
test-
fits
of
different
missing
middle
housing.
Types
of
of
all
the
ranges
that
we
considered
in
including
other
ranges
that
weren't
included
in
the
phase
two
analysis
and
compared
the
development
costs
and
the
rate
of
return
to
a
prototypical
single,
detached
house,
new
construction
that
you
would
see
on
lots
of
varying
sizes.
E
So
then
they
looked
at
historic,
teardown
Trends
in
terms
of
the
lot
sizes
that
are
being
developed,
the
zoning
districts
that
are
being
redeveloped
and
and
also
and-
and
so
they
considered
the
relative
profitable
profitability
of
a
missing
middle
housing
type
compared
to
the
profitability
that
a
builder
would
see
from
tearing
down
an
older
home
and
building
a
large
five
or
six
bedroom
home
and
and
based
on
that
analysis.
It
was
in
some
cases
the
missing
middle
housing
types
would
be
more
profitable,
there's
also
more
risk
involved
in
building
the
missing
middle
housing
types.
E
In
some
cases,
building
the
single
detached
house
would
be
more
profitable,
and
so
the
Consultants
also
looked
at
some
early
data
that
came
out
of
Portland
and
Minneapolis,
who
had
done
similar
zoning
reforms
and
and
the
relative
uptake
of
Redevelopment.
That
was
happening
in
those
single-family
zoning
areas
and
what
percentage
of
Redevelopment
was
multi-unit
development
versus
continuing
to
be
large
single
detached
homes.
A
G
Yeah
Mr
chair,
thank
you,
I,
think
again,
just
for
our
our
listening
public.
So
if
we
take
the
option
that
you
gave
the
number
42
or
another
option
at
advertisement-
and
actually
maybe
this
is
more
for
our
attorney-
we
advertise
that
when
it
comes
to
adoption
we
could
set
the
number
lower
the
cap
could
be
set
lower,
but
not
higher.
Is
that
correct?
G
G
C
F
Please
we
we
received
testimony
that
a
cop
would
make
more
sense
if
it
was
somehow
geographically
dispersed,
or
you
know
it
would
be
not
the
same
everywhere,
and
you
know
the
there
were
differences
of
opinion.
How
missing
middle
housing
would
a
quote-unquote
burden
or
put
pressure
in
in
different
neighborhoods
I
hate
the
the
term
burden,
I'm,
sorry
that
I've
even
used
that
so
I.
Don't
think
that
housing
is
important.
There
are
all
circumstances,
but
the
pressure
is
there.
F
So
can
we
can
you
tell
us
what
what
are
the
parameters
of
such
a
fine-tuning?
If
we,
when
we
go
ahead
and
consider
that.
C
A
B
So
related
question
that
I
think
this
is
where
recovering
as
a
lawyer
is
a
disadvantage.
So
there
is
the
spot
zoning
concern.
So
if,
if
we
tried
to
do
it
based
on
specific
neighborhoods,
my
impression,
depending
on
the
size
of
the
neighborhood,
we
we
would
be
more
at
risk
to
those
types
of
claims.
Is
that
correct.
C
There
are
certain
principles
at
play
when
you
do
zoning
like
uniformity,
and
so
a
a
zoning
distribution
by
zoning
districts
is
General
and
it's
always
been
held
upheld.
If
you
go
into
more
specific
criteria,
you
might
be
at
more
risk.
I
really
can't
opine
without
knowing
the
specifics
and.
B
A
I
think
it's
useful
to
bring
up
and
I'll
just
get
I'll
give
you
a
hypothetical
if
you're
comfortable
asking
this.
So
it
would
seem
to
me
to
to
not
make
a
whole
lot
of
sense
to
or
not
make
sense.
Forget
that
not
be
defensible
to
ban
ehos,
for
example,
in
a
neighborhood
where
the
adjoining
neighborhood
with
the
same
zoning
districts,
it's
permitted
that
would
present.
It
would
seem
to
me
a
challenge
to
legally
defend.
C
H
B
Sorry,
this
is
concerning
the
consultant's
report.
I
think
it's
from
Mr,
Ladd
and
I
think
this
is
the
right
place
to
ask
it.
But
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion,
the
Consultants
report.
B
It
was
April
28th
that
last
year,
interest
rates
have
changed
a
lot
and
you
could
make
it
seems
to
me
you
could
make
arguments
about
the
various
income
levels-
108
118
000
Etc,
but
with
respect
to
the
estimate
that
we
just
talked
about
19
to
21
instances
which
extrapolates
to
90
odd
to
108,
there
may
be
more
data
since
April
28th,
but
the
analysis
that
the
consultant
went
through
at
least
still
seems
relatively
sound
to
us.
Is
that
fair
on
the
number
of
units.
E
Yes,
that's
correct
and
I
think
you're
also
referencing
an
attainability
work
which
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
The
the
the
consultant's
output
was
the
cost
of
housing,
either
the
price
of
a
unit
for
sale
or
the
rent
of
a
unit
that
would
be
rented
and
then
staff's.
Analysis
that
occurred
in
the
spring
was
translating
those
those
costs
into
what
income
levels
would
be
needed,
given
various
assumptions
to
to
purchase
or
rent
housing
at
that
level.
So
obviously
costs
change
over
time,
but
I
would
say
that
that
analysis
is
is
still
fresh.
E
Obviously,
interest
rates
have
changed,
and
so
attainability
of
a
house
at
a
certain
cost
has
has
changed,
but
interest
rates
are
always
changing,
and
so
you
know
the
the
considerations
that
we
had
made
in
in
terms
of
thinking
about
attainability
in
the
spring,
with
a
an
interest
rate
in
the
mid
fours
I
think
it's
likely
we'll
see
your
interest
rates
in
the
mid
fours
sometime
within
the
Horizon
of
this.
This
eho
adoption.
B
L
G
Just
a
general
one,
just
I
I'm
sure
I
understand
it,
but
just
to
make
sure
we
all
do
so
like
non-conforming,
there's
their
options,
A
and
B.
If
we
advertise
both
options,
we
can
advertise
both
options,
A
and
B,
which
leaves
us
about
the
ability
to
adopt
either
one
of
those
at
adoption
in
March.
Correct,
yes,
yep
just
wanted
to
double
check
that.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
G
A
Moving
next
the
definition
of
a
duplex-
and
that
is
nine,
any
questions
there
all
right
moving
on-
and
this
is
where
I'd
love
to
get
our
Planning
Commission
reps
ready,
because
I
know
that
these
are
subject
to
some
appropriate
discussion
there.
So
10
options
10.
A
F
This
is
about
including
planning
established,
Planning
District
areas.
H
E
Now
and
I
can
speak
to
it
briefly,
so
the
just,
if
explanatory
so
so,
10A
we're
talking
about
applicability
of
where
you
would
be
able
to
do
eho
lots
and
obviously
we're
starting
with
the
R5
to
R20
zoning
districts
and
then
should
there
be
within
those
R5
to
R20
districts.
Any
exceptions
to
that.
We've
already
talked
about
sites
larger
than
one
acre.
Another
potential
exception
could
be.
E
We
do
have
three
planning
districts
that
are
designated
on
the
general
land
use
plan
that
overlap
with
that
R5
to
R20
zoning,
and
so
these
are
areas
like
Columbia
Pike
has
roughly
80
properties
all
on
within
the
neighborhoods
form-based
code
area,
Cherrydale,
there's
fewer
than
50
properties
within
that
Cherrydale.
Revitalization,
District,
there's
just
a
handful
in
East
Falls
Church,
and
these
are
areas
that
have
like
all
along
Columbia
hike.
E
They
have
existing
planning
tools
for
redevelopment
like
the
form-based
code,
and
so
the
the
question
is:
should
we,
you
know,
should
should
eho
buy
right,
be
allowed
when
we
have
other
planning
tools
for
redevelopment
that
might
be
more
more
within
the
bounds
of
previous
Community
planning
processes
and
and
board
adopted
plans.
M
So
I
think,
if
we
frame
the
issue
we
frame
it
within
the
kind
of
the
broader
understanding
or
context
of
some
of
the
things
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
worried
about
or
cognizant
of,
and
of
course,
we've
heard
about
this
in
the
comments.
So
looking
at
our
history
right
looking
at
who's
been
excluded,
what
the
exclusion
issues
are
just
generally
looking
at
environmental
issues
looking
at
increased
housing
if
we're,
if
we're
doing
this,
to
make
sure
that
we
are
increasing
our
opportunities
to
provide
housing
in
throughout
Arlington.
M
Is
we
want
to
make
sure
that
there
is
an
RTA,
that's
as
broad
as
possible,
and
for
that
for
us,
that
would
mean
that
we
would
include
additional
planning
areas,
including
Cherrydale
I,
think
that
there
are
some
additional.
Maybe
more
focused
conversations
that
commissioner
Weir
would
like
to
share
as
well.
H
M
L
You
thank
you
sorry
about
that,
commissioner.
Patel.
For
the
record
Daniel
we
are
with
the
Planning
Commission
one
of
the
you
know.
There
were
a
couple
of
Commissioners
I,
think
who
were
very
concerned
about
the
equities
in
in
how
this
might
prevent
people
living
within
certain
neighborhoods.
L
Weird
aspect
right
there
is
that
there
is
a
sense
that
that
that
there
are,
there
are
good
things
that
come
out
of
quirky
incidental
changes
that
don't
happen
right
and
and
by
allowing
you
know
by
the
Planning
Commission
I
think
was
not
was
not
sure
that
it
would
be
a
bad
outcome.
L
If
a
an
existing
single-family
home
were
to
redevelop
under
the
expanded
housing
option,
we
weren't
sure
that
it
would
be
a
bad
thing
if
that
would
prevent
consolidation
of
the
entire
lot
under
you
know,
whatever
the
planning
guidance
that
that
that
that
you
know
part
of
the
block
might
be
subject
to
you
know
what
might
it
might
create
a
quirky
or
interesting
building
that
improves
over
the
you
know,
over
the
long
run,
the
urban
forum
and
I
think
that
that
was
an
outcome
that
a
number
of
members
of
the
commission
didn't
want
to
see
us
preclude
at
least
not
at
the
RTA
stage.
A
D
Thank
you
for
that
Insight.
This,
too,
is
one
with
which
I
have
been
wrestling
as
well.
One
of
the
things
that
I
do
want
to
make
sure
to
get
the
context
right,
because
I
think
it's
times
in
the
discussion,
notwithstanding
the
planning
commission's
understanding
of
this
Nuance,
sometimes
the
the
idea
of
excluding
certain
properties
within
neighborhoods
has
become
substituted
for
an
understanding
that
entire
neighborhoods
are
being
excluded,
and
so
I
just
want
to
dust
with
staff.
D
My
understanding
when
we
talk,
for
example,
at
Cherrydale
and
East
Falls
Church,
it
is
not
about
exclusion
of
Cherrydale
and
East
Falls
Church,
it's
about
maybe
about
five
percent
of
the
properties
within
each
of
those
neighborhoods
are
the
ones
that
we're
talking
about
that
are
swept
into
a
planning
area.
Is
that
right?
Or
is
it
a
little
more
a
little
less?
That's.
E
Correct
so
if,
if
you
go
to
the
general
land
use
plan,
the
map,
there
are
these
dark
outlined
areas
and
they
they
tend
to
have
numbers
with
them
and
the
numbers
associated
with
the
note.
So
it
would
just
be,
for
example,
within
Cherrydale
there's
a
Cherrydale
revitalization,
Asian
District,
that
is,
you,
know,
Hues
pretty
closely
to
Langston
Boulevard
and
there's
about
50
or
so
R
zoned
properties
that
are
that
are
within
that,
and
that's
doesn't
mean
that
the
800
plus
properties
within
Cherrydale
would
be
Exempted.
A
F
So
in
these,
in
this
case,
like
Cherrydale
like
Northern
and
Columbia
Pike
Etc,
there
is
a
a
real
possibility
that
we
have
something
that
is
that
we
have,
in
our
the
same
R
zone,
to
properties
one
next
to
each
other,
the
one
that
would
be
an
eho.
So
it
would
be
like
a
duplex,
for
example,
and
just
the
next
door
of
neighbor,
because
they
are
in
a
in
a
district
that
has
been
managed
or
or
planned.
F
This
way
would
not
have
access
to
the
aho
option
and
that
the
the
intention
here,
at
least
for
option,
10
B,
correct
certain
B,
is
to
provide
a
a
channel
to
manage
this.
You
know
obvious
inequal,
inequal
treatment.
E
So
I
I
think
the
way
that
I
would
frame
this
is
that
under
under
option
10A
those
properties
within
those
revitalization
districts
have
an
ability
to
redevelop
under
an
existing
tool
like
the
form-based
code
or
a
rezoning.
That's
that's
set
forth
in
the
zoning
ordinance
or
in
a
in
an
adopted
plan,
and,
and
it's
a
question
of,
should
they
have
multiple
options
should
they
have
the
adoption
to
along
Columbia
Pike
redevelop
under
the
form-based
code,
or
you
have
the
ability
to
redevelop
under
expanded
housing
options.
Thank
you.
B
Is,
if
is
for
the
Planning
Commission
chair
Patel?
B
If
you
could
give
us
any
a
little
bit
of
a
sense,
I
think
these
in
Part,
B
and
C
and
part
came
from
some
discussions
that
you
you
all
as
a
group
engaged
in
and
I
guess.
It
seems
as
though
it's
consistent
with
a
sense
to
to
regulate
less
and
I
wondered
if
you
could
provide
any
context
for
us
briefly
on
that.
M
Never
mind
I
think
that
it's
not
about
I,
don't
think
it's
necessarily
regulate
less
Mr
defrante
I.
Think
the
issue
for
us
is
wanting
to
make
sure
that
when
we
were
thinking
about
these
issues
on
like
the
broader
scale
that
we're
not
creating
unintended
consequences
by
over
regulating
some
things,
so
you
know
where
there
are
places
that
we
could
be
a
little
bit
more
advisory.
Where
there
are
places
we
could
provide
more
help,
we
can
provide
some
additional
conversation
and
not
necessarily
create
regulatory
requirements.
We
want
to
explore
those
first.
B
M
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
conversation
for
us
as
well
as
around
even
just
thinking
about
gross
floor
area
and
whether
we
need
to
be
looking
at
something
else,
but
not
to
stop
the
eho
conversation
yep
full
stop
by
saying
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
another
scheme.
That's
certainly
not
what
Planning
Commission
wants
to
do,
but
really
wants
to
feel.
We
I
think
we
want.
We
would
like
staff
to
examine
whether
there
are
other
options
for
us
that
might
make
more
sense.
F
On
options
11a
and
11b,
there
are
numbers,
you
know
a
duplex
starts
and
range
of
4800
square
feet
and
and
up
to
8
000
and
an
11b.
There
is
duplex
five
thousand
Triplex
700
7500.
So
what
informed
these
these
numbers.
E
So
this
the
standards
in
11a
actually
were
something
that
were
put
out
in
the
the
draft
Phase
2
framework
back
in
the
spring,
and
they
were
informed
by
the
Consultants
test
fits
and
and
the
work
that
they
had
done
on
designing
different
different
housing,
Types
on
on
different
lot
sizes
and
and
really
I
I.
Think
you
know,
staff
understands
the
concerns
raised
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
that's
why
we're
recommending
advertising
option
11c.
E
That
would
you
know,
take
this
away,
but
in
terms
of
why
we
had
initially
put
out
option
11a.
It
was
responding
to
concerns
about
housing
allowing
for
housing
options,
but
in
a
way
that
we
have
seen,
for
example,
semi-detached
or
duplex
dwellings
that
have
been
built
in
recent
years
that
were
still
three
thousand
four
thousand
square
feet
of
living
space.
E
And
we
know
from
experience
in
in
our
housing
market
that,
if
you
know
even
we
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
about
three
bedroom
units
and
family
sized
units,
and-
and
we
know
that
even
with
our
committed,
affordable
housing,
I
think
the
average.
The
average
size
of
a
three-bedroom
unit
is
1100
square
feet
within
our
our
committed,
affordable
housing.
So
trying
to
encourage
these
housing
options,
but
not
in
a
way
that
we're
allowing
or
even
incentivizing,
more
five
and
six
bedroom
homes,
but
that
are
just
attached
to
each
other.
Rather
than
being
detached.
D
I
was
just
gonna.
That's
such
an
important
Point
well
made
and
I
wondered
if
there
was
more
because
I
know
you
had
done
some
of
this
analysis.
Mr
lad,
you
were
mentioning
really
the
the
pretty
massive
distinction
between
a
family-sized
rental
unit
and
the
very
large
you
know,
duplexes
that
may
be
sought
to
be
discouraged
here
and
I
know.
You've
done
a
little
more
analysis.
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
off
the
cuff.
D
Some
of
the
examples
of
you
know
the
the
average
one
bedroom
apartment,
for
example,
and
market
rate
right,
the
square
footage
of
older
singled
family
detached
homes
relative
to
newer
these
are
it
helped
me
understand?
In
any
event,
what
the
max
GFA
proposal
is
designed
to,
regulate
and
and
and
the
scale
of
just
how
big,
even
the
maximum
would
be
relative
to
other
forms
of
housing
that
might
be
recognizable
in
the
community.
E
I
know
in
our
in
our
research
compendium
that
we
put
out
in
2020
we
had
we,
we
do
had
have
figures
on
the
the
average
size
of
a
home,
that's
torn
down
when
it's
replaced,
I,
don't
I,
don't
remember
exactly
what
that
figure
is.
It
was.
It
was
less
than
2
000
square
feet.
D
Oh
I
find
that
really
helpful
for
consideration
that
it
is
actually
quite
possible
to
get
family-sized
units
within
this
cap
of
the
max
GFA.
Thank
you.
H
M
All
together,
you
saw
different
sides
of
the
coin
right.
Everybody
I
think
there
was
common
consensus
again
that
we
wanted
to
have
as
broad
of
an
RTA
as
possible
for
us
to
be
able
to
explore
all
of
our
options.
Adus
present
that
same
same
or
in
that
same
space,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
as
flexible
as
possible,
particularly
for
spaces,
have
existing
adus,
making
sure
that
ehos
and
adus
work
together.
What
we're
understanding
is
we
didn't?
M
We
didn't
come
anywhere
close
to
the
numbers
or
the
Caps
that
I
guess
that
were
on
adus
before
so.
It
doesn't
seem
like
this
is
going
to
be
a
pervasive
issue
for
us.
Nonetheless,
there
are
certainly
benefits
that
can
come
from
making
sure
that
we're
able
to
include
multiple
units
and
have
properties
that
can
have
an
Adu,
an
Adu
on
it.
That
could
be
beneficial,
so
we
just
don't
want
to
close
down
the
conversation
here.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
there
are
options
on
the
table,
which
is
why
you
see
this.
L
Thank
you
much
Mr
Weir.
Thank
you.
The
only
thing
that
I'll
that
I
would
add
to
chair
Patel's
comments
is
I,
I,
think
with
respect
to
Adu
specifically,
and
this
might
even
be
too
Elementary
to
a
way
to
put
it,
but
but
I
think
that
there
was
a
concern
among
a
number
of
Commissioners,
including
the
the
Commissioners
who
introduced
the
amendment
that
we
didn't
want
to
accidentally
preclude
someone
who
has
taken
advantage
of
the
work
that
that
you
and
the
community
has
done
to
facilitate
the
construction
of
adus.
L
We
didn't
want
to
preclude
them
from
being
able
to
with
without
tearing
down
the
building
and
building
a
new
one,
which
is
also
not
an
optimal
outcome,
to
take
advantage
of
ehos,
and
likewise
you
know
there
are.
There
are
reasons
to
the
reasons
to
have
an
Adu
may
very
well
apply
to
a
particular
unit
within
a
duplex
Earth
or
a
three-plex,
or
a
fourplex
and
and
an
Adu
could
be
good
for
the
particular
people
living
just
in
that
unit
in
in
a
way
that
doesn't
pencil
out
for
them
to
say.
L
Well,
why
don't
we
buy
out
one
of
the
other
units
in
the
duplex?
You
know,
maybe
what
they
need
is
the
the
in-laws
and
and
the
in-laws
don't
need
or
have
the
resources
for
the
whole
unit.
So
I
I
think
that
was
the
sort
of
equity
concern
that
was
animating
the
the
Commissioners
who
were
really
the
impetus
of
of
that
motion.
Thank
you.
B
Deferanti
I
did
have
a
question
I'm
just
trying
to
parse
through
option
12b
and
townhouse
townhouse
semi-detached
I
can't
I
count
three
and
two
in
those
cases
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
more
from
Mr,
Ladd
or
whoever.
But
that
is
the
description
in
red
seems
to
me
to
limit
this
to
two
and
three
family
dwellings,
but
I'm
not
clear,
because
under
B2
mentions
multi-family
dwellings.
So
can
you
help
clarify
for
me
whether
this
is
limited
to
to
two
and
three
unit
ehos
or
whether
it's
open
to
additional
EHS.
E
Yeah
I
think
I
can
clarify
that,
so
the
the
definition
of
expanded
housing
option
uses
right.
We
have
four
housing
types
that
are
encompassed
by
that,
and
so
it's
duplexes,
which
is
two
units
up
and
down
semi-detached,
which
is
two
units
side
by
side.
They
share
a
common
wall.
Townhouses
are
three
side
by
side.
They
share
a
common
wall
and
then
multi-family
would
be
everything
else
from
a
Triplex
up
to
the
maximum
number
of
units
that
that
would
be
allowed,
and
so
in
the
zoning
text.
E
In
some
cases
we
recognize
that
semi-detached
and
townhouses
are
different
because
they're
vertically
they're
vertical
right
and
they
could
be
individually
owned
and
subdivided
in
a
way
that
the
multi-family
that
are
you
know
up
and
down
would
would
not
be
able
to
do
that.
It
would
have
to
be.
If
it
was
ownership,
it
would
have
to
be
a
condominium
or
a
Cooperative,
or
something
like
that.
E
So
getting
back
to
accessory
dwellings
and
I
and
I
want
to
clarify
the
planning
commission's
recommendation
was
to
allow
accessory
dwellings
in
combination
with
eho
in
all
cases,
staff.
What
we're
recommending
for
advertisement
would
be
only
for
the
semi-detached
and
the
townhouse
units,
and
only
and
I
do
want
to
clarify
this
and
only
interior
units,
so
that
would
allow,
if
you
had
a
row
of
three
townhouses
or
two
side-by-side
units,
those
could
each
get
an
accessory
dwelling
permit.
That
would
allow
a
basement
unit.
Perhaps.
B
Have
two
questions:
they're,
not
long.
One
concerns
non-conforming
and
I.
Just
my
understanding,
there's
I,
don't
know
who's
best
place
to
answer
this.
Perhaps
Mr
Ladd,
but
it's
non-conforming,
there's
non-conforming
lots
and
there's
non-conforming
building
structures.
We
just-
and
we
just
were
talking
about
non-conformity,
building
structures
to
be
able
to
describe
what
non-conforming
lots
are
just
so
that
because
it's
in
here,
but
it's
for
our
public.
E
Right
so
within
Arlington
County
and
within
many
jurisdictions,
we
have
what
what
we
consider
legally
confirming
illegally
non-conforming
lots,
and
you
mentioned
buildings
and
there's
also
non-conforming
uses
so
and
the
reason
why
things
are
non-conforming
is
because
the
zoning
ordinance
is
amended
over
time
or
we
also
know
we
have
development
that
occurred
prior
to
1930
prior
to
when
we
had
a
zoning,
ordinance
and
so
non
non-conformities
occur.
E
When
the
County
Board
adopts
a
standard
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
that's
stricter
than
the
standard
that
was
in
place
when
that
building
was
initially
built,
or
that
lot
was
subdivided
so
for
an
example
on
Lots.
We,
if
you
take
R6
the
the
minimum
dimensions
for
R6,
is
a
width
of
60
feet
and
a
site
area
of
6
000
square
feet,
and
so
we
have
many
R6
Lots
in
Arlington
County
that
were
subdivided
prior
to
that
standard
coming
into
place.
E
That
might
be
less
than
60
feet
wide
or
they
might
be
smaller
than
six
thousand
square
feet
and
So
within
the
zoning
ordinance.
We
allow
those
lots
to
be
redeveloped.
Currently
R6
only
allows
single
detached
houses.
So
if
you
could
tear
down
an
existing
house,
the
originally
built
house
on
an
R6
lot,
that
is
non-conforming,
maybe
it
doesn't
meet
the
width
standard
or
it's
smaller
than
the
site
standard.
You
can
build
a
new
single
detached
house.
It
has
to
meet
all
the
current
zoning
standards,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
meet
those
those
non-conform,
those
non-conformities.
B
Thank
you,
Mr
laddle,
certainly
I
know
that
there's
a
piece
of
both
10
I
think
it
is
and
then
earlier
on,
there's
non-con
provisions
and
two
on
non-conforming,
but
I
appreciate
Mr,
chair
yeah,
you
had
another
one
I
did
last
question
is
concerning
Portland
has
a
an
approach
that
for
six
unit
dwellings
they
require
I,
believe
it's
two.
It
could
be
three
of
those
units
to
be
affordable
at
under
80
percent
of
very
median
income.
B
My
understanding
is
that
under
Virginia
law
and
based
on
the
approach
to
site
plans
and
and
the
planning
that
we
have
in
Arlington,
we
could
not
require
one
of
a
six
unit
dwelling
to
be
affordable
at
80
or
lower
or
below
of
every
median
income,
and
we
actually
probably
couldn't
even
request
a
contribution,
or
at
least
currently
we
could
not
request
a
contribution.
I
think
that's
a
Attorney
question.
C
Sure
the
ability
of
local
governments
to
have
an
affordable
housing
program
in
their
zoning
ordinance
is
prescribed
by
Statute.
It
is
very
restrictive
and
the
calculation
for
what
you
can
ask
for
a
developer
in
exchange
for
affordable
housing
is
is
defined
by
a
formula
and
we've
determined
in
looking
at
the
kind
of
density
that
would
be
generated
from
these
ehos.
It's
very
unlikely
that
they
could
generate
enough
density
to
yield
anything
significant.
A
All
and
so
just
to
put
another
way
Ms
core.
Is
it
fair
to
say
that,
in
order
to
reach
the
threshold
levels,
for
which
one
could
require
an
affordable
housing
contribution,
the
levels
of
density
would
far
exceed
what
staff
has
proposed
in
keeping
eho
in
the
low
in
the
low
category?
According
to
our
general
land
use
plan,.
C
A
We
would
we
would
essentially
need
to
it
would
be.
It
would
be
a
whole
different
animal
if
we
were
to
try
and
use
this
opportunity
to
achieve
levels
of
density
to
get
required.
Affordable
dwelling
units
go
ahead.
Miss
Crystal
at.
D
The
risk
of
being
pedantic
I
also
just
wanted
to
share
an
Insight
from
the
principal
planners
for
the
city
of
Portland,
from
as
of
the
fourth
of
November,
when
I
met
with
them,
zero
six
plexes
had
been
built.
So
if
we
did
want
to
even
if
we
did
have
a
legal
Pathway
to
proceed
this,
it
is
not
proven,
at
least
as
of
yet
in
Portland,
to
be
meaningful
opportunity
to
realize
affordable
housing
in
their
community
and.
A
All
right,
but
let's
come
back
to
our
RTA,
so
Miss
Crystal.
Are
you
I'm?
Sorry,
any
other
questions
on
anything
anything
any.
Even
if
we've
passed
the
topic,
if
you
want
to
revisit
any
discussion.
Colleagues,
colleagues,
if
not
I,
think
we're
ready
for
a
motion
where
we
can
then
get
into
potential
amendments.
Go
ahead.
Miss
Crystal,
thank.
D
First,
amendments
to
the
general
land
use
plan,
glup
booklet
and
map
to
establish
land
use
goals
and
policies
that
support
a
wider
range
of
housing
options
in
lower
density
residential
areas,
as
reflected
in
attachment
too
further
be
an
ordinance
to
amend,
reenact
and
re-codify.
The
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance,
including
articles
3,
10,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16
and
18
to
establish
regulations
for
expanded
housing
option.
Development
for
property
zoned
r-20
are
10,
are
8,
are
6
or
R5
captured
in
attachment.
Three
is.
A
There
a
second
I
will
second
now:
let's
have
would
you
like
to
kick
off
discussion
on
this
Miss
Crystal
I.
M
A
Know
you
know
what
actually
everybody
knows
what
it
is?
Why
don't
we
get
straight
to
it?
Can
we
do
that
I'd
be
happy
to
do
that
all
right,
so
why
don't
we
go
through
again
just
to
make
sure
we
capture
everything
and
go
through
topic
area
by
topic
area
to
see
if
they're
opposed
additions
to
the
motion
which
has
been
made
and
seconded
and
for
the
purposes
of
this
conversation
additions
can
also
mean
amendments
to
the
text
of
any
existing
option.
A
B
A
A
deletion,
so
why
don't
we
hold
that
for
the
next
go
around?
This
is
we're
figuring
out
what's
added
to
the
pot
before
we
take
it
away,
the
the
rationale
being,
if
you
consider
them
both
at
the
same
time,
it
may
adjust
your
thinking
on
others.
So,
first
additions-
or
you
know,
amendments
to
existing
will
then
deal
with
deletion
of
options
in
the
second
go
around
all
right.
Seeing
none
for
maximum
number
of
units
per
site
will
move
to
two
minimum
Site
Area,
two,
a
b
c
and
d:
any
additions,
Mr
diferanti.
B
I'm
gonna
have
a
an
addition,
which
is
2E,
which
I
can
show
I,
think
I've
shared
it
with
the
clerk,
but
it
would
essentially
add
an
option
that
would
have
two
ways
in
which
you
would
have
a
five
and
six
unit
dwelling,
which
would
be
close
to
Trend
very
close
to
Transit
and
above
12
000
square
feet.
B
Sure
so,
I'm
happy
to
speak
to
this,
the
the
Consultants
analysis
of
missing
middle
as
well
as
each
person
I've.
Almost
every
person
I've
talked
to
has
said
that
eight
and
seven
unit.
Excuse
me.
B
It
said
that
five
and
six
units
have
some
benefits,
but
that
they
would
be
primarily
one
in
two
bedroom
units
of
the
three
policy
goals
we
articulated
I
think
there's
one
that
fits
the
first
under
number,
one
which
is
highlighted
below
the
first
of
this
proposed
option
essentially
takes
roughly
the
standards
in
the
parking
section,
but
Alters
them
slightly,
so
that
you
would
be
eligible
for
a
five
or
six
unit
dwelling
only
if
you
are
within
one
half
mile
of
the
Metrorail
station
or
within
one
quarter
mile
of
a
Transit
stop
along
the
premium
Transit
Network.
B
So
that's
Columbia,
Pike
and
Crystal
City
number
two
here
essentially
does
the
copy
standards
from
I
believe
it's
2C
that
allow
for
subdivision
within
individual
dwelling.
B
Lots
number
three,
which
starts
on
the
bottom
of
the
page,
but
continues
on
to
the
next
page,
essentially
seeks
to
bring
in
the
non-conforming
standards
that
I
think
are
in
2C,
and
the
bottom
of
b
also
is
the
second
of
the
two
main
Provisions
that
I
mentioned,
which
says
that
a
lot
would
have
to
be
larger
than
12
000
square
feet
if
it
were
not
proximate
to
transit
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
five
and
six
unit
loans.
B
D
Guarantee
will
allow
I'd
like
to
invite
staff,
which
I
know,
did
some
analysis
not
dissimilar
to
the
chart
that
you
showed
us
earlier.
Mr
Ladd
indicating
the
more
or
less
percentage
of
the
county
that
would
be
open
to
both
Transit
and
non-transit
proximate.
That
would
be
open
to
the
different
forms.
D
It's
helpful
because
I
think
Miss
differenti's
done
really
thoughtful
analysis.
I
think
can
be
a
little
hard
to
visualize.
What
the
the
impact
of
that
might
be,
and
so
I
have
found
that
application
to
be
useful.
In
my
thinking.
E
So
this
is
this:
the
same
slide
that
I
had
shared
earlier
in
the
meeting
and
also
doing
the
presentation
on
Saturday.
But
we
we
were
given
the
text
of
2e,
and
so
we
have
mapped
this
new
Option
2E,
showing
again
in
in
the
yellow,
would
be
where
a
maximum
of
two
to
four
units
would
be
allowed.
E
And
then
then,
in
this
option
the
green
would
be
a
maximum
of
six
units
and
then
similarly,
we
have
the
chart
that
I
shared
earlier
with
the
option
2E
showing
Transit
proximate
and
not
Transit
proximate,
using
the
the
option.
5A
parking
definitions
of
Transit,
proximate.
D
Thank
you
I
appreciate
that
Mr
Ladd.
If
we
can
just
leave
that
up
for
a
minute,
I
will
say
with
great
respect
for
Mr
differencei
I
think
this
bar
chart
illustrates
why
I'm
not
able
to
support
this
amendment
even
for
purposes
of
request
to
advertise
I
think
it
is
possible
that
it
represents
a
policy
that
would
be
worth
pursuing.
I
think
it
is
substantively
a
different
policy
than
the
one
that
our
community
has
discussed.
D
But
certainly
you
know,
we've
seen
consultant
analyzes
that
matches
what
we
know
of
our
Market
I
believe
suggesting
that
the
the
three
to
four
bedroom
townhouses
three
plexes,
for
example,
that
would
be
really
all
that
would
be
allowable
in
most
parts
of
the
County-
would
be
well
out
of
the
reach.
I
think
it
forecloses.
Most
of
the
promise
of
this
study,
and
so
I
regret
that
I'm
not
able
to
support
it.
G
But
I
am
willing
to
support
it,
I'd
like
to
have
it
there
as
an
option
and
I
hear
the
comments
that
Miss
Crystal
has
has
made
and
I
understand
that
I,
as
I've
said
in
other
times,
I'm
viewing
what
we're
going
to
be
adopting,
as
in
the
nature,
more
of
a
pilot
and
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
work
in
progress,
and
this
feels
like
a
more
gentle
start
into
it
and
I'm
more
comfortable
with
that.
Thank
you.
A
So
if
Mr
Karen
Thomas.
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
that
this
it's
very
it's
a
very
interesting
approach
and
I
understand
that
this
Amendment,
the
offered
Amendment,
takes
a
lot
of
the
the
the
initially
potential
maximum
density
out,
but
it
also
tweaks
the
the
what
is
Transit
proximity.
This
is
the
biggest
impact
here.
Besides
the
exclusion
of
seven
and
eight,
it's
also
the
definition
of
Transit
proximity.
I.
F
Do
think
that
in
a
in
in
a
way
in
in
the
path
of
looking
at
the
implementation
and
how
how
these
ehls
will
be
propagating
through
the
territory
over
over
many
years,
it's
worth
thinking
about
that.
So
for
the
purposes
of
the
Arta,
I
would
like
to
see
this
included.
So
I
agree
with
the
with
the
motion
and
have
a
very
honest
conversation
about
the
actual
impacts
of
that,
because
the
the
bar
chart
gives
us
a
a
raw
result
right.
F
It
shows
a
very
yellow
bar
at
the
right
at
the
right
end,
a
while
to
see
well
I,
don't
remember,
2C,
so
an
old
Blue
Bar,
because
we
expanded
almost
the
entirely
of
the
territory
to
be
Transit
proximate,
which
is
not
the
fact
so
I
think.
As
we
are
thinking
this
policy,
we
are
thinking
also
about
what
you
know:
smart,
how
smart
growth
in
transit
proximity
evolves
over
time
and
and
and
where
gentle
density
fits
in
the
smart
growth
proposition.
F
So,
for
this
reason,
I
think
that
the
next
45
days
or
so
will
be
helpful
to
discuss
that.
A
So
I
am
not
inclined
to
support
this
and
it's
not
because
I
don't
appreciate
the
thoughtfulness,
but
I
do
think
that
and
I'm
going
to
invite
you
to
give
me
a
little
bit
of
sense
of
your
thinking
here.
But
it's
a
different
level
of
analysis
than
what
staff
brought
with
the
original
recommendations.
Those
were
informed
by
detailed
studies
of
sites
and
we
got
recommendations
that
conform
with
that.
Can
you
give
us
a
sense
of
the
basis
for
your
numbers,
for
what
would
be
the
minimums.
B
Sure
so
I
mean
the
part
of
the
thinking
was
based
on
the
last
year
of
conversations
that
I've
had
about
concerns
relative
to
parking.
I
think
that
12
000
square
foot
square
feet
units
are
likely
to
have
a
frontage
such
that
parking
would
be
a
reduced
concern
if
you
had
three
or
four
of
these
consecutively,
and
so
that's
part
of
what
led
me
to
this
I
also
did
look
I,
don't
believe
that
we
should
exempt
large
Lots
from
additional
density
and
I,
and
so
that's
why
the
larger
Lots
were.
B
You
know,
that's
what
led
me
towards
the
larger
Lots
being
eligible.
I
should
note
that
the
proposal
would
for
R20.
It
would
be
20
000,
because
I
wanted
to
stay
where
I
could
consistent
with
what
we
had
seen
in
the
original
staff
draft.
So
that's
what
led
to
thinking
that
there
should
be
a
policy
purpose
for
large
lots
and
the
transit
I.
B
Don't
I
think
you
were
asking
about
less,
but
the
transit
was
based
on
an
assessment
that
10
to
12
minutes
getting
to
a
a
10
to
12
minute
frequency
is
what
I
find
is
truly
Transit
accessible.
B
I
am
more
of
an
incentive
based
modal
shift
person
than
a
guilt-based
modal
shift
person,
and
so
I
think
that
the
half
mile
from
a
Metro
I,
also
three
quarters
of
a
mile
in
June,
July,
August
or
September,
would
be
cause
for
a
shower
for
me,
and
so
that's
also
part
of
why
I
moved
the
Metro
narrower
and
it's
it's
part
of
seeing
and
feeling
that
there's
a
reasonableness
of
what
expectations
might
be
for
getting
to
Transit
I,
don't
know
if
that
fully
answers.
Your
question.
A
I
mean
I
guess
what
I'm
looking
for
is
is
really
I
mean
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
anywhere
from
a
20
to
a
33
percent
increase,
fired
minimum
Site
Area.
What's
the
what
would
be
my
basis
for
saying
that's
the
way
to
go
versus
what
it
was,
what
has
already
been
included
in
the
analysis
for
the
options.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
have
there's
I
think
this
works
out
to
us
a
percentage
of
lots
that
that
seemed
like
a
reasonable
reach,
and
so
that's
one
piece.
But
a
second
piece
is
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
gentle
density
and
I.
Don't
feel
the
gentle
density
is
a
five
or
six
unit
away
from
transit
on
an
8
000
square
foot
lot.
So,
okay,
I.
A
Appreciate
hearing
that
it
does
unfortunately
reconfirm
my
position
that
I
can't
support
it
because
it
just
doesn't
meet
the
level
of
rigor
that
has
been
used
to
inform
the
other
recommendations
and,
while
I
appreciate
the
sentiment
and
what
you're
trying
to
do
here,
I,
just
I,
can't
in
good
conscience,
say
that
we
should
bless
something
that
is
is
so
disparate
in
terms
of
you
know
how
it
was
constructed.
So
you.
B
That
is
my
piece
just
so
I'm
not
going
to
change
any
votes,
but
I
did
want
to
at
least
try
and
respond
to
to
Miss
Crystal
and
your
concerns
both
there
is
that
there's
there's
been
a
number
of
discussions
in
our
community
as
a
whole
over
the
last
year.
B
Regarding
this
proposal
and
I
tried
to
ask
that
it
be
included
in
the
staff
piece
and
it
it
wasn't,
and
perhaps
for
because
there
wasn't
a
rational
basis,
but
I
think
that
there
is
the
conversations
that
I
held
over
the
last
year
were
both
inside
this
room
and
outside
this
room
and
I.
B
Don't
feel
that
I
feel
that
it's
appropriate
to
add
this
amendment
as
reflective
of
the
full
conversations
that
have
been
there,
and
so
that's
what
I'd
say
with
respect
to
that
I
don't
expect
agreement
I
just
wanted
to
try
to
try
to
respond
with
respect
to
affordability.
I
actually
did
have
a
question
here
to
make
sure
I
understand,
there's
a
table
because
you
mentioned
affordability
of
your
other
primary
driver.
Miss
Crystal,
you
there's
a
there's
a
table
here
that
that,
first
of
all,
we're
not
talking
about
affordable
housing
and.
B
E
So
you're
you're,
referring
to
a
table
that
we
prepared
during
the
phase
two
when
we
did
a
lot
of
community
engagement
and
I
think
without
speaking
to
specific
numbers
in
general.
E
What
our
analysis
found
was
that
allowing
more
units
on
a
site
because
there's
economies
of
scale
within
within
buildings
and
also,
most
importantly,
sharing
the
land
costs
among
multiple
units,
the
more
units
you
have,
the
lower
the
lower
the
costs
end
up
being
so
in
terms
of
the
the
six
units
and
eight
units,
those
end
up
being
the
lowest
cost
housing
and-
and
also
you
know,
to
something
that
that
you
said
earlier,
Mr
D
Franti,
probably
would
be.
E
You
know
not
impossible
that
they
would
be
three
bedroom
units,
but
in
many
cases,
probably
would
be
two
bedroom
units,
or
at
least
more
compact
units.
And
when
we
talk
about
the
when
we
talk
about
housing
and
we
need
a
range
of
housing
options
within
all
of
our
neighborhoods
thinking
about
it.
The
the
size
of
the
housing
also
has
some
bearing
on
the
price.
B
Thank
you,
I
appreciate
it.
So
I'll,
just
conclude
by
saying
rigor,
is
appropriate
both
with
respect
to
the
proposal,
but
also
also
with
respect
to
our
confidence
in
the
in
the
in
the
analysis
that
we
received
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
feel
that
most
of
these
five
and
six
most
of
these
will
be
one
and
two
bedrooms
and
I
think
that
that
it
is
super
important
that
we
continue
to
add
supply
of
one
and
two
bedrooms
directly
in
our
Transit
corridors,
but
a
mindful.
We
have
other
things
to
do
and
I.
So
thank
you.
A
A
A
G
Yeah
I
have
a
suggestion
for
amending
option
6A
and
appreciate
the
work
the
staff
has
done
on
this
recently,
and
this
would
be
that
option.
6A
would
provide
that
there
would
be
a
range
of
up
to
Ford,
shade
trees
for
sites
with
two
to
four
units
and
up
to
eight
shade
trees
for
sites
with
five
to
eight
units.
G
I,
don't
know
where
we'll
end
up
on
the
eight
unit
question,
but
for
now
we'll
keep
it
at
that,
instead
of
one
shade
tree
per
dwelling
unit.
So
this
would
have
more
more
trees,
but
it
would
be
gradated
by
the
number
of
units
on
the
site.
I'll.
A
G
G
I
just
sure
I
I
think
we
all
would
like
to
have
more
trees.
If
we
could,
we
know
there
are
some
limits
and
this
seems
to
be
a
way
of
at
least
getting
some
there.
We
want
to
get
as
close
to
that
20.
That's
currently
in
the
the
chest
Bay
that
we've
got
for
the
single
family
houses
that
we've
discussed
quite
a
bit,
and
this
would
get
us
closer
to
that
and
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
So
that's
why
I've
got
it.
That's
helpful,
just
more
trees.
A
Thank
you
I'm
interested
in
this,
because
I
think
you
know.
One
of
the
things
that
we
heard
through
the
process
was
that
the
one
per
unit
one
per
dwelling
unit
could
approximate
what
is
the
existing
chest.
D
Just
wanted
to
Signal
my
interest
in
exactly
what
you've
just
teed
up
Mr
chair,
which
is
to
enlist
the
help
of
our
staff
and
really
understanding
the
feasibility
of
these
greater
amounts
on
different
sites.
I
strongly
agree
with
the
sentiment
motivating
Ms
garvey's
proposal
addition
that
more
trees
are
always
better
for
the
people
who
live
there,
as
well
as
for
the
Neighbors.
Unfortunately,
more
trees
aren't
necessarily
better
if
the
projects
don't
get
built
and
so
I
think
it's
really
important
to
the
best.
D
We
can
assess
whether
this
puts
eho
development
at
any
type
of
disadvantage
relative
to
single
family,
which
I
think
for
all
of
the
reasons
we've
discussed,
anticipates
still
being
The.
Prominent
form
of
Redevelopment
I
am
mindful
actually
rather
colorful
Point
made
by
one
of
our
commenters
that
the
Chesapeake
Bay
preservation
ordinance
requires
the
planting
of
trees.
It
does
not
require
the
retention
of
trees
and
I
think
in
some
ways
this
type
of
development
is
actually
likely
likelier
to
lead
to
the
retention
of
trees,
because
it
is
not
the
decision
of
one
owner.
D
It
is
the
decision
of
one
owner
or
multiple
owners,
potentially
in
an
eho
once
built
out
and
sold,
and
so
I
think
we
could
actually
see
a
greater
retention
of
trees.
I
want
to
keep
in
mind
that
whole
life
cycle
of
the
property
and
so
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
disadvantaging
these
forms
relative
to
their
single
detached
counterparts.
That
said,
happy
to
support
this
and
look
forward
to
Gathering
as
much
perspective
as
we
can
over
the
next
two
months.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
for
offering
that
I
think
this
was.
This
is
a
directly
responsive
to
a
lot
of
comments
that
we
got
and
I
think
it's
fair
to
attempt
to
put
flesh
to
this
regulation
and
to
measure
its
impact.
I,
like
Miss
Crystal
I,
am
concerned
as
an
additional
requirement.
I
do
believe
that
the
ehos
actually
have
a
better
chance
to
maintain
and-
and
you
know,
Quality
Tree
canopy,
which
is
really
difficult
and
expensive
Endeavor.
F
When
the
trees
grow,
they
need
pruning,
they
re
they
need
proper
maintenance,
Etc
and
I,
guess
that
more
than
one
owners
will
be
more
more
capable
of
in
middle
class.
Owners
will
be
more
capable
in
investing
in
the
street
canopy
and
and
enjoy
the
the
benefits
of
that.
So
for
for
this
RTA
I
I,
really
thank
you.
Miss
Garvey,
for
bringing
that
forward.
I
will
support
that.
G
A
A
All
right,
we
can
now
move
to
a
vote
and
just
remind
everybody.
We
can
also
signify
our
support
through
our
votes,
so
we
don't
have
to
say
it
all.
If
there's
nothing
else
to
be
said,
even
though
I
love
hearing
your
voices
so
on
Ms
garvey's
motion
to
amend
for
a
to
provide
up
to,
if
you
can
remind
me
of
the
numbers,
Miss
Garvey,.
G
Put
on
my
microphone
up
a
range
and
that's
the
important
important
part:
okay-
that
there
would
be
a
range
of
up
to
four
shade
trees
for
sites
with
two
to
four
units
and
a
range
of
up
to
eight
shade
trees
for
sites
with
five
to
eight
units.
At
this
point,
instead
of
the
one
shade
tree
per
dwelling
unit
and
I'm
not
taking
anything
off
the
table,
but
this
allows
us
to
discuss
that
right.
A
So,
to
be
clear
to
everyone,
the
recommend
recommendation
that
was
originally
for
a
before
Amendment
could
still
be
what
is
adopted,
or
it
could
be
some
other
subset
up
to
the
range
that
Ms
Garvey
just
articulated
all
those
in
favor.
Please
say:
aye
aye
aye
any
opposed
the
eyes,
have
it
five
zero
and
that
is
now
an
amended
four
option:
4A
I'm,
sorry,
not
for
a
6A.
A
Thank
you.
We'll
move
next
to
annual
limits,
Miss
Crystal
thank.
D
D
The
second
is
to
excuse
me
three
elements.
The
second
is
to
increase
the
annual
permits
from
42
to
58,
and
the
third
is
to
add
the
note
that
the
method
of
distribution
for
the
58
permits
shall
be
approved
by
the
County
Board.
Second,.
H
D
You
very
much
Mr,
chair
and
I
can
speak
to
that
further
as
we
pull
it
up.
First,
with
regard
to
the
sunset
I
think
it
is
I
believe
my
intent,
it's
been
the
intent
through
a
lot
of
discussion
that
the
Caps
should
be
a
policy
tool
to
ensure
and
and
try
to
minimize
unintended
consequences
in
the
roll
out
of
eho
development,
rather
than
a
permanent
curb
on
a
type
of
housing.
D
That
I
think
many
of
us
would
very
much
like
to
see,
and
so
the
way
I
have
come
to
think
of
caps
is
that
it
is
a
Fail-Safe,
so
to
speak,
for
what,
if
the
analysis
of
our
Consultants
the
experience
of
the
other
cities
who
have
tried
this
our
own
experience
with
accessory
dwellings?
What
if
all
of
that
is
wrong?
The
market
takes
a
hard
turn
on
its
heels
towards
this
form
of
development,
rather
than
single
family
or
single
detached
development.
That
a
cap
can
be
a
Fail-Safe
if
you
will
for
that.
I.
D
Do
not,
however,
believe
that
that
needs
to
be
a
permanent
part
of
our
strategy.
I
think
that
the
the
question
beyond
the
first
couple
of
years
really
is
one
of
why,
if
we
have
put
such
care
into
thinking
about
how
these
types
of
housing
will
fit
into
our
neighborhoods
and
and
indeed
I
hope,
we
will
welcome
them.
I,
don't
believe
that
that
needs
to
be
permanent.
So
there
is
a
sunset
provision.
There.
D
I
have
also
proposed
that
we
increase
the
number
of
permits
to
58..
It
will
similarly
be
my
motion.
I'll
make
a
separate
motion,
I
think
when
it
comes
to
7A,
we'll
start
with
7c,
where
we're
just
talking
about
additions,
notably,
we
have
confirmed
this
with
the
county
attorney.
D
We
can
go
lower
on
the
caps,
but
not
higher,
and
so
I'd
like
to
make
sure
there
are
options
reflect
the
maximum
amount,
knowing
that,
if
colleagues,
the
will
of
the
board
in
two
months
is
to
return
to
the
42,
that
would
still
be
an
option
available
or
lower
reaching
the
58
permits
per
year.
This
is
simply
another
method
of
analysis.
Staff
has
shared
with
us
how
they
reached
the
42..
This
is
an
idea
that
was
first
surfaced
in
Planning
Commission
discussions.
D
One
of
the
things
we
have
talked
about
a
lot
is,
and
actually
in
fact,
I
just
referred
to
it-
our
expectation
that
single
family
or
single
detached
housing
really
will
continue
to
be
the
predominant
form
of
Redevelopment
I.
Think
the
idea
of
capping
eho
permits
at
about
a
third
of
that
annual
activity
is
pretty
consistent
with
the
expectation
that
single
detached
housing
Remains
the
predominant
form
again.
That
is
not.
Let
me
be
very
clear
that
is
not
the
amount
of
housing,
the
single-family
housing
or
single
detached
housing
in
the
neighborhood.
D
That
is
the
amount
of
Redevelopment
on
properties
in
that
area
or
through
county-wide.
Rather
so,
in
order
to
get
a
sense
of
the
amount
of
turnover
and
Redevelopment
that
is
happening.
We
I
have
taken
here
the
average
of
our
annual
permits
for
new
construction,
only
a
three-year
average
from
2020
to
2022
that
generates
an
average
of
one
175.6
permits
annually.
A
third
of
that
would
create
an
annual
limit
of
58
permits,
the
final
Point
just
to
connect
that
back
to
the
earlier
conversation
regarding
the
method
of
distribution.
D
There
is
some
interest
in
potentially
Distributing
those
permits
among
zoning
areas
or
excuse
me
rather.
Zoning
districts
I
have
included
the
math
year
not
to
in
any
way
signal
that
that
is
what
that
would
look
like,
in
fact,
I
think,
there's,
probably
a
more
sophisticated
analysis
to
be
completed,
but
simply
showing
how
the
math
all
adds
up
to
the
175.6
annual
average
and
noting
that
that
we
would
like
to
continue
to
really
make
sure
that
any
method
of
distribution
we
consider
in
March
is
a
sound
one.
D
F
A
question
so
the
new
Option
7c
has
the
higher
permit
limit
and
the
sunset
Clause
correct,
and
it
stipulates
that
the
sunset
Clause
is
at
three
years
correct
and
I
I
happen
to
to
agree
with
most
of
that
I
think
at
58
minutes,
so
to
just
to
give
an
idea
of
what
58,
because
this
is
a
safeguard
proposal,
it
will
take
about
48
years
to
get
a
10
of
total
for
total.
You
know
units
which
is
a
little
bit
less
than
what
McManus
have
today
in
our
in
our
land
use.
F
So
it's,
it's
still
a
very
you
know:
low
delivery
there
and
and
I
want
to
also
point
out
that
the
PS
study
is
extremely.
You
know
restrictive
in
in
its
in
its
point
in
time.
You
know,
as
estimates
I
hope,
that
we
are
going
to
see
a
little
bit
more
of
an
interest,
but
I.
Don't
imagine
that
we'll
have
you
know
the
tsunami-like
turn
off
the
of
the
market.
Now
we
I
have
a
one
problem
with
this,
and
this
and
and
I
agree
with
the
idea
of
sunsetting.
F
It
I
think
that
future
County
boards
should
have
will
always
have
the
possibility
to
extend
that
to
modify
that
Etc,
but
for
any
change,
especially
since
we
are
doing
this
change
in
a
economic
period.
That
may
be
a
little
bit
challenged
by
interest
rate
change
and
and
and
other
changes.
I
think
a
five-year
Sunset
is
more
appropriate,
so
I
would
either
offer
it
as
a
friendly
Amendment
if
accepted,
if
not
as
a
additional.
D
D
I'd
like
to
speak
to
you
so
I
I
do
respect
that
I.
Think
your
your
own
Point,
actually
Mr
Karen
tonis,
leads
me
to
suggest
that
I
prefer
you
offer
it
as
a
substitute,
rather
than
accept
it
as
friendly.
Your
point
that
you
know
with
that,
that
is
a
glacially,
slow
pace
to
actually
realize
these
at
58
a
year
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
for
future
boards.
D
As
you
indicated,
it
will
be
very
easy
for
a
future
board
to
extend
the
cap
by
either
changing
the
time
horizon
or
simply
removing
the
sunset
altogether
if
they
wish
so
I
I'd
like
us
to
to
allow
this
to
be
dynamic
to
let
the
market
evolve
and
I
would
prefer
the
three-year
time
Horizon.
A
G
G
I
think
we've
been
putting
the
community
through
a
lot
I'd
rather
have
that
Horizon
out
a
little
bit
farther
and
not
have
people
start
to
obsess
about
three
years
out.
I
think
the
longer
time
period
is
better.
I
am
fine,
with
the
58
cap
for
advertisement
purposes
and
I'm
very
anxious
to
work
out
a
method
of
distribution
and
the
final.
My
final
sort
of
decision
on
what
cap
I
would
like
will
depend
on
the
distribution
and
how
that
works.
G
B
Franti
question
first
I
support
both
in
option
7c
moving
from
42
to
58
I
will
also
be
supporting
when
we
get
to
the
amendment
at
7A,
moving
to
58
in
part
because
we
can
go
lower
but
also
I,
think
your
points
are
are
on
point:
are
appropriate
I
agree
with
them
that
just
so
I
understand
I
think
the
two
sentences
that
talk
about
method
of
distribution,
ultimately
in
March?
If
we
were
to
adopt
this,
we
would
strike
it
and
clarify
what
that
means.
B
Okay,
so
I'm
supportive
of
of
of
7c
I
also
am
supportive
of
what
I
think
would
be
the
substitute
in
perhaps
70,
but
I
I
guess
in
this
case
I'm
just
agreeable
to
everything.
D
A
To
give
my
two
cents
on
this,
you
know
I'm
happy
to
support
this
because
I
think
it
really
captures
the
range
of
which,
where
this
conversation
is
certainly
doesn't
necessarily
reflect.
You
know
how
I
view
it
completely.
You
know,
while
I
appreciate
the
methodology
that
Miss
Crystal
has
offered
here,
I'm,
not
at
this
point
willing
to
sign
on
to
what
has
been
the
three-year
average
being
normative,
that
we
ought
to
base
a
cap
on
I'd
like
to
you
know,
think
about
other
time.
Horizons
I'd
like
to
look
at
that
analysis.
A
There's
a
degree
of
you
know,
there's
a
degree
of
really
thinking
about
this
more
broadly
than
I.
Think
a
a
recent
period
which
has
been
different
in
in
many
many
ways
as
not
necessarily
being
what
we
would
want
or
expect
moving
forward,
and
so,
but
this
is
a
number
that
we
can't
exceed
and
I
am
very
comfortable
at
this
point,
saying
that
there
is
no
methodology
that
I
would
look
at
that
will
want
to
exceed
that.
So
this
is
perfectly
appropriate.
A
I
I
think
the
the
cap
I'm
sorry,
the
sunset
is-
is
also
very
appropriate
for
the
period
of
time.
You've
all
mentioned
that
this
really
is
not
a
cudgel
in
a
way.
The
board
always
gets
on
its
own
prerogative,
decide
to
take
this
up
at
any
point
in
time,
but
I
think
we
deserve,
or
our
community
deserves,
to
have
the
board
look
at
this
within
a
shorter
time
period.
To
really
check
in
on
what's
been
going
on
what
the
experience
has
been,
what
have
we
learned?
D
On
it,
one
very
quick
response
to
your
point:
I
think
it's
a
very
good
one
about
it
feels
static.
I
just
wanted
to
suggest
I
I
did
in
fact
look
at
single.
Detached
construction
starts
going
back
quite
a
few
years
earlier.
They
have
been
relatively
stable
around
that
average
per
year
within
maybe
a
swing
or
two
on
2018,
but
I
agree
I
care
too
about
making
sure
this
is
not
just
capturing
some
pandemic
weirdness
to
use
a
technical
term,
and
it
is
relatively
stable
and.
A
G
Garth,
thank
you
and
just
to
respond
a
little
bit
to
to
what
you
said.
Mr
chair
I
still
would
like
to
keep
it
at
five
for
advertisement
purposes.
I
might
be
persuaded
to
go
lower,
but
I
know
we
can't
so
I'd
like
to
keep
it
at
five.
Now
again,
I
don't
want
the
community
obsessing
about
three
and
starting
to
check
off
the
calendar.
G
Five
seems
like
it's
a
little
bit
more
open,
but
we'll
see
in
the
discussion
in
a
couple
of
months
where
people
actually
are
and
I
I
do
want
to
say,
I
intend
when
we
get
to
March,
which
I
hadn't
meant
to
mentioned
now,
but
I
intend
to
be
trying
to
put
in
as
much
monitoring
and
Reporting
back
to
the
community
as
we
can.
So
it's
not
like
I'm
planning
to
just
revisit
this
in
five
years.
I'm
planning
to
be
having
lots
of
reporting
as
we
go
so
I.
G
A
Substitute
that
is
desired.
We
can
do
that.
Can
your
comment?
Wait.
Mr
Karen
bonus!
Thank
you.
So
all
those
in
favor
on
Ms
Crystal's
motion
to
adopt
a
new
Option
7c
and
it
will
men
option
7A
as
presented
on
the
screen.
Please
say:
I
I
all
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
nay,
Mr,
D,
Franti,
I
didn't
hear
your
vote
you're
an
eye
all
right.
A
Unless
you
pass
correct,
so
buy
a
vote
three
to
two:
that's
Mr
deferante
Ms,
Crystal
and
Mr
Dorsey
concurring.
D
It's
possible
our
colleagues
may
wish
to
evaluate
their
vote.
Did
you
know
that.
D
F
A
F
So
the
substitute
motion
would
be
to
would
be
verbatim
equal
with
the
previous
motion,
with
the
difference
that
it
strikes
three
years
and
substitutes
it
with
with
five
years
for
the
sunset
clause
for
the
limit
I.
A
Okay,
so
it
is
to
men
what
is
now
the
amended
motion
where
option
7c
would
read
during
calendar
years
2023
to
2028.,
yes,
okay
and
Ms
Garvey
you
would
like
to
second.
Is
there
any
need
to
further
discuss
this
matter
good?
Can
we
move
to
a
vote
on
this?
All
those
in
favor
of
Mr,
Karen,
Thomas's
substitute
to
7c,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye.
H
A
A
B
Like
to
strike
1B
I
believe
we
should
be
considering
just
through
six
units
as
we
go
forward.
A
B
The
reasoning
that
I
describe
regarding
in
the
last
two
months,
we've
approved
projects
with
1400
plus
units
and
500
plus
units
in
the
corridors,
I
think
seven
and
eight
units
are
going
to
be
one
bedroom
in
almost
every
case.
I
think
the
consultant's
analysis
supports
that.
B
Perhaps
two
in
some
cases,
I
think
that
affordability
can
be
served
often
as
analyzed
as
housing
plus
Transportation,
as
we're
trying
to
reach
those
making
between
100
and
150
100
and
200
000,
which
is
where
this
is
so
I
think
we
need
to
continue
to
try
and
address
our
significant
supply
problem,
as
evidenced
by
vastly
increasing
rents
over
the
past
year
through
additional
Supply
in
the
corridors.
B
I
also
believe
that
aplexes
and
seven
plexus
present
parking
challenges
that
are
legitimate.
I
have
had
conversations
with
individuals
where
I
think
that
we
have
a
a
fair
concerns
about
parking.
If
you
have
two
or
three,
even
if
you
have
one,
there
are
parking
questions
that
I
think
are
legitimate
and
not
just
we
don't
want
density
in
our
own
neighborhood.
B
We
have
to
transform
our
Housing
Network
I
think
there
are
three
purposes
identified
in
September,
20th
and
flexibility
is
a
valid
one,
but
I
think
the
costs
of
eight
and
seven
for
our
discussion
outweigh
the
benefits
and
have
an
additional
I'm
sure
we'll
have
discussion.
That's
that's
a
start
as
to
my
reasoning
as
to
why
I
think
we
should
strike
seven
and
eight
plexes
at
this
stage.
Okay,.
H
A
I'll
recognize
myself
while
we're
waiting.
You
know
I
appreciate
that,
and
it
seems
to
me
to
be
a
legitimate
policy
basis
to
to
base
one's
final
decision
on
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
adopt
a
thinking
that
it
ought
to
be
removed.
At
this
point
from
advertisement,
it
seems
that
we
have
had
extensive
discussion
about
this
concept.
A
Looking
at
seven
and
eights,
it
is
not
in,
in
my
opinion,
there's
no
threshold
that
has
been
met
that
should
disqual
it
disqualify
it
from
continued
conversation
and
certainly,
as
I've
tried
to
do
or
as
I'm
going
to
try
to
do
with
all
areas
of
this
RTA.
Anything
that
stands
a
reasonable
basis
for
being
proposed
in
a
reasonable
basis
for
being
considered
ought
not
to
be
excluded
at
this
point,
that
to
me
seems
arbitrary
and
capricious
so
I
cannot
support
this
motion.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
Dorsey
I
tend
to
I
I
intend
to
support
the
motion,
and
one
of
the
reasons
is
at
this
point.
This
is
a
by
right.
Seven
and
eight
is
a
class
of
development
that
is
relatively
difficult
to
to
fit
right
now
in
many
neighborhoods,
and
mostly
in
the
neighborhoods
that
are
are
in
in
proximity,
close
proximity
to
to
Transit,
it
has
many
impacts.
It
is
difficult
to
manage.
It
has
many,
it
has.
F
You
know,
has
had,
has
generated
a
lot
of
comments
and
a
lot
of
focus
from
the
community.
That
I
believe
takes
away
from
the
very
legitimate
conversation
about
lower
hanging,
attainable
results
here.
I
I
fully
appreciate
the
the
intention
of
putting
everything
on
the
table,
but
at
some
point
we
have
to
decide
whether
putting
everything
on
the
table
is
not.
You
know
dispersing
the
conversation
in
too
many
many
channels.
F
We
have
already
a
very
big
variety
of
issues
here
and
I
would
I
think
that
in
general,
gentle
density
in
its
first
implementation
phase
will
be
better
served.
If
we
discuss
the
options
from
two
to
six,
rather
than
go
all
the
way
up
to
eight,
it
is
a
different
class
of
of
building.
It
has
a
different
urbanism.
It
will.
It
is
definitely
and
I
agree
and
I
will
be
the
first
to
agree
that
it's
the
most
affordable
thought.
No
question
about
that.
F
We
have
seen
that
it's
also
because
it
it
you
know,
distributes
the
land,
the
the
high
price
of
the
land
on
more
units,
it
also
very
efficient
from
more
efficient
than
others
than
other
ahos
ehos.
F
G
Know,
thank
you
I
think
I
will
say
essentially
what
Mr
karantona
said,
although
in
a
slightly
different
way,
because
it's
me
I
feel
like
we've
been
talking
about
this
a
lot
and
I
am
frankly
tired
of
talking
about
seven
eight
plexes,
because
people
are
so
upset.
That's
what
gets
thrown
out
all
of
the
time
and
I
feel
it's
taken
away
from
the
discussion.
I
feel
we've
talked
it
to
death
practically
and
I.
G
Understand
the
desire
to
continue
to
consider
it,
but
I
feel
like
the
conversation
from
here
until
March
will
be
better
and
more
focused
and
I
think
it
will
help
bring
down
some
of
the
distress
in
the
community.
If
we
at
this
point
signal
that
we're
not
going
above
six.
So
that's
why
I'm
pleased
to
support
this.
Thank
you.
D
I
actually
wasn't
going
to
speed
my
search
here,
because
I
thought
you,
you
summarized
my
points
really
nicely.
I
I
too
think
that
perhaps
landing
at
six
flexes
may
may
very
well
be
the
appropriate
place
to
be
in
March
I.
Think
it
will
prove
profoundly
naive
for
us
to
imagine
that
we
are
going
to
in
some
way
reach
consensus
on
an
issue
that
has
exposed
a
great
majority
of
opinions
and
our
great
dissimilarity
of
opinions
in
our
community
to
curtail
the
conversation
at
this
point.
D
I
think
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
Fool's
errand
to
chase
that
that
notion.
I
would
be
delighted
to
be
proven
wrong
if
we
can
have
a
more
constructive
conversation
over
the
next
two
months
as
a
result,
but
I
think
that
it
is
precluding
Meaningful
analysis
by
this
board
out
of
the
false
hope
that
it
will
somehow
change
the
tenor
of
a
conversation.
B
Just
I
won't
be
long.
I
just
will
say
that
you
may
be
right
and
yet
I
I
believe
that
there
are
others
for
whom
there's
openness
and
I
think
it's
an
unknowable
question
at
this
moment
how
many
others
there
are
there's
some
I
I,
ultimately
I
feel
I'm
committed
to
try
to
work
to
build
consensus,
not
unanimity.
B
We're
not
going
to
have
that,
but
I'm,
mindful
that
some
arlingtons
are
going
to
be
imposed,
regardless
of
whether
apexes
or
seven
plexes
are
included,
and
there
are
some
who
are
going
to
be
supportive,
no
matter
what
that's
my
sense,
so
I
think
it's
consistent
with
what
I
heard
from
a
lot
of
people
over
the
last
year.
B
I
think
it's
reasonable
and
I
think
it's
time
to
take
this
step
now
to
move
forward
to
a
more
focused
conversation.
I
should
say
that
I
also
believe
that
this
can
better
best
serve
the
goal
of
having
five
and
six
fluxes
be
sustainable
for
outside
of
Transit
corridors
over
the
long
term.
So
those
are
my
reasons
and
I
don't
mean
to
close
conversation.
I
just
wanted
to
share
those
thoughts
and
I'll.
A
Take
a
around
two
since
you
you
did
and
whatever
your
goals
for
wanting
to
propose
limiting
it
here.
I'll
just
comment
a
little
bit
on
the
public
discourse
that
we've
had
thus
far
the
extensive
analysis
that
has
shown
The,
Limited
viability
of
seven
and
eight
plexes
and
that
are
particularly
or
that
are
further
limited
by
the
options
that
have
been
presented
with
minimum
Site
Area
for
2A
and
two
I'm.
Sorry
for
for
options.
A
Two
we
still
hear
apocalyptic
concerns
about
seven
and
apexes
on
every
block
and
we're
going
to
hear
it
about
five
and
six
plexes
on
every
parcel.
So,
while
I
I
don't
want
to
call,
you
naive,
I
want
to
just
also
say
that
the
conversation
about
seven
and
eights
everywhere
has
already
been
I'll,
be
generous,
based
on
a
lack
of
understanding,
and
we
do
nothing
to
further
that
understanding
by
simply
taking
it
off
the
table
and
and
punting.
But
I
hear
you
all
and
we've
said
what
needs
to
be
said.
G
G
In
the
end,
when
we
get
to
March,
which
I've
often
said
nobody's
going
to
be
happy,
and
in
fact,
if,
if
either
the
real
strong
proponents
or
the
opponents
either
side
is
happy,
we
will
have
failed,
I,
think
and
as
I
say,
I
mean
some
of
this
is
just
personal.
I
am
tired
of
talking
about
seven
and
eights.
I
know
I'm
not
going
to
get
there
I
really
just
don't
want
to
talk
about
that
anymore
and
I
expect
there
will
be
difficult
conversations,
but
I
want
them
to
be
through
one
through
six
I.
G
F
I'm
Mr
chair
I'm,
not
really
not
personally,
I'm,
not
really
responsive
to
the
hype,
and
you
know
the
discussion
I.
Just
yesterday
in
Open
Door
Monday
I
had
a
resident
who
thought
that
her
cul-de-sac
will
be.
You
know
five
by
eight
tomorrow,
it's
a
I,
don't
I
don't
respond
to
that.
This
is
not
my
concern
I.
F
My
concern
is
to
focus
the
work
on
the
next
45-50
days
on
a
pragmatic
scale
of
of
solutions
of
ehos
to
make
reform
really
viable
and
and
make
it
in
its
first
fires
of
implementation,
these
first
five
years,
Etc
a
successful
proposition
and
instead
of
having
to
fight
with
units
and
examples
and
potential
projects
that
will
bring
more
problems
than
they
will
bring.
Solutions
at
this
point
where
we
are
just
starting.
Thank
you.
A
D
A
D
Thank
you,
I.
Don't
know
that
this
needs
extensive
commentary,
except
to
say
when
we
seek
areas
of
consensus,
even
those
I
think
who
are
most
opposed
to
eho
development
by
right
have
suggested.
They
would
like
to
see
it
under
site
plan
or
special
exception.
I
think
we
actually,
in
fact
heard
from
a
opponent
of
the
overall
ordinance
Amendment
this
weekend
suggests
that,
for
example,
the
febrealthrop
house,
which
would
be
illustrative
of
this,
would
have
been
an
appropriate
place
to
consider
special
exception.
D
Of
course
that
takes
a
willing
owner,
which
we
did
not
have
in
that
case,
but
in
future
cases,
when
we
do
have
a
willing
owner
willing
owner
I,
think
the
idea
of
allowing
for
a
special
exception
process
is
perfectly
appropriate.
I,
don't
think
there
is
a
constituency
for
this
option
and
I
think
we
could
probably
streamline
our
efforts
going
forward
to
remove
it.
B
A
H
F
Chair
I
would
like
to
move
to
strike
line
two
12
option:
5D
like
Denmark.
That
is
an
option
of
no
minimum
parking
requirements
in
all
our
districts,
so
no
minimum
parking
requirements
across
the
board
thanks.
A
F
So
I
fully
appreciate
the
discussion
about
that
and
somebody
who
has
been
quoted
many
times
arguing
against
parking
minimums
and
four
parking
maximums.
H
F
General
in
all,
you
know,
developed
places,
I
think
we
should
be
moving
towards
there.
This
is
a
this
is
a
huge
policy
shift.
I
think
Arlington
is
moving
already
in
the
right
direction.
We
have
been
doing
this
in
our
in
our
corridors.
We
have
been
constantly
reducing
our
parking
minimums.
We
should
be
doing
that
and
we
should
be
doing
that
in
with
the
ehos,
especially
when
we
are
in
transit
proximity-
and
maybe
you
know,
the
the
other
options
offer
offer
a
lot
of
possibilities.
F
I
understand
also
that
parking
is
one
of
the
most
restrictive
determinants
of
success
for
ahos,
as
we
go
ahead,
however,
to
spend
the
time
and
energy
to
work
on
a
significant.
In
my
opinion,
policy
shift
to
to
evaluate
the
disappearance
of
parking
minimum
requirements
in
all
districts
is
for
me,
one
more
item
that
will
have
a
place
at
some
point
in
the
future,
but
not
in
this
RTA.
Thank.
B
I
support
this
as
consistent
with
trying
to
have
a
a
conversation
that
aligns
with
where
I
thought
we
were
in
July.
At
the
work
session,
we
asked
for
additional
options
for
parking
and
saying
zero
is
I,
don't
think
they're,
probably
planning
Commissioners,
who
are
not
going
to
like
me
for
this
not
at
the
table
but
and
maybe
at
the
table.
But
certainly
there
are
others
I
understand
the
costs
of
parking,
Mr,
schroll
I.
B
Think
of
in
this
capacity
in
this
regard,
but
I
feel
that
5D
is
not
consistent
with
those
conversations
from
the
summer
and
a
conversation
that
we
should
continue
to
have,
but
in
the
future.
A
A
I
just
can't
apply
those
standards
here.
Just
to
me,
it's
apples
and
oranges
so
I'm
happy
to
support
this
motion
all
right.
Seeing
no
further
discussion
we'll
now
vote
you
you
want
to
no
okay,
we'll
now
vote
on
Mr
Karen
Thomas's
motion,
all
those
in
favor
of
removing
option.
D,
please
say:
aye
aye
aye,
any
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it
and
option
5D
is
removed
any
further
deletions
from
five
that
we're
pursuing
Miss
Crystal.
So.
D
I
had
been
working
on
a
deletion
that
I'm
not
actually
going
to
propose,
but
it
was
going
to
be
an
opportunity
to
make
the
following
comment,
which
I'd
love
to
apropos
of
the
previous
conversation.
I
am
supportive.
I
will
just
note,
I
think
it's
so
important
in
terms
of
setting
this
conversation
going
forward.
D
We
are
not
debating
how
much
parking
will
be
built
with
ehos.
We
are
debating
how
much
government
is
going
to
require
be
built.
D
I
think
that
that
so
for
so
many
of
the
reasons
it
feels
infeasible
to
those
in
our
community
who
live
more
than
three
quarters
of
a
mile
away
from
transit
station,
it
will
similarly
feel
infeasible
for
Future
Property,
Owners,
Future,
Property
developers,
future
buyers
of
eho
forums
and
I
think
that
it
is
not
unreasonable
to
expect
that
the
market
is
going
to
deliver
an
appropriate
amount
of
parking,
so
I
I,
just
I.
Think
most
colleagues
are
with
me
on
that
I.
Just
think.
D
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
Well
now
ready
to
move
on
to
six
tree
requirements
we
have
already
made.
In
addition,
there
any
deletions
that
are
proposed.
I've
got
one
prepared.
D
All
right,
thank
you,
Ms
Crystal
I'm,
going
to
propose
that
we
strike
line
273,
which
is
option
6B.
That
would
place
no
additional
requirements
for
True
retention
or
planting
I.
Think
as
discussed
earlier,
there
is
interest
in
exploring
whether
more
trees
can
be
established,
but
I,
don't
think
I've
heard
any
interest
in
whether
fewer.
A
H
A
Aye
any
opposed
the
eyes
have
it.
6B
is
deleted.
We
have
one
option
for
for
tree
requirements,
Simplicity
and
Clarity.
Look
at
that
all
right,
seven
annual
limits.
We
now
have
work
through
and
added
an
option,
C
and
amended
the
text
of
a
are
there.
Any
deletions
proposed
for
this
Miss
Garvey.
G
Yeah
I
haven't
actually
worked
this
with
anybody,
but
looking
at
this
I
think
I'd
like
to
take
offer,
take
option
7B
delete
that
one,
seeing
as
we've
had
all
of
this
discussion
and
come
to
some
agreement,
which
is
talking
about
doing
caps,
I'd
like
to
take
off
the
option
of
not
having
any
limit
well.
A
First,
we
need
to
see
if
there's
a
second
all
right,
yeah
yeah.
There
is
a
second
okay,
we'll
now
discuss
it,
Ms
Garvey
anything
else
to
add
no.
G
Not
particularly
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion,
I
think
we've
come
to
kind
of
where
we
want
to
be
for
advertising
and
I.
Think
that
includes
having
some
sort
of
caps.
I
know
it
may
not
be
unanimous,
but
that's
useful
to
do
I
think
again
just
to
take
concern
off
the
table.
Thank.
A
You
I
will
just
say
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
could
say
that
the
conversation
that
we
had
definitively
determined
that
caps
were
to
be
a
part
of
this.
It
was
a
conversation
about
if
Caps
or
to
be
a
part
of
it.
What
audit
looked
like
I
I
was
fully
expecting.
Just
with
my
conversation,
my
own
personal
belief,
in
limits
aside
that
part
of
the
conversation
over
the
next
two
months
should
be
no
caps
or
caps
of
this
sort.
D
B
Dr
D
Franti,
yeah,
I
I,
don't
support
removing
7B
I,
think
I
may
end
up
at
a
cap,
but
I
I
could
Envision
a
scenario
where
there's
sufficient
limit.
You
know
structure
of
what
is
accessible
under
two
e.
That
would
lead
me
to
lean
more
towards
that
than
to
any
cap,
and
so
I
want
to
keep
the
option
for
consideration.
I'm
glad,
though,
that
we
had
this
brief
discussion
on
it,
I
mean
that
you
brought
it
thanks.
B
A
Anyone
else,
okay,
we'll
now
move
to
a
vote
on
Ms
garvey's
substitute
to
I'm.
Sorry,
her
motion
to
delete
option
7B,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed,
please
say
nay,
nay,
motion
fails
with
do
you
need
to
record
that
Ms
Jacobs.
D
A
Foreign
duplex
definition,
options,
A
and
B,
deleting
any
of
them
proposing
deleting
any
of
them
good,
10
applicability
to
all
districts.
We
have
again
two
options
there:
a
and
b
should
they
remain
on
the
table.
Any
proposed
deletions
moving
on
we're
almost
there
folks
maximum
floor
area,
it's
11
a
b
and
c,
and
he
proposed
removal
of
any
of
those
options.
B
I
would,
after
asking
questions
about
it,
I
think
11c
no
limits
on
Gross,
floor
area,
I
think
Mr,
Karen
Thomas,
you
may
have
had
some
concerns
there,
but
I
will,
for
my
part,
I
will
offer
an
amendment
to
strike
No
Limits,
elevated
C.
Okay,
so
motion
is.
B
Certainly
again
appreciate
the
instinct
to
allow
to
to
be
flexible
and
the
implementation
challenges
I
do.
This
is
an
option
that
came
to
us
more
recently.
I
I
feel
that
the
net
cost
in
terms
of
distraction
outweighs
the
benefit
in
terms
of
the
potential
that
I
would
be
at
this
place.
I
can't
Envision
voting
for
11c,
ultimately
at
this
stage,
and
so
I
think
it
benefits
our
conversation
to
strike
it.
B
G
On
this,
one
I
am
not
going
to
support
that
I.
Think
I'd
like
to
keep
that
there
to
have
these
discussions
about
what
we
want.
A
lot
of
it
is
just
looking
at
what
we're
going
to
be,
creating
and
concerns
about
homeownership
and
what's
going
to
be
rental
and
how
sizes
are
there
so
I'd
like
to
leave
that
in
thanks.
D
Know
what's
interesting,
I
am
sort
of
with
you
on
the
principle,
but
I.
The
the
justification
is
where
I
get
off
the
wagon
right.
Like
again,
I
I
think
this
idea
that
we
can
somehow,
instead
of
making
good
policy
we're
trying
to
at
this
age
of
our
team,
manage
the
conversation
is
disappointing
to
me.
Nevertheless,
I
think
you're,
right
that
it
is
a
relatively
new
idea.
D
I
think
that
the
the
notion
of
managing
the
overall
maximum
flurries
there
is
the
right
conversation
to
be
having,
and
it's
been
part
of
stats
recommendation
from
the
beginning
to
me
it
is
a
question
of
whether
we
tailor
it
you
know
so
we're
just
managing
the
the
likelier
do
planchons,
rather
than
all
of
the
units.
I
I,
don't
think
there
is
a
universe
in
which
I
see
myself
pursuing
no
limits
at
all,
particularly
on
the
semi-detached
and
towns.
D
So
I
think
that
I
am
comfortable
again
trying
to
arrive
at
that
conclusion.
Based
on
what
I
think
the
likely
policy
discussions
are
rather
than
this,
this
effort
to
control
what
people
are
going
to
think
I
I,
don't
know
that
there's
much
we
can
do
in
that
regard,
but
I
do
think
that
is
not
a
policy
tool.
I'm
going
to
find
myself
wishing
I
could
reach
for
at
the
time
of
March,
so
I'm
I'm
happy
to
support
the
motion.
B
A
No
more
all
right
so
well
now,
I
think
everyone
has
spoken,
we'll
move
to
a
vote
on
Mr
D
franti's
motion
to
exclude
option
11
C,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye.
D
A
Mr
Karen
Thomas
I
was
not
able
to
he's
an
eye
you're
an
eye
so
by
a
vote
of
three
to
two
with
Mr
Karen
Thomas,
Miss,
Crystal
and
Mr
D
for
anti
concurring.
11C
is
removed
as
an
option.
A
Okay,
we
are
now
to
12
accessory
dwellings
where
there
are
two
options:
A
and
B.
A
We're
good
okay,
hopefully
I,
will
get
this
right,
so
I'll
do
the
tick
tock
of
where
we
are
we're.
Now,
looking
at
a
main
motion
which
include
options
which
includes
option
one
and
then
options:
2,
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
3,
a
4
A
and
B
5,
a
b
c
and
e
six,
a
seven,
a
b
and
c
E
A
and
B
9
A
and
B
10
and
B
10,
11,
A
and
B,
and
12
A
and
B
second
port
with
what
you
think
where
you
think
we
are.
A
Hopefully
all
right
sounds
good
all
right,
so
that
is
now
our
our
motion.
Do
we
want
to
have
and
concluding
remarks?
I'm.
Sorry!
Do
we
want
to
have
concluding
remorse
on
this
before
we
take
a
vote
on
the
motion
as
amended
Mr
D
ferranti.
B
Whatever
is
the
pleasure,
but
I'll
start
since
I
didn't
see
other
red
lights.
If
that's,
if
it
works
for
you,
Mr
chair,
I,
recognize
you
it's
yours.
Thank
you,
I
think
it's
critically
important
and
essential
that
we
were
our
residents
know
that
today
is
not
final
adoption.
I
do
think
there
will
be
people
who
who
say
that
his
final
adoption
we're
setting
the
scope-
and
this
is
the
most
that
we
can
enact
in
March
some
parts
of
the
proposal
we
can
choose
several
options.
B
Arlington
I
believe
has
made
two
major
land
use
decisions
that
are
relevant
in
the
1930s,
the
county,
regulated
the
housing
market
through
the
Banning
of
row
houses
and
the
Banning
of
non-single-family
homes.
In
many
places
the
purpose
was
to
racially
exclude
racially
exclude
certain
individuals
and
thereby
communities
that
was
not
repealed
until
the
late
1960s.
B
We
haven't
talked
about
the
general
land
use
plan
language,
but
we're
refining
our
general
land
use
plan
and
that
shifts
us
is
a
change
from
a
hard
and
fast
sense
of
we
will
have
density
only
in
the
corridors
and
single-family
neighborhoods
will
be
left
alone.
I,
don't
think
that
is
the
right
plan
for
our
next
years,
our
next
10
20
50
years
that
social
contract
is
shifting,
and
we
have
to
acknowledge
that
the
social
contract
that
we've
had
has
not
been
as
inclusive
as
it
needs
to
be
going
forward.
B
B
Arlington
residents
have
shared
My
Views
in
their
own
words,
Laura
asked
us
to
move
forward
in
advertising
because
she
wants
her
kids
to
have
a
better
chance
to
live
here
and
believes.
This
is
an
important
part
of
making
that
happen.
Christine
asked
us
not
to
proceed
unless
we
are
open
to
the
density.
We
approve
on
our
very
own
streets.
Next
to
where
we
live.
Nate
said
this
may
not
do
everything,
but
it
is
a
start
at
ending
what
certainly
began
as
exclusionary
and
continues
to
make
it
hard
for
all
to
thrive.
B
Meg
said
it's
just
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
agree
with
her,
but
what
the
it
is
is
really
important
and
it's
yet
to
be
clearly
and
fully
determined
a
former
School
Board.
Member
put
it
the
same
way,
it's
worth
repeating
that
this
doesn't
help
those
earning
less
than
a
hundred
thousand
a
year,
at
least
initially
and
for
the
near
term,
but
it
could,
for
the
longer
term,
Ginger
shared
concerns
about
apexes
that
aligned
with
my
thinking.
B
Building
unless
there
are
outside
costs
or
unreasonable
burdens
to
doing
so,
missing
middle
will
not
fix
all
our
problems
or
deliver
housing
that
is
Affordable
to
every
income
level,
but
it
will
be
a
part,
a
critical
part.
In
writing
the
wrongs.
The
past
and
providing
greater
access
going
forward
the
details
matter,
I'll
be
into
them
in
the
next
two
months.
My
vote
in
favor
of
moving
forward
is
My
Strong
support
for
an
Arlington
that
is
welcoming
in
its
people,
diverse
in
its
communities
and
as
opportunities
for
people
from
any
and
all
walks
of
life.
A
You
I'll
speak
to
my
own
view
on
this.
I
will
vote
to
move
this
forward
because
obviously
I
believe
and
have
long
believed
in
looking
at
the
way
we
do
Residential
zoning
and
not
being
as
exclusionary
as
we
have
been
under
the
arbitrary
basis
of
which
those
exclusions
have
been
imposed.
A
What
is
the
best
possible
way
to
move
forward
with
eho,
and
so
I
am
disappointed
that
the
limited
nature
of
what
will
be
offered
today
just
doesn't
give
us
the
ability
over
the
next
two
months
to
really
do
the
best
policy,
and
that's
that's
a
profound
disappointment
for
me,
but
certainly
not
disappointing
enough
for
me
to
vote
against
it.
Even
though
I
will
repeat
again,
I'm
deeply
disappointed
with
what
the
main
motion
looks
like
I.
Think
that
a
couple
of
things
that
I
I
just
want
to
have
us
be
left
with.
A
By
taking
the
seven
and
eight
options
off
the
table.
We
are
already
yielding
to
the
fact
that
the
the
most
affordable
units
that
could
be
made
available
are
taken
off
the
table
for
the
biggest
slots
in
Arlington
that
could
accommodate
them.
Limiting
the
opportunity
to
further
provide
attainability
through
people
being
able
to
achieve
economies
of
scale
and
subsidize
on
a
per
unit
basis
in
a
very
cost
efficient
way,
perhaps
as
cost
effectively
as
we
do
with
some
of
the
affordable
housing
contributions
that
we
make
on
the
Metro
corridors.
A
A
But
it
is
what
it
is
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
we're
going
to
hopefully
move
forward
with,
is
being
able
to
have
all
the
requisite
pieces
to
do
something
that
that
hopefully
achieve
some
of
the
transformative
goals
that
Mr
D
Ferrante
so
eloquently
stated,
while
at
the
same
same
time
fulfilling
our
responsibility
to
deliver
for
our
community.
A
coherent
policy
where
the
benefits
are
clear.
The
burdens
are
mitigated
or
prevented
in
its
entirety,
and
that
this
is
something
that
is
sustainable
for
a
long
time.
So
I
still
have
a
lot
of
Hope.
G
Sure,
thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
sorry
that
you're
disappointed,
but
that's
kind
of
the
whole
nature
of
what
we
are
doing
here.
I'm
not
I,
have
a
goal
really
all
along
someone
said
it
really
well.
I
took
a
note:
I'd
have
to
go
back
to
see
who
it
was
on
I,
think
Saturday
saying
we
should
be
doing
sensible
and
measured
change
and
what
we're
advertising
feels
to
me
like
sensible
and
measured
change.
G
I
want
to
also
not
forget
to
thank
everybody's,
been
involved
in
this
process
and
I
might
start
with
you
Mr
chair.
This
has
gone
really
relatively
smoothly,
particularly
today
in
the
last
few
days,
and
that's
because
of
your
leadership
and
a
lot
of
hard
work
and
organization
that
went
on
behind
someone
behind
the
scenes.
It's
all
transparent.
G
You
can
ask
us,
but
we've
been
trying
to
figure
out
how
best
to
manage
this
conversation
and
I
really
really
appreciate
the
time
that
you
took,
because
it's
a
lot
of
time
and
I
appreciate
the
time
that
my
colleagues
have
taken.
Staff
has
done
an
incredible
job
and
our
residents,
everybody
who's,
come
and
worked
this
through
and
our
commissions.
G
It's
it's
amazing,
I
think
we
are
almost
to
what
I
think
of
as
the
end
of
the
beginning
of
this
process
of
change
in
Arlington,
which
is
partly
why
I'm
not
so
anxious
to
go
so
far
right
away
with
this
I
think
this
is
just
a
beginning.
G
I
want
to
just
say
one
thing
to
a
few
people
who
have
been
getting
upset,
saying
that
the
plan
keeps
changing
and,
on
the
other
side,
people
say
you're,
not
being
responsive
you're,
not
listening
to
us
for
at
least
18
months
we
have
been
putting
out
our
staff,
particularly
at
first
putting
out
information,
getting
feedback
modifying
what
they
do,
putting
it
out
again
getting
feedback
modifying
it.
That's
what
the
board's
been
doing.
G
The
reason
it's
been
changing
is
because
we
have
been
listening
to
people
and
doing
our
best
to
respond
and
try
to
make
this
as
as
as
good
a
proposal
as
we
can
and
I
think
we're
getting
really
really
close.
So
that's
why
it's
been
changing,
but
it's
not
going
to
change
now
for
what
now
until
March
till
we
adopt.
So
this
is
what
we're
really
really
going
to
be
talking
about.
G
In
March,
and
that's
clear
now
and
I
appreciate
having
two
months
to
do
that,
rather
than
the
usual
just
one
month,
break
again,
I
think
we're
beginning
the
process
of
deciding
more
clearly
what
we
want
and,
as
I
have
talked
about
a
bit
before
I
hope
this.
Once
we
adopt
something
in
March.
What
we
do
next
is
going
to
be
really
important
and
I
think
there's
some
really
important,
in-depth
conversations
about
what
kind
of
a
community
we
want.
G
You
know
I
notice
in
the
the
staff
describing
what
one
of
our
goals
is
is
we
want
to
have
vibrant
and
sustainable
communities
in
our
and
where
our
communities,
where
their
neighborhoods,
where
it's
low
density
I,
think
we
all
say
we
want
vibrant
and
sustainable,
but
I
know
one
person's,
vibrant
and
sustainable.
Is
another
person's,
loud
noising
and
uncomfortable
changing
so
there's
a
whole
conversation
that
needs
to
kind
of
happen.
G
G
So
I
view
this
as
a
really
good
method
to
start
getting
some
very
good
information,
and
it
will
continue
to
be
tweaked
and
changed
and
that
is
going
to
be
good
I
think
we
will
have
again
this
conversation
that
will
get
us
to
a
better
place
of
having
a
more
a
healthier
conversation.
I
am
looking
forward
to
that.
That's
going
to
be
the
next
step
after
March.
G
Most
of
my
thinking
now
actually
is
going
to
be
focused
how
we
have
those
good
conversations
moving
forward
and
I
think
that's
going
to
take
a
year
or
two
to
actually
do
properly.
A
lot
of
people
have
been,
and
groups
have
been
coming
to
me
saying
we
want
to
have
this
conversation,
help
I'm,
really
looking
forward
to
that
I
think.
That's
all
I
feel
I
need
to
say
now.
G
I
do
want
to
take
this
step,
because
we
should
not
wait
to
loosen
the
grip
of
single
family
zoning,
this
one
housing
type
on
most
of
our
County,
and
we
are
going
to
loosen
that
grip
as
disappointed,
as
some
of
my
colleagues
may
be.
This
is
a
big
step
that
we're
going
to
be
taking
and
I
expect
us
to
take
in
March,
but
I
do
think
we
need
to
take
it
somewhat
slow
as
we
work
out
what
we
want
and
what
we
want
Arlington
to
be
like
in
the
future.
G
A
Remind
everybody
we're
not
we're
not
done
yet.
So
you
know,
a
lot
of
this
is
sounding
like
you
know,
we're
we're
at
the
concluding
stage.
We
keep
your
energy
folks,
all
right,
Mr,
Karen,
Thomas,.
F
Mr
chair
I
have
to
say
that
the
the
last
year
has
been
an
amazing
year
of
public
engagement
and
and
of
hearing
literally
thousands.
The
voices
of
thousands
of
people
and
I
have
to
commend
everybody
who
worked
on
this
so
far
and
brought
us
to
this
moment,
including
and
first
and
foremost
our
vice
chair
today
and
chair
last
year,
Miss
Crystal
for
having
advanced
this
conversation,
which
is
a
historic
conversation
at
the
core
of
that,
is
indeed
losing
the
grip
of
exclusionary
zoning.
F
I
have
to
say
Mr
Dorsey
that
I
perfectly
understand
the
disappointment
and
I
I
have
wrestled
with
this
decision
very
very
for
for
months
now.
Whether
I
could
find
a
way
a
pathway
of
visibility.
I
tried
many
times
to
see
whether
we
can
put
conditions
on
that
you
know
have.
You
know,
find
the
ways
to
to
get
affordability.
Buyer
in
a
buy
right,
setting
and
I
just
couldn't
find
a
path
that
would
satisfy
a
pragmatic
and
a
pathway
with
with,
with
with
a
pathway,
to
success
in
the
first
phase
of
implementation.
F
The
next
five
to
ten
years,
I'm
really
focused
in
getting
an
ordinance
and
an
amendment.
A
a
a
reform
through
that
has
very
high
likelihood
of
success,
and
that
will
be
supported
by
all
those
who
have
put
so
much
effort
in
getting
us
here
to
enabled
us
to
do
that
either
because
they
voted
the
right
way
or
because
they
supported
the
right
causes
or
because
they
are,
they
have
added
their
voice
in
the
community.
Dialogue
on
that,
for
me,
equity
and
Justice.
F
Is
this
the
first
you
know
component
of
all,
this
I
think
that
we
are
about
to
make
a
very
big
step
forward.
F
But
smart
growth,
1.0
hasn't
provided
a
viable
solution
for
our
housing
shortage
and
our
supply.
Those
Smart
Road
number
version
2
will
build
up
on
Smart
growth
version
one.
What
we
are
trying
here
is
to
expand
the
scope
and
the
benefits
of
smart
growth
and
to
include
everybody
to
create
really
opportunity
that
is
available
to
all
for
all
it
is.
Growth
has
become
really
complicated
in
Arlington,
more
complex,
I
shouldn't
say,
complicated,
more
complex
in
Arlington.
F
We
are
responding
to
that
to
these
complex
challenges,
with
with
making
opportunity
available
to
more
people
from
more
walks
of
life
and
in
all
this,
so
environment,
I
I
really
have
worked
and
thought
as,
as
you
know,
I
was
focused
very
much
in
the
Environmental.
F
You
know.
Benefits
of
all
this
distributed
density
is
really
carbon
efficient.
It
reduces
you
know
the
the
the
the
traditional
patterns
of
traffic,
those
were
that
have
been
contributing
almost
38
percent
of
total
carbon
emissions.
It
allows
us
to
to
use
build
space
more
efficiently
than
just
allows
us
to
use
public
space.
More
efficient
allows
us
to
grow
Transit
modes
that
are
way
more
efficient
and
serve
more
people
at
the
lower
cost
and
with
with
a
bigger
economic
benefit,
it's
we
are
making
a
step
forward
in
improving
design
and
urbanism
in
Arlington.
F
We
now
have.
We
know
that
the
this
this
21st
century
will
ask
us
to
to
create
to
build
smart
growth
around
not
only
around
a
single
dominant
asset
which
is
Transit,
but
also
also
around
other
Civic
assets
like
like
public
spaces,
not
like
neighborhood
retail,
like
the
availability,
the
local
neighborhood
availability
of
services.
It's
healthier,
it's
human
scale,
human
scale,
neighborhoods
are
healthier
to
everybody.
Kids
can
play
out
there.
Seniors
can
walk
it.
It
brings
a
critical
mass
of
residence
and
makes
them
brings
them
in
proximity
to
these
assets.
F
It
breaks
them
enables
them
to
to
enjoy
of
these
assets
that
will
grow
because
there
are
enough
people
there.
So
the
concept
of
affordability,
I
I'm
not
going
to
give
up.
For
me
this
is
extremely
important.
We
have
still
a
lot
of
way
to
go.
I
just
wasn't
satisfied
that,
with
a
with
a
buy
right
approach,
we
would
get
there,
especially
in
the
bigger
plexus.
F
We
still
have
a
lot
of
conversation
to
make
to
do,
and
we
have
so
many
options
on
the
table
to
discuss
on
the
process.
I
have
to
say
that
I
do
believe
that
this
was
a
fair.
It
wasn't
a
perfect
process,
but
it
was
a
very
fair
process
that
brought
in
a
lot
of
different
opinions
and
I
have
all
the
respect
for
single-family
house
household
owners,
who
spoke
very
very
often,
you
know,
and
they
were
sometimes
very,
very
audible.
It's
not
wrong
to
be
a
homeowner
in
Arlington.
It's
absolutely
not
wrong.
F
If
somebody
believes
that,
because
I've
been
asked
that
absolutely
not,
but
also
it's
not
wrong
to
be
a
renter
in
Arlington,
it's
not,
and
it
shouldn't
be
wrong
to
be
not
a
wide.
You
know
upper
middle
class
individual
wealthy
enough
to
afford
a
runaway.
You
know
assets
in
The,
Runaway
housing
market,
this
intervention
levels
the
field-
creates
opportunity
and
makes
and
makes
a
good
step
forward
in
actual
good
policy.
F
More
people
means
more
Arlington,
Jane
green
said
that
and
I
think
this.
This
sticks
with
me
because
her
first
article,
when
she
first
published
here
in
Arlington
when
she
first
arrived
here,
was
am
I
a
burden
myself
and
my
kid.
So
the
answer
to
that
is
no.
We
are
welcome
and
we
are
are
going
to
work
with
you
and
with
everybody
to
create
the
conditions.
So
that
no
Jane
green
with
a
kid,
no
young
family
ever
considers
itself
a
burden
and
doesn't
and
see
no
options
forward.
F
So
I
think
that
this
is
a
good
step
forward.
We
have
a
lot
of
intensive
conversation
in
the
next
45
days
or
50
days,
and
I
think
that
we
will
have
to
dig
in
and
get
the
best
outcome
out
of
there
for
everybody,
not
for
only
for
the
few.
D
So
if
the
this
normal
hearing
we'd
be
saying,
thank
you
to
the
many
people
who
testified
so
I'll
say
that,
instead,
for
a
matter
of
record
with
a
couple
of
exceptions,
I
particularly
appreciated
the
civility
that
was
largely
on
display
and,
above
all,
the
range
and
spectrum
of
opinions.
D
The
point
of
advertisement
is
to
continue
debate
and
Define
the
terms
after
three
years,
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
pages
of
analysis,
engagements
of
experts
in
higher
education
and
development
and
planning
and
regional
growth
and
housing
economics
in
intensive
commission
review
of
the
proposed
zoning
ordinance
Amendment.
Some
might
even
call
them
a
panel
of
Resident
experts
from
our
Planning
Commission
from
our
Transportation
Commission
from
our
Housing
Commission,
our
joint
facilities,
advisory,
commission,
forestry
and
natural
resources
and
aging
commissions.
D
We
have
a
recommendation
in
front
of
us
and
I
think
it
is
an
understatement
to
say
we
are
ready
to
continue.
The
debate
like
our
chair
I
am
disappointed
that
we
are
moving
forward
in
a
way
that
takes
off
the
table,
the
outcomes
of
that
extensive
analysis
and
substitutes
it
with
measures
designed
to
chase
public
opinion
rather
than
effectuate.
The
best
policy
moving
forward
with
care
does
not
mean
moving
forward
with
timidity
and
indeed
to
move
forward
with
timidity.
So
is
the
seeds
of
this
policies,
own
failure.
D
We
say
we're
concerned
about
only
getting
the
most
expensive
forms
or
we're
concerned
about
concentrating
missing
middle
in
only
a
few
places
or
we're
concerned
about
missing
opportunities
to
serve
public
servants
and
failing
to
diversify
our
neighborhoods.
But
we
are
in
danger
of
delivering
exactly
that
outcome
by
seeding
the
forms
that
will
achieve
affordability
by
handicapping,
missing
middle
relative
to
single-family
detached
by
restricting
where
it
can
go.
D
I
think
that
there
is
a
lot
of
Hope
left
here
and
I
hope
that
we
can
do
better
over
the
coming
months
as
we
work
our
way
towards
a
final
policy.
I
want
to
conclude
on
a
more
optimistic
note,
which
is
that
we
have
spent
exclusively
our
time
today.
Talking
about
the
zoning
ordinance
amendments,
we
have
not
talked
much
about
the
other
part
of
the
motion,
which
is
the
amendments
to
the
draft
general
land
use
plan.
Booklet
I
want
to
take
a
moment
to
particularly
commend
our
staff
to
meet
the
recommended
text.
D
We
are
still
living
with
the
legacy
of
that,
although
it's
not
the
legacy
of
that,
we
are
actively
perpetuating
that
every
day
that
we
let
it
stand.
48
of
our
population
in
zoning
districts
that
allow
two
family
or
townhouses
or
multi-family,
are
people
of
color,
almost
half
our
population.
In
our
five
to
our
20
districts,
only
28
percent
of
our
residents
are
people
of
color,
again
I
agree.
D
We
need
to
move
forward
with
care,
although
not
timidity
and
I
would
argue
that
we
are
well
prepared
to
do
so
after
those
three
years
of
analysis,
but
for
all
of
us
who
desire
to
live
in
a
community
that
reflects
our
professed
values.
We
cannot
let
this
policy
intervention
missing
middle
is
not
the
policy
intervention.
Zoning
deeply
restrictive
zoning
is
the
policy
intervention
and
we
cannot
let
it
with
all
of
its
intended
and
unintended
consequences
continue
to
stand
on
our
watch.
It
is
time
to
move
forward.
D
A
You
Ms
Crystal
Mr,
Karen,
okay,
we're
good,
okay,
we're
now
ready
to
move
to
a
vote
on
the
main
motion
as
significantly
amended
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
aye:
are
there
any
opposed
the
eyes?
Have
it
5-0?
We
now
have
an
advertisement
for
our
consideration
over
the
next
two
months
and
concluding
in
March
colleagues.
I
would
like
to
make
an
additional
motion
just
given
our
attempt
to
be
orderly
and
cover
all
bases.
A
Today,
we
may
not
have
in
fact
done
so
so
in
order
to
make
sure
we
are
we're
perfectly
good
in
the
eyes
of
our
public
and,
of
course,
most
importantly,
our
County
attorney
I'll
move
that
we
authorize
the
County
Attorney
to
review
all
motions
passed
today
and
make
any
necessary
and
appropriate
changes
to
the
zoning
text
to
be
advertised
to
correct
scrivener's
errors,
ensure
internal
consistency
and
update
cross
references
is
needed.
Second,
it
is
seconded
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
speak
to
that
unless
anybody
would
like
to
all
those
in
Mr
characters.
F
A
Those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye
aye,
any
opposed
the
eyes,
have
it
five
zero.
Let
me
give
a
note
of
where
we
go
from
here,
because
this
is
really
the
first
step
to
just
authorize,
really
what's
on
the
agenda,
for
the
actions
that
we're
going
to
be
taking
in
March
and
so
from
here.
Our
best
responsibility
is
to
make
sure
everyone
who
has
an
interest,
a
stake
and
a
desire
to
engage
on
this
issue
understands
exactly
what
has
been
done.
A
So
we
will
be
as
soon
as
is
practicable,
producing
some
materials
which
not
only
explain
what
options
are
in
the
board's
action
as
of
today,
but
any
areas
where
we
can
provide
supplemental
information
to
better
help
frame
the
topic
area
itself,
so
we'll
be
working
on
those
materials
over
the
next.
However
long
it
takes
and
make
those
available
as
soon
as
we
possibly
can,
of
course,
as
soon
as
a
staff
can
do
so.
A
Some
distillation
of
the
actions
that
we
have
taken
today
will
be
made
available
for
public
use
and
will
also
hopefully
make
it
into
some
form
of
a
press
release,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that,
as
early
as
possible,
people
can
begin
to
think
about
the
options
that
are
now
on
the
table
and
engage
with
with
each
other
and
with
the
board
in
ways
that
you
see
fit
over
the
next
60
days.
Approximately
with
that
is
there
any
other
business
that
needs
to
come
before
the
board
for
our
January
meetings,
Ms
Jacobs,
no.