►
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
The
discussion
and
proceedings
today
are
entirely
with
the
board,
so
we
appreciate
you're
all
coming
to
watch
us
deliberate,
that's
kind
of
that's
kind
of
new,
but
thank
you
for
being
here,
but
we
do
ask
that
you
allow
us
to
have
this
com
this
conversation
and
not
have
any
disruptions
apologize
for
starting
us.
A
few
minutes
late
in
this
case
I
valued
caffeination
over
punctuality
and
I'm-
not
entirely
sorry
about
that.
A
A
Anyone
have
any
questions
of
Staff
or
Commissioners.
They
would
like
to
raise
at
this
point
all
right,
seeing
none
we'll
move
next
to
minimum
Site
Area
and
then
we'll
follow
that
with
lot
coverage
minimum
side
area.
These
are
the
two
series
options,
number
of
them
I
believe
five
in
total
any
questions,
Mr
deferanti
thank.
B
You
Mr
chair
I'm
a
little
bit
in
a
place
where
I
feel,
like
the
phrase
show.
Your
math
is
relevant,
but
I
don't
want
to
ask
too
many
questions,
so
this
may
have
been
covered
a
little
bit
two
months
ago
and
I'll,
just
it
won't
necessarily
shock,
but
I
think
it
is
for
Mr
Ladd
the
staff
report
on
page
a13.
B
It
talks
about,
and
you
don't
have
to
necessarily
flip
it
talks
about
rents
of
2700
to
3300
and
affordable
ownership
of
108
to
118,
000.,
and
so
we've
had
in
the
course
of
the
last
couple
months
and
certainly
over
the
weekend
and
yesterday
we've
had
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
consultant's
report
and
it
was
finished
in
April
of
last
year
based
on
numbers
that
I
think
were
a
little
before
that,
because
data
reporting,
so
it
seems
likely
that
you
know
the
cost,
because
interest
rates
have
gone
up
so
much
since
then.
B
The
cost
of
a
home
under
those
the
six
to
eight
unit
may
have
gone
up
and
the
incomes
that
could
be
able
to
afford
to
buy
and
perhaps
to
rent,
might
have
increased,
and
so
I
I
wanted
to
First.
Just
ask:
is
that
a
fair
assumption
that
probably
both
would
have
gone
up
I'm,
not
a
Housing,
Finance
expert,
so
I
just
and
it
may
be
that
just
ownership
and
rents
have
stayed
relatively
the
same.
But
is
it
fair
to
Guess
that
both
those
bands
may
have
gone
up
a
little
bit.
C
So
I
think,
and
and
we
talked
we
did
talk
about
this
a
little
bit
in
January-
you
know-
certainly
the
the
attainability
the
income
needed
to
attain
housing
is
different
than
it
was
a
year
ago,
because
interest
rates
have
gone
up
and,
as
we
discussed
in
January
interest
rates,
as
we
know
they
fluctuate
over
time.
C
This
is
a
long-range
plan,
we're
planning
not
just
for
the
next
year
and
we're
not
going
to
predict
where
interest
rates
may
go,
but
obviously,
when
they're
up
attainability
goes
down
and
when
interest
rates
are
lower,
attainability
goes
up,
but
in
terms
of
the
the
sales
prices
you
know,
those
are
a
year
old,
but
interest
rates
don't
have
as
great
an
effect
on.
You
know:
market
market
sales
prices
as
they
do
on
the
level
of
attainability
and
the
income
that
would
be
required.
B
Great
thank
you
for
bearing
with
me
and
I,
won't,
have
tons
of
questions,
but
just
a
couple
follow-ups
and
done
with
this
whole
area.
One
is
based
on
what
you
said.
We
don't
know
exactly
what
the
prices
would
be
exactly
whether
how
much
they
would
have
gone
up
or
or
if
they
even
would
have
got
gone
up
because
interest
rates
are,
you
know
some
Realtors
are
saying
it's
frozen.
Parts
of
the
market
is
that
it
might
have
gone
up.
We
don't
know.
How
much
is
that
a
fair.
C
So
I
think
again
we're
we're
planning
for
the
future
and
we're
not
necessarily
planning
for
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
next
12
months.
The
the
consultant's
analysis
was
based
on
a
point
in
time
and
I
think
they
give
us
a
good
order
of
magnitude
level
of
what
housing
costs
we
would
expect
from
from
different
housing
types
under
different
assumptions.
B
Got
it
in
the
last
this
thank
you
for
bearing
with
me,
because
you
gave
substantially
pieces
that
you'd
already
described,
but
the
last
question
is
so.
The
bulk
of
our
consideration
here
is
on
five
and
six
plexes
and
it
seems
to
me
the
reasoning
would
still
apply
that.
If
you
compare
to
five
and
six
Plex
cost
to
the
cost
of
this
replacing
single
family
home,
we
certainly
would
have
lower
costs.
There,
we've
heard
some
people
describing
how
an
older
home
replaced
by
a
duplex.
B
C
To
describe
it
so
I
think
the
the
equity
analysis
covers
that
a
little
better
and
I.
You
know
I,
don't
have
the
the
figures
off
the
top
of
my
head,
and
we
did.
You
know,
there's
tables
in
here
by
ZIP
code
of
basically
what
our
current
market
prices
for
housing
and
obviously
it
ranges
by
ZIP
code.
But
in
general
you
know
the
the
median
price
for
a
house,
not
a
new
house,
but
just
any
house
in
Arlington.
C
A
single
detached
house
is
a
roughly
a
million
dollars
today
and
so
to
the
extent
that
if
you
look
at
the
the
prices
for
missing
middle
housing
on
page
a13
that
are
here,
oh
there's,
obviously
a
range
with
the
six
plexes
being
lowest
and
certainly
much
less
than
a
million
dollars.
And
then
at
the
higher
end
of
that
range.
Semi-Detached
right
at
a
side
by
side
unit
might
be
more
than
a
million
dollars.
But
it
also
would
be
new
construction.
So
we
would
expect
it
to
be
more
expensive
than
a
60
year.
B
Old
house,
great
and
I
promised
last
question
Mr
chairs,
since
the
January
advertisement,
the
way
I
think
I
read
it
is
that
the
equity
analysis
as
well
as
the
you
know
we
have.
We
haven't
updated
significantly
the
equity
analysis.
It
was
where
it
was
in
January
and
that
reasoning
would
still
apply
and
then,
similarly
on
the
consultant
we
may
not
have
you
know
we
had
the
April
report
I'm,
not
aware
of
whether
we
had
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
over
the
last
couple,
three
or
four
months
with
the
consultant.
B
D
You
Mr
chair
we're
debating
options
two
right,
so
yep
I
have
a
question
about
our
general
approach
and
how
we
deal
with
non-conforming
lots
in
different
art
zones.
So
what
is
our?
What
is
our
general
philosophy
about
that?
Specifically
I
can
tell
you
that
I
was
studying,
option
2D
and
that's
920,
page
57.
D
So
the
penultimate
line
says
that,
for
example,
five
or
six
dwelling
units
are
subject
to
Falling
minimum
area
requirements,
6
000
square
feet,
which
basically
says
it's
the
it's,
this,
the
the
minimum
lot
area
of
R6,
and
we
we
consider
that,
like
like
the
bottom
right
so
is
that
is
that
any
specific
methodology
behind
that?
Or
is
it
just
in
the
smallest
R,
the
smaller
r.
C
So
the
way
in
the
various
option,
two
series,
the
way
that
we
have
thought
about:
non-conforming,
lots
and
and
just
for
everyone's
benefit.
A
lot
is,
is
legally
non-conforming
if
it
was,
it
was
created
prior
to
1950
and
but
but
it's
non-conforming,
because
it
doesn't
meet
the
size
for
the
square
footage
requirements
for
the
lot
area
or
the
width
requirements,
and
we
do
have
because
a
lot
of
lots
in
Arlington
were
plotted
prior
to
1950.
We
have
you
know
on
the
order
of
magnitude.
C
Maybe
19
to
20
percent
of
lots
within
Arlington
are
are
non-conforming,
so
the
way
that
the
zoning
ordinance
currently
treats
one
family
dwellings
is,
if
you
are
on
a
non-conforming
lot,
because
it's
about
20
of
the
Lots
in
Arlington
you're
allowed
to
continue
to
build
a
one-family
house
on
that
lot,
you
have
to
meet
all
the
zoning
requirements,
setback
slot
coverage
tight
and
everything
there.
So
the
approach
that
we've
taken
in
the
option-
2
Series,
is
for
the
two
to
four
unit.
Dwellings
is
basically
treat
them
the
same
as
a
single
detached
house.
C
If
it's
a
legally
non-conforming
lot,
you
can
build
two
to
four
dwellings
and
then
for
five
to
six
units.
It
varies
based
on
each
each
of
the
options,
as
if
there's
an
additional
minimum
Site
Area
requirement
even
for
conforming
Lots.
On
top
of
that,
and
so
you
raised
option
2D
as
an
example,
so
for
2D
you
would
need
six
thousand
square
feet
on
an
R5
lot,
even
a
conforming
R5
lot
in
order
to
be
able
to
build
five
or
six
units,
and
so
we
took
that
same
approach
for
non-conforming
Lots.
A
C
To
tear
I
think
that's,
you
know,
that's
a
broader
question
of.
Why
are
we
tearing
within
the
option
two
series?
You
know
why
are
we
setting
for
R5
or
you
know
why?
C
Why
does
option
2D
require
a
higher
minimum
size
area
for
R5,
four
five
and
six
dwelling
units
that
was
direction
that
we
were
given
by
the
board
to
come
back
with
options
that
provide
for
a
you
know:
higher
minimum
side
area
requirements
for
higher
number
of
units,
and
so
we
took
that
and
applied
that
same
premise
to
the
non-conforming
Lots,
as
well
as
the
conforming
Lots.
Thank.
E
A
question
largely
under
the
same
headline,
although
somewhat
unrelated
the
question
of
perhaps
bridging,
actually
to
to
forms
into
the
one
series
as
well
the
question
of
comparators
and
contexts
the
question's
been
raised
a
couple
times,
I
think
we
last
discussed
this
I'm
going
to
say
last
July
at
our
work
session
about
why
consider
the
level
of
density
that
was
initially
proposed
with
regard
to
the
apexes
and
is
now
on
the
table
with
regard
to
the
six
when
peer
jurisdictions
have
considered
at
lower
levels
of
density.
E
My
understand
that
Portland,
for
example,
has
a
minimum
lot
size
of
something
like
1500
square
feet.
But
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we
have
for
comparators,
whether
Arlington's
lot
sizes,
even
our
smaller
lots,
are
sort
of
industry
average
for
a
mid-sized
suburbs
of
our
size,
smaller
larger
Etc,
to
help
us
get
some
of
that
context?.
C
Yes,
I
actually
I
I
have
some
notes
on
this
and
it
might
might
take
me
a
little
while
to
pull
them
up.
So
maybe
we
could.
We
could
come
back
to
that.
But
I
do
recall.
We
had
this
discussion,
you
know
in
in
July
about
Portland
specifically,
and
you
know
Portland
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it
was
1500
square
feet,
but
it
might
have
been
2500
square
feet
was
their
smallest
lot
size.
C
So
yes,
in
general,
other
places
that
have
adopted
missing
middle
zoning
reforms
don't
necessarily
apply
to
you
know
they
don't
necessarily
have
the
same
R5
R6,
R8,
r10
that
we
do
here
in
Arlington
and
they
may
have
much
smaller
lot
sizes
than
we
do,
and
so
the
you
know
the
if
the
effective
density
on
a
site
might
be
equivalent
for,
for
example,
a
fourplex
on
2500
square
foot.
Lot
is
the
same
level
of
density
in
terms
of
dwelling
units
per
acre
as
an
eight
Plex
on
a
five
thousand
square
foot.
Locker.
B
I
I
have
one
more
sort
of
a
two-part
question
that
in
the
interest
of
not
having
as
many
questions
when
we
go
through
amendments,
you
guys
a
couple
of
questions.
You
did
an
analysis
of
what
other
parts
of
the
country
have
done.
That
was
brief.
Is
that
right?
B
C
So
we
we
did
start,
you
know,
then
this
is,
as
we
mentioned,
on
Saturday.
This
is
a
process
that
we've
started
since
2019
2020,
so
we're
you
know
we're
three
years
into
this
early
on
in
the
research
process,
staff
did
do
sort
of
best
practices,
analysis
of
of
what
other
other
jurisdictions
have
done,
as
you
mentioned,
jfact
also
looked
at
at
other
communities
and
and
provided
a
report
to
the
public
to
the
board.
C
This
is
an
area
where
things
are
changing
so
rapidly
and
it
seems
like
every
month
there's
another
jurisdiction
that
has
done
a
significant
zoning
reform.
We
just
can't
keep
up
with
what
everyone
is
doing.
There's
there's
a
lot
out
there.
We
know
that
a
Victoria
British
Columbia
is
allowing
six
plexes
on
all
Lots,
and
so
there's
there's
just
a
lot
out
there,
and
you
know
in
trying
to
keep
up
with
our
work
here
in
Arlington.
We
can't
keep
up
with
whatever
jurisdiction
is
doing.
B
Well
see
if
I
got
this
thinking
right
and
I,
it
may
be
it's
you
don't
have
to
answer.
If
it's
overly
and
to
a
question
of
opinion.
B
Whether
or
not
it's
I
believe
that
no
other
place
in
the
country
has
done
six
by
right,
except
Portland,
but
that
shouldn't
be
our
determiner
of
what
we
do,
because
we
should
be
pursuing
the
best
policies.
Is
that
a
fair
description.
C
C
The
top
priority
is
housing
costs,
and
so,
when
we
went
into
phase
two
and
the
detailed
study
and
the
economic
analysis,
it
was
really
what
what
housing
types
would
be
necessary
to
reduce
housing
costs
to
a
level
that
they
could
be
attainable
to
a
larger
portion
of
of
the
population,
and
so
our
recommendations
for
the
RTA
and
all
coming
throughout
here
in
phase
two
have
have
been
based
on
that.
You
know
we're
being
responsive
to
that
priority
from
from
phase
one
sure.
B
That's
very
helpful
I
try
to
think
what's
the
right
policy,
but
it
is
Salient
for
me.
You
know,
Houston
has
no
zoning,
so
you
can
build
huge
apartment
story,
building
right
next
to
a
single
family,
smaller
home,
and
so
it's
both.
What
other
people
have
done
is
relevant,
but
not
dispositive
as
to
what
I
will
be
ready
to
support
thanks
very
much.
A
D
You
Mr
chair,
I,
want
to
I,
want
to
ask
for
a
clarification
on
option.
4B,
that's
953
in
page
60,
and
that's
mostly
for
our
County
attorney.
A
D
It
Mr
chair,
I,
think
the
best
accommodation
is
for
me
to
speak
in
the
microphone.
So
that's
that's
a
fair
request,
so
an
option
for
b
the
text
says
is
about
lot
coverage
and
it
says
that
the
five
percent
of
lot
coverage-
additional
Road
coverage
of
typically
I
mean
available
to
single-family
homes
for
a
detached
garage.
D
The
proposal
here
is
to
make
that
available
as
a
part
of
the
base
tense
base
lot
coverage
of
naeho
building
and
the
way
I
understand
that
this
means
that
this
can
be
part
of
the
actually
built
part
so
habitable
part,
or
it
can
be
something
else
like
parking.
Is
that
the
correct
interpretation?
Yes?
Thank
you.
E
I
have
found
it
helpful
to
talk
with
staff
about
better
understanding
the
Genesis
of
the
the
exemption
forelock
coverage
for
a
detached
garage
for
single-family
dwellings
or
one
family
dwellings,
the
sort
of
history
of
that
allowance
where
it
comes
from,
and
if
you
could
help
us
Envision
the
type
of
garage
that
might
allow.
For
that
scenario
and
to
the
extent
that
was
related
to
why
this
came
forward
as
a
zoning
ordinance
Amendment
at
all
sort
of
understanding.
C
Right
so
this
the
the
rear
detached
garage,
the
additional
five
percent.
This
dates
back
to
the
last
major
overhaul
of
law
coverage
in
in
2005,
and
our
our
understanding
was
that
at
the
time
there
were
well.
First
of
all,
there
are
our
two
allowances.
C
One
is
for
a
front
porch
and
the
other
is
for
a
rear,
detached
garage,
and
this
was
really
trying
to
encourage
incentivize
a
certain
type
of
one
family,
home
design
that
had
a
porch,
which
I
think
we
can
all
understand
why
you
know
having
a
having
a
porch
in
a
neighborhood
context
is
desirable
and
then
the
rear,
detached
garage
was
was
more
about
discouraging
having
a
garage
that's
attached
in
the
front
that
takes
up
a
lot
of
the
most
of
the
facade
and
so
pushing
that
garage
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
C
In
order
to
do
that,
since
we
don't
have
very
many
alleys
in
Arlington,
you'd
need
a
much
longer
driveway
to
access
the
rear
of
the
garage.
The
driveways
count
as
lot
coverage.
So
not
only
do
you
have
this
separate
building
that
needs
to
be
deep
in
the
rear
of
the
property
that
counts
as
lot
coverage.
You
also
have
the
driveway
that
needs
to
get
you
there
and
so
I
I.
Think
that
was
the
rationale
at
the
time.
Was
it
really
about
discouraging
those
those
front
garages
for
eho?
C
It
would
limit
the
number
of
spaces
that
could
be
in
a
front
yard
that
there's
a
lot
of
text
that
dictates
where
parking
can
be
built
in
the
same
vein
as
trying
to
create
an
attractive
place
trying
to
mitigate
you
know
some
of
the
worst
designs
that
that
that
you
could
envision,
but
in
thinking
about
a
rear,
detached
garage
when
we're
talking
about
more
units,
there's
going
to
be
more
parking
on
site,
we
have
already
accommodated
for
that
in
the
standards.
C
I,
don't
know
that
it's
necessarily
reasonable
to
expect
that
there's
going
to
be
four
or
five
or
six
parking
spaces
to
have
a
garage
in
the
rear
that
can
accommodate
that.
Many.
That
wasn't
really
the
intent
of
of
the
allowance,
that's
currently
in
in
law
coverage.
E
Excellent,
so
that's
really
helpful
and
I
think
it's
also
clear
from
the
the
sort
of
various
renderings
and
mock-ups
that
you
all
worked
on,
that
it's
never
impossible
for
some
sort
of
configuration
to
come
forward,
but
it
seems
like
it
would
be
very
unlikely
for
an
eho,
particularly
a
small
Multiplex,
to
take
advantage
of
the
lot
coverage
in
exchange
for
a
rear,
detached
garage.
It's
just
going
to
be
very.
It
would
be
very
difficult
for
them
to
meet
their
parking
requirements
with
that
mode.
Yes,
thank
you.
C
In
terms
of
as
I
was
just
referencing
to
to
be
able
to
I
mean
it,
you
know
it's
it's.
Basically,
you
could
have
a
parking
pad
in
the
rear
of
a
driveway
that
could
accommodate
three
or
four
cars.
C
You
could
build
a
garage
around
those
cars
and
that's
you
know
that
if
option
4A
is
what
is
ultimately
adopted,
that
may
be
what's
seen,
but
also
the
the
other
consideration
is
there's
no
requirement
for
all
of
the
cars
to
be
within
that
garage
under
the
current
requirement.
C
So
you
could
see
a
scenario
where
someone
just
builds
a
one-car
garage
in
order
to
get
that
extra
five
percent
meets
the
requirement,
but
maybe
there
are
four
or
five
parking
spaces
on
the
property,
and
then
they
find
another
way
for
those
other
for
the
other
cars
to
be
parked
on
the
property.
A
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
the
seven
series
and
then
we
will
get
into
the
areas
that
were
a
part
of
the
manager's
recommendation,
beginning
with
the
glop
Amendment,
so
seven
Series.
This
is
permit
caps.
D
Can
start
Mr,
chair,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
in
in
the
case
that
this
report
decides
to
impose
a
cop
on
the
permit,
so
the
annual
limit
of
permits
question
number
one.
When
does
the
clock
begin
to
tool
to
count?
So
is
that
the
first
day
of
enactment
or
the
first
pyramid
that
is
ever
you
know
granted
issued
or
or
is
it
a
different
time.
D
For
example,
if
we
say
that
we
have
a
three-year
cop
for
three
years,
with
a
sunset
Clause
after
three
years,
when
does
this
start?
So
when
is
the
first
day
of
the
first
year.
C
So
the
the
proposed
effective
date
for
the
zoning
ordinance
would
be
July
1st
of
this
year,
and
so
the
way
it's
written
in
the
text
is
it's
based
on
a
calendar
year.
So
we
would
only
have
six
months
in
in
2023,
but
if
the
board
were
to
let's
say
the
board
were
to
adopt
a
cap,
a
three-year
cap,
just
as
an
example
right
2023
could
be,
would
be
the
first
year.
2024
would
be
the
second
year,
2025
would
be
the
third
year
and
then
in
2026
there
would
be
no
cap.
D
C
I
think
our
our
intent,
if,
if
the
board
does
adopt
a
cap,
would
be
to
base
it
on
approvals,
not
not
submissions.
Exactly
how
this
is
administered
I
think
is
something
that
first,
we
need
to
see
what
the
board
adopts
and
then
we'll
have
to
work
out
administratively,
how
how
that
gets
administered
and
whether
it's
you
know
it's
based
on
the
there
will
be
a
zoning
permit.
There
will
also
be
building
permits.
You
know
at
which
point
in
that
process
is
the
appropriate.
E
On
exactly
that,
question
partially
a
question
for
our
attorney
and
then
Mr
a
lot.
If
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add
from
the
staff
perspective,
drafting
questions
so
to
speak.
So
if
you
were
to
look
at,
for
example,
option
C,
which
is
appended
with
an
editorial
note
about
with
regarding
the
method
method
of
distribution,
wanted
to
confirm
that
editorial
note
will
cease
to
exist.
Is
that
correct
once
any
adoption
of
the
ordinance
is
complete?
Yes,.
E
Guide
us
excellent
okay,
so
the
the
assumption
would
be
that
anything
the
board
does
not
specify
with
regard
to
the
distribution
of
the
permits
is
delegated
to
the
manager
and
staff.
F
G
Just
a
quick
follow-up,
because
that
doesn't
mean
Miss
core
that
if
we
do
not
specify
some
sort
of
dispersion
formula
that
the
manager
could
decide
to
do,
one
does
it.
In
other
words,
if
we
don't,
if
we
don't
specify,
we
could
have
all
of
them
in
one
particular
area
I
mean.
But
but
if
the
managers
I
thought
that
you
know
that's
not
a
good
idea
and
it's
a
better
idea
to
kind
of
spread
things
out
limit
it
in
one
particular
way.
G
F
If
there's
no
method
of
distribution
specified
in
the
ordinance,
then
staff
will
have
to
figure
out
a
rational
way
of
implementing
it
and
and
disbursing
it.
For
example,
first
come
first
serve,
but
they
would
not
be
able
to
enforce
an
arbitrary
or
substantive
requirement
without
board
action.
G
In
other
words-
and
that
means
if
they
had
decided
because
I
know
we
have
some
proposals
out
for
distribution.
If
that
fails,
they
couldn't
decide
to
use
that,
then
they
they
would
still
have
to
just.
Unless
we
specify
it
goes
in
something
they
couldn't
justify.
We
can
only
have
so
many
in
R20.
These
are
so
many
in
R5
or
r5s.
Is
that
correct.
F
A
E
Reminder
if
I
may
I
would
love
to
take
the
opportunity
to
to
amend
that
glove
amendment
to
everyone's
attention
and
for
those
who
are
interested
in
questions
about,
for
example,
how
Arlington
comprehensively
plans
for
growth?
How
our
general
land
use
plan
integrates
with
other
elements
of
our
comprehensive
plan
to
address
things
like
storm
water
capacity
or
need
for
infrastructure
like
fire
stations
or
wastewater
treatment
facilities.
I
think
that
really
is
worth
a
read
and
I
commend
staff
for
the
hard
work
that
went
into
it,
which
I
imagine
brought
in
other
departments
as
well.
A
Thank
you,
Ms
Crystal,
actually
just
a
question.
It's
it's
contained
in
the
text,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
elevated
as
part
of
the
public
conversation.
Your
analysis
for
what
might
be
possible
under
missing
middle
the
area
that
the
areas
of
our
County
that
are
currently
gloped
is
low
density,
would
retain
an
average
density.
According
to
your
build
out
scenarios,
that
would
still
be
a
low
density,
low
density
area
of
less
than
10
units
per
acre.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
A
B
I'll
say
this
briefly:
I
may
touch
it
in
in
the
my
concluding
thoughts,
but
there
are
a
couple
of
speakers
on
Saturday
who
referenced,
who
I'm,
who
referenced
the
general
land
use
plan
and
we're
actually
mending
it
today.
So
it
made
me
think,
as
though
you
know
highlighting
it
as
you
and
Miss
Crystal
have
just
done
is,
is
useful
because
there
was
language.
That
was
one
approach,
and
today
we
are
taking
a
step
to
refine
and
change
that
approach,
and
so
I
just
thought
I'd
say
that
much
okay.
Thank
you.
A
B
I,
the
Transportation
Commission
shared
thoughts
on
our
spent,
a
fair
bit
of
time
with
the
transit,
Master
Transportation
plan
and
so
I
questions
on
two
different
parts.
One
is
the
distance
from
Metro,
which
is
a
half
versus
three
quarters
of
of
the
of
a
mile
from
and
that's
real
from,
a
Metro
Rail
station,
and
the
other
is
on
primary
Transit
networks.
B
So
the
PES
study
says
it
uses
half
a
mile
from
Metro,
and
our
transportation
plan
is
based
on
three
quarters
of
a
mile
and
I
wondered
if
you
had
any
thoughts
it.
It
seems
to
me
that
that
would
just
mean
perhaps
some
of
the
estimates
as
to
affordability
might
be
a
little
shifted
based
on
that
in
congruity
we
had
a
civic
association.
President
mentioned
this,
and
I
wondered
it's
page,
four
of
the
PES
and
Page
21
of
the
staff
report.
So
yes,.
C
The
the
PES
study
again
was
is
an
economic
feasibility
analysis
and
and
based
on
their
methodology
of
economics.
They
used
a
half
mile
as
as
the
breaking
point
for
where
prices
housing
costs
would
likely
be
higher.
You
know
based
on
their
knowledge
of
the
market,
and
so
it
wasn't
based
on
walkability
or
or
any
transportation
metrics.
It
was
based
on
economic
housing,
cost
metrics
of
land
in
Arlington.
C
That's
within
a
half
a
mile
of
Metro
stations
has,
you
know,
generally
a
higher
price
than
land
that
is
greater
than
than
a
half
mile,
and
so
the
and
the
staff
report
addresses,
from
a
transportation
perspective,
why
staff
is
recommending
the
the
transit
proximities
of
of
three
quarters
of
a
mile
from
Metro
half
mile
from
premium
Transit
a
quarter
mile
from
the
primary
Transit
Network.
B
Got
it,
and
so
I've
talked
with
it's
very
helpful,
to
talk
with
our
transportation
staff
and
also
to
to
to
talk
with
other
experts
as
well
about
my
impression
now
is
essentially
that
the
standard
has
been
a
half
mile
for
how
long
people
are
willing
to
walk
at
least
certainly
a
decade
or
two
decades
ago,
and
it
may
be
shifting
I
haven't
I
sort
of
did
a
couple
half
hours
worth
of
of
searches
just
to
see.
In
addition,
but
that
seems
to
me
this.
B
The
standard
and
are
three
quarters
of
a
mile
seems
to
me
about
the
aspiration
for
how
much
we
would
like
for
people
to
be
willing
to
walk.
Maybe
I've
overstated
it,
but
somewhere
between
you
know,
that's
kind
of
the
question
is:
is:
is
there?
Are
you
guys
aware
of
research
as
to
what
has
been,
or
is
it
already?
The
case
that
you'd
say
National
research
says
three
quarters
of
a
mile
is:
is
the
standard
so
I.
C
Don't
know
I,
don't
think,
there's
there
isn't
a
National
Standard
there,
and
so
we
look
to
the
data
that
we
have
here
in
Arlington
and
so
again
in
the
in
the
staff
report.
We
reference
vehicle
ownership
rates
within
those
those
various
proximities
from
transit,
and
we
see
that
I
think
it
was
20
20
of
households
living
within
three
quarters
of
a
mile
of
a
metro
station
in
Arlington,
don't
own
a
vehicle
and-
and
we
had
other
other
rates
for
the
other
Transit
proximinaries.
C
We
was
all
we've
also
looked
at
our
sidewalk
Network
and
how?
What
is
the?
How
complete
is
the
sidewalk
Network
within
a
half
mile
of
the
Metro
stations
within
Arlington?
We
have
93
percent
complete
sidewalks,
meaning
that
there's
a
complete
sidewalk,
at
least
on
one
side
of
a
street
segment,
and
that
does
reduce
slightly
when
you
get
to
the
the
next
band
between
a
half
half
mile
and
three
quarter
mile,
it's
87,
but
it's
still
still
very
high
and
and
almost
nearly
complete.
And
so
we
we
look
at
that.
C
We
look
at
areas
where
people
are
currently
currently
living
without
a
vehicle
currently.
C
Getting
to
Metro,
and
particularly
with
regard
to
Metro,
the
staff
report
talks
about
it's
not
just
distance
to
Metro.
It's
that
our
Metro
are
amenity
hubs.
Our
Metro
stations
are
amenity
hubs
and
if
you
live
within
three
quarters
of
a
mile
of
a
metro
station,
you
have
access
to
commercial,
just
basically
daily
needs
and
everything
that
radiates
from
our
Metro
stations,
which
makes
it
which
makes
you
less
reliant
on
a
car.
And
we
do
have
Des
staff
available
on
the
call
I.
H
Sure
this
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Angie
de
la
Barrera,
with
Des,
Transportation,
Planning
and
I
would
just
stop
add
to
Matt's
point.
Is
we
looked
at
other
research
done?
For
example,
the
Federal
Highway
has
done
an
analysis
called
The
Pedestrian
safety
guide
for
Transit
agencies,
and
it
states
that
most
people
are
willing
to
walk
for
five
to
ten
minutes
or
approximately
a
quarter
to
half
a
mile
to
a
Transit
stop.
H
However,
Recent
research
has
shown
that
people
might
be
willing
to
walk
considerably
longer
distances
when
accessing
heavy
rail
Services.
Therefore,
in
order
to
encourage
Transit
usage,
safe
and
convenient
pedestrian
facilities
should
be
provided
within
the
quarter
in
the
half
mile
to
Transit
and
greater
distances
to
Rail
stations.
H
Also,
I
want
to
point
out
that,
in
keeping
up
with
the
Regent,
the
transportation
planning
board,
endorsed
by
the
metro,
Washington
Council
government
has
this
Transportation
Plan
called
visualize
2045,
in
which
it
seeks
to
improve,
walking
and
biking
access
to
Transit
and,
as
Matt
was
pointing
out
our
MTP
it.
The
counties
were
both.
Investment
throughout
the
years
has
provided
a
network
of
sidewalks
bus
routes
and
bike
lanes
that
reduces
the
need
to
drive.
H
We
see
this
in
our
multi-family
development
near
Transit,
where
there's
a
reduction
in
car
ownership
and
residents
tend
to
use
transit
in
other
forms
of
Transportation
Beyond,
just
owning
a
vehicle
and
I
hope
that
answers
the.
B
Question
sure
thank
you.
Both
I
appreciate
it.
The
we
have
I
guess
we
haven't
done
a
survey
within
Arlington
to
know
what,
whether
a
half
or
three
quarters
of
a
mile,
what
people
are
willing.
I've
looked
at
the
surveys,
and
maybe
we
have
and
I
just
missed
it,
but
have
we
done
a
survey
on
how
far
other
than
the
20
and
the
22
percent
and
that
table
in
the
staff
report?
Have
we
done
a
survey
of
how
how
far
people
are
willing
to
to
walk
in
Arlington?
C
B
Got
it
okay,
I
I,
it's
both
important
to
understand
the
technocratic.
The
data,
but
also
I,
think
that
it's
clear
from
the
Transportation
commissions,
it
sort
of
sits,
strenuously
object
or
specifically
say:
do
this
and
I
think
that
they're
also
value-based
elements
to
this
I'll
certainly
yield
I
do
have
one
more
question
eventually
on
primary
sure.
D
You
Mr
chair,
that's
maybe
for
Mr
Laurea,
so
people
walk
to
fra
to
Transit,
but
when
so,
for
example,
we
walk
to
a
metro
station,
but
when
there
are
other
things
that
they
can
do
there,
when
there
are
services
around
or
they
go
shop
Etc
they
they
are
normally
or
at
least
this
is
my
experience
from
my
own
neighborhood.
By
the
way
they
are
willing
to
walk
a
little
bit
longer
to
get
more
things
done.
It's
not
only
the
accessibility
of
Transit
Transit
comes
with,
with
retail
and
and
and
other
amenities.
D
Do
we
have
any
insight
whether
the
combination
of
Transit
accessibility-
and
you
know
main
Corridor
retail,
and
you
know
Services
actually
incentivizes
more
you
know
is-
is
the
base
for
a
better,
more
propensity
to
walk
to
to
these
places.
H
H
We
have
done
a
survey
not
not
to
what
it
was
discussed
before,
but
the
travel
the
household
travel
survey
has
shown
us
that
people
are
willing
to
walk
to
other
than
work
trips
and
this
Regional
Hospital
survey.
It
was
an
over
sample
of
Arlington
household
and
it
was
performed
by
Cog
in
2017
and
18..
G
Yeah,
thank
you
just
pursuing
this
a
little
bit.
Those
studies
do
they
have
demographic
breakdowns,
I
sort
of
assumed
that
some
people
find
it
a
lot
easier
to
walk
than
others.
G
H
There's
by
age,
I
believe
so
I
would
have
to
go
through
the
report,
but
I
believe
there's
an
age
and
people
with
kids
and
things
like
that.
G
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
could
ask
a
few
probing.
Questions
in
this
area.
First
are
existing
zoning
ordinances,
it
looks
at
single-family.
Homes
requires
one
space
per
unit
and,
in
the
event
that
it's
a
townhouse,
it
requires
two
spaces
per
unit
right.
A
Essentially,
our
current
allowable
housing
types
have
ranges
from
one
up
to
2.2
spaces
per
unit.
So
what
we're
talking
about,
even
before
any
of
the
options
to
reduce
parking
further,
are
all
a
net
reduction
in
required
parking
period,
and
so
thank
you
for
confirming
that
you
can't
see
his
head
not,
but
he
did
head
not
yes.
So
that
focuses
me
to
thinking
then.
Okay,
if
we've
we've
already
inherently
moved
towards
a
reduction
which
I
think
it
makes
makes
sense.
A
Those
those
numbers
seem
to
be
of
a
different
era,
but
they're
very
much
predicated
on
a
threshold
level
of
people
not
only
using
Transit
but
also
not
having
cars.
The
report
the
staff
report
details
that
even
within
those
areas
that
are
within
three
quarters
of
a
mile
of
Metro,
80
percent
of
people
still
own
cars
correct
and
have
a
need
for
them
to
be
placed
somewhere,
whether
it
is
on
their
own
property
or
the
public
right-of-way.
A
Have
you
also
sort
of
thought
about
the
recent
survey?
Data
and
I?
C
I
think
there's
there's
a
couple
of
ways
to
look
at
this,
and
one
is
certainly
what
is
the
status
of
zero
vehicle
households
and
and
we've
we've
reported
on
that.
We
know
that
looking
at
the
Census
Data
from
2011
to
20
2021
in
that
10-year
period,
that
was
the
fastest
growing
segment
within
Arlington
I,
think
it
increased
43
percent
households
with
with
no
cars.
So
we
know
that
that's
that's
a
trend,
and
also
we
want
to
think
about.
C
Our
MTP
policies
which
are
to
you
know,
require
the
appropriate
amount
of
parking,
but
also
not
require
excessive
parking,
and
so
that's
when
we
get.
We
start
talking
about
minimum
parking
requirements
and
so
in
the
staff
proposal
in
areas
where
the
recommendation
is
0.5
parking
spaces,
that's
a
minimum
requirement.
We
expect
that
people
will
exceed
that
requirement
in
in
many
cases,
and
so
the
question
is
really:
what
should
the
government
as
a
what
should
the
county
as
a
government
be
requiring
and
should
we?
C
E
We've
talked
about
the
importance,
or
at
least
I
have,
and
we've
certainly
heard
it
from
a
lot
of
commenters,
about
coherence
between
this
policy
and
other
elements
of
our
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
the
way
that
we
think
about
the
County's
long-range
future
and
so
wanted
to
ask
if
you
could
speak
to
the
MTP
policy
and
to
really
just
clarify
that
the
the
question
here
is
not
whether
residents
of
this
type
of
housing
might
have
cars.
E
But
where
are
policy
documents
guide
us
to
suggest
might
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
community,
for
them
to
park
those
cars
and
and
so
to
just
put
a
button
on
what
we
just
heard
from
Mr
Ladd,
and
this
is
in
the
staff
reporting
quite
clear
that
the
MTP
encourages
use
of
on-street
parking
as
an
alternative
to
requiring
additional
Paving
I'll.
Add
the
editorial
note,
also
tree
loss
or
foregone
opportunity
for
tree
planting
for
off-street
parking
on
private
development.
I,
wonder
if
it
might
be
possible
either.
Mr
LED
wanted
to
say
more.
E
We
have
Mrs
Ms
Dilla
Barrera
from
the
Transportation
team.
I
think
we
also
have
representation
from
our
Transportation
Commission,
yet
they
might
like
to
just
speak
a
little
bit
more
about
the
MTP
parking
and
curb
space
policy,
that
management
element
and
and
what
we
should
know
about.
E
The
policy
decision
that
has
been
codified
elsewhere
in
our
comp
plan
to
encourage
parking
to
encourage
the
use
of
on-street
parking
as
an
alternative
to
requiring
additional
Paving.
Just
if
there
were
any
additional
comments
that
Mr
lad
wanted
to
make
or
our
transportation
team
or
commissioner
commission
chair
excuse
me.
C
I'll
I'll
start
I
mean
I,
think
you,
you
articulated
the
the
policies.
There's
another
policy
in
the
in
the
curb
Space
Management
element
of
the
MTP
really
touches
on
the
costs
of
parking
and
there
there
is
a
cost
to
both
providing
parking,
and
there
is
a
market
cost
to
renting
or
buying
housing.
That
has
parking-
and
you
know
just
you
know
it
makes
sense.
People
will
pay
more
for
housing
that
has
parking
or
or
more
parking,
and
so
what,
in
thinking
about
housing
costs
and
related
back
to
the
MTP?
C
There's
a
policy
that
you
know
wants
to
ensure
that
the
cost
of
parking
are
not
borne
by
households
that
don't
require
parking,
and
so
there
there
is
a
risk
if
the
parking
requirement
is
too
high
and
is
higher
than
the
needs
of
the
residents
that
we're
increasing
the
housing
costs
for
those
residents
in
additional
to
the
environmental
considerations
that
you
just
raised
in
this
Chrysler.
E
It's
a
really
important
point:
Thank
you
and
I
do
see
that
chairman
has
joined
us
in
case.
There
are
additional
perspectives
on
that
parking
element
of
the
MTP
that
are
the
keepers
of
that
element
of
the
comp
plan
would
like
to
weigh
in
on.
I
One
is
that
the
commission
has
written
several
letters
to
the
board
over
the
last
few
years,
talking
about
proper
management
of
our
on-street
parking
that
when
we
see
things
break
down
in
our
on-street
parking,
it's
when
we're
not
managing
that
parking,
and
so
the
the
tool
we
have
in
Arlington
right
now
to
manage
in
these
residential
areas
is
RPP,
and
what
we
see
when
these,
when
RPP
management
is
in
effect
in
our
occupancy
studies,
is
that
these
areas
are
are
underutilized,
we're
seeing
40
median
usage
on
these
block
faces
and
that
sort
of
thing,
so
that
certainly
points
to
when
properly
managed.
I
We
have
capacity
here.
The
other
point
I
would
just
make
is
that
you
know
shared
parking
facilities
are
where
we
get
our
most
efficiency.
Land
is
very
important
in
Arlington,
so
dedicating
space
all
over
the
place
for
parking
is
less
efficient
than
having
a
shared
facility
in
our
on-screen
parking
facilities
are
our
shared
facilities
so,
to
the
extent
that
which
we
can
encourage
that
usage,
where
somebody
uses
it
at
one
point
during
the
day
and
somebody
else
uses
it
at
another
point
during
the
day.
I
G
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
ask
Mr
Latt
a
question
you
had
talked
about
not
wanting
to
require
I
forget
how
you
put
it,
but
Hardscape
driveways
I
mean
they
don't
have
to
be
Hardscape.
Do
they
I'm
wondering
if
I
know
of
some
driveways
that
are
illegal,
because
they're,
actually
gravel
or
grass.
C
A
grass
driveway,
probably
is
not
a
legal
driveway
okay,
but
we
certainly
have
there
are
there
are
previous
pavers
and
we
see,
especially
in
new
construction.
You
know
most
new
construction
has
previous
papers,
not
because
people
love,
pervious,
pavers
or
because
they're
the
most
cost
effective
option,
but
because
our
storm
water
management
regulations
basically
require
them,
so
so
that
you
know.
Certainly
that
is
an
option,
but
that's
not
the
you
know
whether
it's
pervious
or
not,
is
not.
The
only
consideration.
It's
also
having
more
parking
is
less
area.
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
get
that
and
actually
for
anyone.
Listening
I
have
done,
there's
some
pretty
cool
driveways
that
have
some
sperm
stuff
underneath
that
allow
grass
to
grow
up
and
they're
pretty
cool,
so
anybody's
wondering
that
you
can
do
it.
Thank
you.
D
Any
more
very
short
question:
everybody
has
an
easy
answer
for
just
following
up
on
Miss
garvey's
thoughts
about
people
who
are
not,
you
know,
100
able
individuals
may
have
several
nuts
in
or
having
a
disability,
Mobility
disability.
We
do
have
a
program
that
assigns
a
a
curved
parking
space
with
signs
and
everything
that
is
easy.
Now.
This
is
an
assumption.
It's
easy
to
access
once
a
per
person
has
its
ability-
and
you
know
somebody
comes
puts
a
sign
and
the
sign
remains
there
for
the
duration
of
this
condition.
A
All
right
so
I
don't
want
to
separate
about
parking,
but
I
do
want
to
ask
a
question
acknowledging
you
know
the
the
important
point
that
you
made
Mr
lad
that
ultimately
our
minimums
are
just
that
and
what
will
be
built
and
delivered
is
based
on
someone's
assessment
of
what
the
market
will
require.
A
Yes,
so
there
conceivably
is
another
way
of
getting
at
the
MTB
MTP
vision
and
what
Mr
slat
2's
Mr
Slatt
spoke
to
eloquently,
and
that
is
that
our
incentives
to
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
on
site
in
the
form
of
maybe
perhaps
more
lock,
coverage
and
I'm
just
I'm
more
more
bulk
or
something
else,
some
incentive
to
actually
get
people
to
utilize
more
on
street,
as
opposed
to
doing
what
we
expect
that
they
will
do,
and
that
is
delivering
the
parking
that
they
think
the
market
will
will
require.
C
I,
don't
think
we
we
didn't
think
specifically
about
that
and
our
our
ability
to
incentivize
I
think
we
we'd
certainly
want
to
think
more
about
allowing
more
law
coverage
for
Less
parking,
because
that
seems
yeah
a
little
a
little
counter-intuitive,
but
you
know,
certainly
we
could
increase.
Building
Heights
is
a
is
a
possibility.
These
are
these
are
things
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
advertisement
for
today
yeah,
but
for
future
studies
you
know
certainly
could
be
considered.
A
Yeah
I
just
know
for
my
own
purposes.
You
know
the
very
noble
goals
of
trying
to
make
sure
we
don't
have
excess
parking
that
is
borne
by
people
who
don't
need.
It
is
actually
not
facilitated
by
this
to
any
great
degree,
because
you
know
there
is
anyway
I'll
leave
it
at
that
Miss
Crystal.
You
wanted
to
have
Mr
Weir
weigh.
E
In
no
I
was
just
going
to
note
that
we
do
have
a
representation,
the
Planning
Commission,
which
I
do
think
wrestled
with
this
question
of
parking
and
may
have
insights
for
us
to
shed
on
this
exact
question.
Mr
Weir
I,
don't
know!
If
you
wanted
to
comment
on
it
or
chairman
chair
Emeritus.
We
are
still
shifting
to
the
New
Year.
J
I'm
not
going
to
commissioner
Patel's
Idol
title
and
honor
well,
the
only
thing
I
would
add
to
that
is
just
a
procedural
one
that
the
planet
commission
briefly
entertained.
A
motion
that
I
introduced
actually
to
recommend
a
a
ratio
of
0.25
units
per
per
spots,
parking
spots
per
per
unit
that
that
motion
failed
and
the
commission
ultimately
endorsed
the
transportation
commission's
recommendations.
So
you
know
there
there
is
that
additional
number
in
the
record.
J
That's
the
only
thing
I
I
can
add
to
that
other
than
but
but
but
you
know
it's
not
on
the
record
as
the
commission's
recommendation,
because
the
commission
endorse
the
transportation
commission's
recommendation.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Ms
Dorsey
Mr.
B
On
parking
in
the
primary
Transit
Network
piece
of
this
page
24
indicates
that
I
mean
first.
It
took
a
lot
of
work
for
me
to
figure
out
exactly
the
boundaries
of
the
primary.
You
know:
there's
there's
a
map,
but
it's
only
portions
of
Glebe,
Road
portions
of
of
George,
Mason
and
so
page
24
indicates
that
only
about
six
percent
of
people
within
a
quarter
mile
of
primary
Transit
Network
would
go
without
a
vehicle.
I'm
and
I'm
certainly
was
just
glad.
I
didn't
see
you
there.
B
My
apologies,
but
I'm,
certainly
interested
first
in
staff,
and
you
know
the
survey
sort
of
doesn't
seem
to
indicate
that
a
lot
of
our-
and
perhaps
this
is
a
Communications
on
by
the
board,
but
a
lot
of
our
primary
Transit
Network
only
residents
feel
that
bus
is
a
viable
process,
Transportation
option
a
truly
accessible
option
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
thoughts
on
that.
The
six
percent
and
the
other
piece.
C
Well,
certainly,
if
you
look
at
the
table
on
page
24,
we
see
you
know,
the
highest
proportion
of
of
households
with
with
no
vehicle
is
is
based
on
Metro
and
then
and
then
it
goes
tiers
down
to
our
premium
Transit
networks
and
then
and
then
the
you
know,
we
do
see
twice
the
rate
of
zero
car
households
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
primary
Transit
Network
as
we
do
outside,
but
you're
correct.
It's
it's
only
six
percent
and
so
I'll
perhaps
turn
it
over
to
miss
day
libera
to
see.
H
So
the
primary
Transit
network
is
defined
as
a
high
quality
high
frequency
Transit
service
along
primary
development
corridors,
and
it
includes
higher
frequency
bus
service
of
about
15
minutes
headways
seven
days
a
week.
H
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
get
to
Define
that
it
provides
a
really
good,
first
and
last
mile
connection
to
Metro
and
premium
Transit
Network
as
well.
So
that
was
sort
of
the
rationale.
What
we
thought
a
quarter
distance
would
be
effective.
Thank.
I
I'll
just
be
very
brief
and
say
to
some
extent,
today's
primary
Transit
network
is
hopefully
next
decades
premium,
Transit,
Network
and
but
in
order
to
get
there,
we
need
more
people
living
there
and
so
I
think
having
ehos
Transit
proximate
helps
get
us
there
to
have
support
the
ridership
needed
to
make
that
investment,
and
that's
definitely
part
that
was
in
the
commission's
letter
and
I
think
an
important
part
of
making
sure
that
the
primary
Transit
Network
stays
inside
our
Transit
proximate
definition.
Thank.
B
You
thank
you
very
much.
Actually,
both
those
points
I
am
likely
later
to
fully
agree
with.
Despite
all
my
questions,
so
the
only
other
question
I
had
is
is
just
on
the
and
maybe
there's
a
short
answer,
but
certainly
if
Mr
Slatt,
if
you
also
have
an
opinion,
I,
don't
feel
like
the
residential
parking
permit
would
need
to
be
looked
at
again.
Just
based
on
this
action
it
would.
There
would
have
to
be
enough
units
produced
to
make
that
broad
look
worthwhile
again.
C
I
I
think
to
to
address
it.
Just
briefly,
you
know
the
the
underlying
methodology,
for
you
know
who
can
which
blocks
can
receive
the
residential
permit
parking,
doesn't
change
with.
B
A
G
Question
for
Miss,
core
and
I
think
I
know
the
answer,
but
just
double
check.
So
if
we
adopt
the
the
minimum,
the
max
of
the
minimums
in
the
manager's
recommendation
say
in
another
year
the
general
assembly
changes
and
we
suddenly
have
more
power
to
do
more
things
with
trees.
We
can
come
back
and
change
that
section
right.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
so,
in
the
event
that
these
positive
developments
at
the
level
of
the
general
assembly
don't
occur,
we
have.
We
are
working
right
now
on
our
on
our
natural
resources,
Master
Plan
update-
and
we
may
find
that
this
plan,
you
know,
recommends
a
denser
or
more,
is
more
granular
in
the
way
it
requires
to
grow
a
urban
forest
and
it
and
care
about
our
tree
canopy.
With
this
automatically
update
this
ordinance
or
what
this
take
a
a
decision
action
by
the
board
to
do
the
to
do
so.
C
So
the
draft
forestry
and
natural
resources
plan
is,
is
proposed
to
be
a
new
element
of
our
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
that
is
you
know,
as
as
we've
talked
about
earlier
with
other
elements
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
you
know
that
that's
the
County's
policy
for
its
future
in
terms
of
growth
and
land
use
and
natural
resources
and
all
the
other
elements,
so
nothing
that
would
be
adopted
under
that
plan
would
automatically
change
anything.
There
could
be
recommendations
coming
out
of
that
plan.
D
Thank
you
so
I
understand,
so
the
the
have
to
has
to
be
a
deliberate
action
to
update
to
to
you
know
to
proceed
with
any
update
here
separately
and
according
to
the
recommendation
of
the
plan.
D
If
these,
if
this
come
through
a
question
for
our
County
attorney,
so
from
the
three
from
from
the
Arlington
tree
group,
we
we
received
some
very
interesting
in
my
opinion,
interesting
recommendations,
for
you
know
to
to
do
two
things:
first,
to
distinguish
between
the
size
of
Shades,
three,
smaller
and
bigger,
and,
secondly,
different
numbers
like
higher
numbers
instead
of
eight
on
you
know
when
we
said
of
8
12
on
in
in
a
in
a
R20,
so
these
are
out
of
out
of
scope
right
now,
yes,
okay!
A
E
Largely
just
to
highlight
and
can
have
staff
confirm
the
plan
regarding
the
Cherrydale
revitalization
District,
because
I
I
think
that
is
probably
the
area
where
our
planning
district,
feels
least
fresh,
so
to
speak,
and
there
has
perhaps
been
development
of
the
opportunity
that
that
has
essentially
rendered
a
judgment
that
that
those
single-family
homes
or
our
properties,
those
are
district
properties,
rather
would
probably
not
be
swept
into
a
larger
development
as
envisioned
by
the
revitalization
plan.
E
I
wanted
to
just
call
out
the
plan
regarding
the
Cherrydale
special
revitalization
district
is
to
address
that
and
not
to
address
that
at
some
far
off
date
in
the
future,
but
to
address
it
expeditiously,
to
address
it,
not
through
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
by
making
potential
changes
to
the
Cherrydale
revitalization
District,
which
would
be
amendments
to
the
glove
right
and
that
would
be
brought
forward.
Concur.
The
changes
would
be
brought
forward
concurrently
with
the
plan.
Linkson
Boulevard
recommendations
have
I
got
that
right.
Yes,.
E
Fantastic,
okay,
I
think
that's
an
important
one,
so
that
will
be
later
this
summer,
not
kicking
off,
but
concluding
any
recommendations
there
for
the
the
interested
Property
Owners
from
whom
we
have
heard
a
couple
of
whom,
from
whom
we
have
heard
during
this
process.
I
really
appreciate
staff's
thinking
on
that.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
I
think
we're
done
with
that,
one,
how
about
gross
floor
area
and
then
we'll
conclude
with
accessory
dwellings.
Questions
on
those
two
all
right.
A
We
are
concluded
with
questions
I'm
going
to
give
you
all
a
going
once
going
twice
all
right
sold
all
right
for
the
purposes
of
then
iterative
iteratively
walking
through
a
way
to
deal
with
all
of
these
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
and
I'm
going
to
ask
Ms
core
to
pay
close
attention.
Since
we
didn't
coordinate
before
so
I'm
going
to
hope
that
I
get
this
remotely
right
and
Ms
Jacobs.
If
you'll
have
ready
the
memo,
but
I'll
read
it
and
hopefully
we'll
adjust
as
necessary.
A
Colleagues
I
move
that
the
County
Board
adopt
the
following
elements
associated
with
the
missing
middle
housing
study.
One
a
resolution
shown
as
attachment
one
in
the
staff
report
to
amend
the
general
land
use,
plan,
booklet
and
map,
which
is
attachment
two
of
the
staff
report
and
two,
the
ordinance
that's
attachment,
3
to
amend,
reenact
and
recodify
the
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance,
including
articles
310,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16
and
18
to
establish
regulations
for
expanded
housing
option.
E
A
Right
moved
and
seconded
by
Ms
Crystal
I'll
speak
to
this
a
little
bit
at
length,
hopefully
not
too
long.
So
what
you
see
here
is
a
proposal
to
put
on
the
table
that
option
1A
be
adopted,
and
that
is
to
allow
uses
up
to
six,
that's
duplexes,
semi-detached
units
or
otherwise
known
as
side-by-side
duplexes,
townhouse
rows
of
Maximum
three
and
multiplexes
up
to
six,
two
that
the
minimum
Site
Area
B.
A
What
is
widely
known
as
option
2A,
which
duplicates
the
existing
minimum
Site
Area
standards
that
exist
for
single,
detached
dwellings
for
lot
coverage
that
it
adopt
the
option
known
as
4A,
which
does
not
excuse
me,
reallocate
any
lock
coverage
bonuses
inherently
and
automatically
to
ehos,
and
that
four
implements
the
development
cap
and
sunset
provision
that
proposes
58
permits
with
a
distribution
model
that
is
contained
in
the
column
in
blue,
which
would
provide
for
those
58
caps
to
be
available
in
our
20
at
a
number
of
four.
A
These
are
annual
permits,
are
10
at
a
number
of
11
are
8
and
number
of
six
are
six
at
a
number
of
thirty
are
five
at
a
number
of
seven
those
numbers.
The
calculations
on
them
are
an
allocation
of
three
per
zoning
District
as
a
base
and
then
a
proportional
share
of
the
remaining
balance
up
to
58
according
to
the
share
of
that
District's
number
of
total
Parcels
in
Arlington.
A
That
is
the
substance
of
the
motion
and
I
would
speak
to
it
briefly
by
explaining
these
choices.
At
the
point
in
time
in
which
the
memo
was
developed,
it's
uncertain
what
the
majority
of
the
board
was
interested
in.
So
this
reflected
the
best
guess
at
the
time
as
it
relates
to
option
A
up
to
six
uses
up
to
six.
A
That
seems
to
be
something
that
we
did
not
have
a
lot
of
discussion
about
so
yay
for
me,
I
think
I
got
that
one
right,
and
this
really
is
based
on
the
whole
idea-
that
the
extensive
analysis
that
was
done
beforehand
showed
clear
viability
in
the
terms
of
what
could
be
built
on
units
within
all
of
these
districts
and
while
the
size
would
vary
depending
on
the
size
of
the
the
of
the
zoning
District.
Clearly,
there
were
configurations
that
were
available
are
five.
A
Six,
eight,
ten
and
and
twenty
that
could
accommodate
up
to
six
six
units
doesn't
guarantee
that
that's
what
would
be
built
because
that's
subject
to
other
regulatory
requirements
up
to
and
including
maximum
GFA.
However,
it
clearly
is
viable
option
b.
The
recommendation
for
2A,
if
Ms
Jacobs
can
scroll
up
a
little
bit
more.
A
A
It,
in
my
opinion,
reduces
the
amount
of
noise
that
comes
with
playing
with
the
zoning
ordinance
there's
a
lot
of
noise
that
is
already
built
into
the
zoning
ordinance
arbitrarily
determining
what
lot
sizes
are
normative
and
minimum
and
maximum
and
everything
else,
and
coming
up
with
ways
of
controlling
outcomes
on
that
that
are
not
really
based
on
good
planning
principles,
and
so
this
is
an
attempt
to
make
sure
that
that
is
completely
normalized
to
the
extent
that
we
can
so
really
at
the
end
of
the
day,
by
adopting
a
2A
minimum
Site
Area
standard.
A
The
thing
that
will
be
regulated
is
what
is
regulated
right
now,
and
the
size
of
any
structure
that
may
go
on
any
site
is
limited
by
standards
for
lot
coverage,
setbacks,
Building,
height
parking
tree
canopy
requirements,
RPA
requirements,
all
the
same
things
that
limit
development
today,
while
not
introducing
any
other
extraneous
requirements
that
could
distort
and
possibly
make
viable
and
even
desirable
projects
infeasible
moving
forward.
Three
lock
coverage
from
our
conversation
today.
I
may
not
have
hit
the
mark
here,
but
we'll
see
again
consistent
with
the
whole
idea
of
introducing
the
least
Distortion.
A
What
people
have
come
to
expect
in
terms
of
what
they
see
is
governed
by
this
being
available
through
the
bonus
through
the
delivery
of
certain
site
improvements,
and
this
maintains
that
that's
all
I'll
say
about
that,
and
then
the
development
caps,
which
we've
had
a
significant
amount
of
conversation
about-
and
there
are
a
number
of
ways
to
think
about
this
I'll
say
for
me,
the
issue
of
caps
is
not
at
all
and
I
want
to
be
clear
on
this.
A
A
We
also
projected
that
or
implicitly
projected
that
they
would
be
they
would
occur
randomly.
We
don't
think
that
they
would
necessarily
be
concentrated
in
one
place.
I
believe
that
that's
actually
how
it's
going
to
play
out
but
I'll,
be
humble
and
admit:
I
can't
guarantee
that
I
can't
say
that
for
sure
and
one
of
the
things
that
has
certainly
come
through
the
community
conversations,
some
of
the
things
that
people
are
most
concerned
about
are
Market
altering
changes.
A
Market
altering
activity
concern
that
there
would
be
an
impact
too
great
for
us
to
do
anything
about
until
consequences
were
realized
that
we're
far
too
significant
for
us
to
deal
with,
and
given
that
I
believe
that
this
will
be
modest
and
dispersed,
and
that
is
in
many
ways
what
the
staff
analysis
in
terms
of
impacts
that
we
would
need
to
account
for
is
based
on.
It
seems
that
a
cap
simply
guarantees
what
we
were
expecting
to
happen
in
the
first
place.
So
that's
why
that
recommendation
is
there
anyway
enough
about
me.
A
B
Me
allowable
uses,
I'm,
fine,
okay,
you're,
just
getting
getting
in
the
queue
for
two
well
I.
Think
that
you
know
nuclear
negotiations
may
be
less
focused
on
than
option
two
all
right,
all
right.
B
A
B
You
thank
you
for
the
description
of
why
you're
supportive
of
2A.
You
mentioned
a
couple
of
things.
First,
I
want
to
share
that
a
little
context.
If
you'll
indulge
me
in
January,
I
placed
an
emphasis
and
I
have
placed
an
emphasis
on
consensus,
not
unanimity,
but
consensus,
but
I
deeply
believe
that
consensus
needs
to
be
based
in
the
realities
of
what
can
be
done
on
a
lot
and
so
12
000
square
feet
and
and
2E
is
too
much.
B
I
saw
it
out
at
in
my
own,
neighborhood
I
saw
that
I
believe
on
a
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot.
You
can
fit
with
with
some
parking
off
Street
and
we'll
get
to
parking,
but
you
can
fit
a
sixplex
and
that's
the
same
size
as
a
single.
It
has
to
be,
as
all
of
this
has
to
be
the
same
size
as
a
new
single
family
lot
could
be
with
the
setbacks
and
the
height
the
same,
so
I
think
it
is
unreasonable
to
say
that
there
has.
B
I
think
it's
not
reasonable
to
say
that
there
has
to
be
on-site
parking
for
each
bedroom
in
each
unit
and
six
times.
Two
is
twelve
I.
Think
that's
an
over
calculation
of
the
number
that
we
should
require.
So
I'm
not
interested
in
2E
I,
also
think
there's
some
people
who
believe
that
the
space
in
front
of
their
lot
on
the
street
they
have
a
particular
right
to,
and
it's
that's
not
my
view,
I
think
residential
parking
permits
are
reasonable,
but
I,
just
that's
the
public
right-of-way,
and
so
we
should
use
it
to
park
cars.
B
All
of
that
leads
to
me
saying
being
interested
in
2C
and
I
have
a
slightly
amended
version
that
I'd
I'd
like
to
see.
If
we
can
ask
our
clerk
to
put
up,
it
reflects
a
couple
of
different
pieces.
B
First
I
think
we
should
I
should
go
first
to
the
half
mile.
That's
under
number
one
I
appreciate
very
much
the
conversations
I've
had
with
Mr
Slatt
a
couple
of
Transportation
experts.
B
B
It
my
apologies,
thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
Fair
done!
So
that's
why
I
say
a
half
mile.
Instead
of
three
quarters
of
a
mile
under
c,
I
strike
a
quarter
of
a
mile
from
the
primary
Transit
Network,
because
I
don't
think
that
we
currently
actually
meet
that
15-minute
standard
as
well
as
we
will
after
we
get
a
number
of
the
facilities
done.
B
The
Third
change
that
I've
done
is
at
the
top,
and
that
refers
to
the
minimum
lot
size,
because
my
other
two
steps
well
I've
just
simply
taken
down
the
square
footage
minimum
the
tiering,
if
you
will,
by
a
thousand
square
feet
because,
as
I
looked
at
our
eight
lots
and
a
number
of
other
Lots
I,
believe
we
can
fairly
fit
additional,
so
that
is
2C.
Okay,
my.
A
B
I,
it's
fair
I
did
jump
the
gun
a
little
bit
on
explanation
in
the
why
I
will
say:
good
planning
principles
include
Transit
oriented
development
and,
if
you
contrast
to
a
and
2C
2C
advances
that
are
most,
that,
ideally
are
five
and
six
plexes
would
be
built
near
transit
to
start
now,
there
were
some
compelling
speakers
on
Saturday
who
noted
that
the
concern
of
the
climate
crisis,
but
for
me
keeping
a
Transit
oriented
developed
to
development
2.0
is
useful
and
that's
why
I
think
that
2C
has
advantages.
B
I
want
to
be
clear
about
what
I'm
concerned
about
it's,
not
our
10,
primarily
it's!
It's
the
smaller
Lots,
where
we're
trying
to
allow
to
shoehorn
larger
six
plexes
on
that
are
not
near
Transit.
That
I
think
there
is
a
policy
reasonable
policy
basis
for
doing
this,
so
I
think
you're
correct
that
there's
Clarity
in
2A
I
think
on
balance.
2C
is
a
way
to
keep
our
Transit
oriented
development
while
allowing
for
five
and
six
plexes
on
our
larger
lots
and
that's
why
I
offer.
A
It
okay.
Thank
you,
continue
conversation
if
I
could
ask
Mr
D
Frank
I'm,
not
quite
following
the
linkage
between
how
this
better
promotes
Transit
oriented
development
than
the
other
Alternatives,
whether
2A
or
anything
else,.
B
Well,
2A
does
2A
allows
five
and
six
to
my
understanding.
2A
allows
five
and
six
on
any
lot,
irrespective
of
Transit
proximity
subject
to
other
regulating
requirements.
B
This
is
an
incentive
this,
for
example,
there's
you
know
a
number
of
neighborhoods
that
I
have
engaged
with
Arlington,
View
and
Halls
Hill,
to
be
specific,
where
this
would
have
a
different
impact
and
I've
tried
to
engage
with
neighbors
there,
but
neighbors
to
be
fair
in
many
other
neighborhoods
that
we
would
not
be
as
quickly
saying,
buy
right.
Five
and
six.
D
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
Mr
defranti.
My
question
is
so
the
essential
difference
is
that
in
our
six
and
our
five,
the
threshold
for
five
dwellings
or
six
dwellings
is
higher.
Nine
and
ten
thousand
square
feet
correct,
so
the
con.
The
concern
that
one
would
have
is
that
this
would
reduce
the
viability
of
smaller
lots
for
for
this
kind
of
dwellings
altogether.
D
This
viability
is
already
constrained
by
setbacks
and
by
other
you
know,
issues
so
dude.
My
question
is
whether
aren't
you
concerned
that
this
is
a
little
bit
it's
taking
too
much
potential
capacity.
You
know
for
the
future,
I
understand
the
concern
that
small
Lots,
but
small,
Lots
close
to
transit,
for
example,
should
be
potentially
a
little
bit
more
viable
sure,
especially
because
they
are
close
to
Transit.
B
Sure
so
your
concern
is
what
led
me
to
drop
2C
from
nine
thousand
and
ten
thousand
to
eight
thousand
and
nine
thousand
square
feet,
because
I
wanted
more
capacity
wanted
to
for
five
and
six
to
be
available
broadly
by
at
least
half
and
I.
Believe
two-thirds
I've
done
a
precise
calculation.
B
So
that's
part
of
how
I
tried
to
address
that
and
I.
Also
to
the
second
part
of
your
comments
on
transit.
B
That's
why,
under
one
there
are
those
exceptions
you
may
be
arguing-
and
you
know:
I'm,
not
I
I
support
a
half
mile,
but
I'm
not
going
to
die
on
the
hill
of
a
half
versus
three
quarters.
I
do
support
a
half
mile,
but
one
is
an
attempt
to
answer
your
Transit
capacity
concerns.
G
G
Usually
sometimes
they
do,
but
you
don't
tend
to
build
that
big
a
house,
but
if
you're
going
to
put
in
a
lot
of
units,
you
would
and
I'm
concerned
about
some
of
our
neighborhoods
traditionally
black
neighborhoods
and
the
effect
so
I'm
just
trying
to
minimize
a
little
bit
the
effect
as
we
move
forward.
We
may
want
to
change
that
in
the
future,
but
to
start
as
I,
say
and
I,
don't
think
we're
completely
sure
how
this
is
all
going
to
work
out
so
I'm
in
favor
of
GC,
rather
than
2A.
E
I
ask
either
Ms
Garvey
or
Mr
defranti
to
say
more
about
the
idea
that
somehow
precluding
options
that
might
otherwise
be
available
would
be
helpful
to
our
traditionally
black
neighborhoods
and
wholesale
Highview
park
or
Arlington
View.
G
I'll
just
say
in
my
conversations
with
some
folks
I
think
people
are
concerned
about
what's
going
to
happen
to
their
neighborhood
and
that
they
will,
you
know
their
the
single
family
home.
Suddenly
they
will
be
large
apartment
buildings
and
that
it
will
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
very
quickly
and
I
understand
their
concern.
E
G
It's
just
more
likely
that
you're
going
to
get
a
larger
building.
In
other
words,
you
can
you're
more
likely
to
get
a
larger
building
if
you've
got
a
lot
of
units
in
it.
So
it
is
the
same
size
as
well,
a
single
family
home
that
could
be
built,
but
it's
more
likely
it's
going
to
be
a
whole
lot
bigger.
If
it's
got
a
lot
of
units
in
it
that
that's
what
I'm
saying
that
that's
what
I
see
be
wrong.
F
G
A
Not
trying
to
be
argumentative
and
I'm
not
trying
to
be
obtuse,
I'm,
just
not
understanding.
So
how
does
a
if?
What
I'm,
what
I'm,
not
understanding
about
this
option
is
and
hearing
these
concerns
is
a
five
a
six
Plex
according
to
this
can
only
requires
nine
thousand
square
feet
and
R5
through
R8,
but
the
same
site
located
within
a
half
a
mile
of
Metro
Station
can
be
done
on
as
little
as
5
000
square
feet.
What
about
that?
Transit
proximity
makes
that
site
area
utilization
beneficial
or
acceptable
in
one
instance,
but
not
the
other.
B
B
If
you're,
an
if
you're
I
mean
if
you
bought
a
home
in
Arlington
30
years
ago,
you
never
expected
that
you're,
you
probably
never
expected
that
your
next
door
neighbor
could
build
a
quad
Plex
or
five
or
six.
We
are
changing
that
expectation
and
we
have
done
all
a
ton
of
work
in
order
to
share
that
change
with
our
community
and
not.
B
B
That's
one
reason
why
I
think
the
additional
units
near
density
should
be
more
allowable.
The
second
point
is
that
you
know
we
have
to
have
a
link
I
think
we
have
to
have
a
link
between
two
and
and
five
and
I
they
have
to
be.
They
should
be
analogous,
is,
is
and
I
think
that
our
definition
for
Transit
proximity
should
slightly
shift.
So
that's
I,
don't
know
if
I've
articulated
it
cleanly,
but
that's
the
other
reason
why
I
support
that
I.
A
Mean
I
I
appreciate
that
I
I
guess
just
as
an
editorial
comment,
then
I'll
leave
it
to
to
the
rest
of
you.
You
know
by
utilizing
the
site
area
standard
here
unless
I'm
missing
something
and
an
R5
lot
that
is
Transit
proximate
will
be
built.
However,
it's
built
and,
however
many
units
are
going
to
be
there.
A
If
that
same
lot
were
on
a
bigger
site,
I'm
sorry,
if
that
same
here's,
what
I'm
get
here's,
what
I'm
getting
at
effectively
the
density
that
you're
factoring
into
is
not
the
size
of
the
building
and
its
impact
on
a
particular
site.
But
it's
the
number
of
people
and
so
by
net
effect.
You're
saying
certain
neighborhoods
should
have
fewer
people.
B
Based
on
So
based
on
proximity
to
Transit,
not
you
know
not
anything
else.
Okay,.
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
Mr,
deferenti
I
will
just
tell
you
what
is
my
systematic
systemic?
You
know
methodological
concern
here
this
option,
as
it
is
written
links,
a
certain
level
of
service
like
at
the
primary
Network
or
premium
Network.
D
Rail
is
more
reliable.
It's
service
and
the
physical
existence
of
the
asset
to
it
attaches
that
to
land
use
entitlement
now
level
of
service
can
change
very
easily,
and
you
already
really
take
account
of
that
fact,
because
you
say
well
man.
This
is
15
minutes
to
me.
This
is
not.
You
know
very
reliable
service.
D
Philosophically
Transit
oriented
development
was
always
linked
to
the
physicality
of
the
of
the
main
transportation
Network
and
its,
and
it
is,
and
its
existence.
Mr
slat
just
told
us
that
we
have
to
imagine
that
the
primary
Network
tomorrow
will
be
the
premium
Network
and
onwards,
but
this
is
with
all
due
respect
wishful.
D
It
hasn't
happened
yet
it
may
happen
tomorrow
and
what
and
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
we'll
have
people
worried
about
their
land
use
and
the
certainty
that
you
want
to
achieve
about
knowing
what
is
going
to
happen
in
my
neighborhood
to
something?
That's
extremely
volatile
actually,
so
that
concerns
me
with
with
the
option
I
can
discuss
a
lot
about.
D
You
know
what
is
a
more
gentle
towards
a
more
aggressive
or
you
know,
viability,
approach
on
on
land
use,
but
this
is
what
What
the
the
issue
of
linking
to
a
level
of
service
instead
of
a
you
know.
A
named
arterial,
for
example,
is
to
me
problematic
with
this
with
this
option.
This
is
why
I'm
not
I'm
not
going
to
support
it
at
this
point.
Thank
you.
E
B
Sure
I'll
just
briefly
say
that
I
think
Metro
Rail
is
fixed
and
I
think
that
a
premium
Transit
network
is
is
more.
Certain.
I
will
also
say
that
this
is
what
I
would
propose
for
now
and
part
of
what
I
have
said
is
to
seek
to
to
try
to
build
consensus,
because
there
are,
we
did
hear
in
the
feedback,
as
in
the
staff
report,
that
this
is
one
of
the
concerns
mentioned
during
the
20
conversations.
B
So
that's
and
and
I
guess,
I
I
do
feel
I,
don't
feel
that
we
should
be
litigating
level
of
service.
I
feel,
though,
that
some
standard
of
accessibility
is
a
reason,
I
believe
in
induced
demand.
I
just
don't
believe
that
we
should
have
induced
demand,
be
90
or
80
of
everything.
So
once
the
the
better
bus
work
from
Metro
is
done
once
the
the
transit
plan
is
done,
I'm
certainly
open
to
it,
but
I
feel
like
there's
a
reasonableness
or
an
overall
accessibility
standard.
So,
okay.
A
E
If
I
may
miss
your
chair
just
a
couple
of
comments
in
support
of
2A
before
we
continue
the
the
Alternatives
and
and
your
points
which
I
think
were
well
made,
a
broader
observation
about
this
conversation
throughout
is
I've,
really
noticed.
E
With
regard
to
form
right,
that's
one
question:
we
can
be
a
little
more
prescriptive.
That
was
to
you
know
the
point
I'd
make
in
response
to
Ms
Garvey
concern
about
the
size
of
the
building
right,
that's
sort
of
baked
into
this
proposal
that
this
needs
to
be
consistent
with
with
what
could
be
built
for
for
a
single
home,
but
when
it
comes
to
uses
again
that
threshold
conversation
is
which
which
uses
should
be
illegal
to
build
where
and
I
think
it's
just
really
notable.
E
We
talked
about
the
staff's
proposed
amendments
to
the
glove
change
and
they
wrestled
with
this
question
of.
Are
we
changing
the
basic
density?
And
the
answer
is
no
I
mean
the
difference
of
going
from
one
unit
to
six
can
feel
big
for
that
neighborhood
I
get
it,
but
in
the
standard
of
how
we
have
done
planning.
A
E
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I,
appreciate
that
I
appreciate
to
continue
the
Converse
likes,
which
is
what
this
is
at.
This
point,
so
I
think
I
I,
all
of
which
is
to
say,
I,
really
respect
the
idea.
Orienting
density
around
Transit
right,
like
this
is
so
Central
to
who
we
are,
is
Arlington,
but
I
think
that
is
a
concept
that
we
are
I
would
suggest
not
accurately.
E
We
are
importing
from
conversations
about
much
higher
levels
of
density
and
so,
ultimately,
for
me
again
that
question
of
what
should
be
illegal
to
build
not
what
should
be
constrained
by
the
site
area
and
lot
coverage
and
tree
requirements
Etc,
because
2A
makes
all
of
that
in.
But
but
what
should
we
take?
Further
steps
to
prohibit
I
can't
find
any
justification
for
that
so
I'm,
supportive
of
of
2A,
as
well
as
included
in
the
manager's
mark.
A
Or
any
other
discussion
on
the
proposed
amendment
to
include
2C
within
the
main
motion
now
Mr
D
Franti.
Would
you
like
to
respond.
B
Sure
so,
first
it
seems
we
are
changing.
It
feels
with
this
overall
vote
that
we
are
changing
the
way
we
do
planning
and
for
those
I
mean
for
those
categorically
opposed
to
missing
middle.
The
state
of
California
is
a
mess
because
they
did
not
deregulate.
You
know
loosen
regulations
and
so
I'm
all
for
changing
that
direction.
B
I
just
find
it
a
little
difficult
because
our
site
plans
are
super
and
our
gloves
special
gloves
are
super
prescriptive,
and
so
that's
me
arguing
reasonableness.
I
am
not
the
best
of
listeners,
but
I
do
think
that
there
are
three
votes,
not
supportive
of
the
amendment
listed
and
I.
Don't
I'm
happy
to
change
because
I
don't
want
to
die
on
a
half
half
mile
versus
three
quarters
of
a
mile
I.
A
B
I
I
would
I'd
like
to
seek
a
vote
on
the
the
the
option,
as
listed
here
and
I'm,
mindful
that
sometimes
you
lose
votes
and
I
think
I.
Don't
think
that
the
other
option
is
per
se
wrong,
but
I
do
think
I'd
like
a
vote,
if
that's
possible
Mr
chair,
absolutely.
D
Discussion,
this
is
a
point
of
order
if
a
vote
is
considered
for
2C
after
if
the
vote,
if
the,
if
the
vote
is
not
affirmative,
we
refer
to
the
discussion
about
2A.
Is
that
correct?
Unless.
B
Defranti
on
on
the
amendment
I
think
I've
we've
had
fairies;
okay,
your
light's
still
on.
That's
sorry;
no!
No!
No!
No
on
the
amendment
I
think
all.
A
Right
so
we're
now
ready
to
consider
Mr
D
ferrante's
motion
to
amend
the
main
motion
to
include
option
2C,
which
is
presented
on
the
screen,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
all
those
opposed,
please
say:
Nay.
D
A
Nay
the
maze
habit
three
to
two
with
Miss
Ms
Garvey
and
Mr
diferanti
and
the
minority,
and
that
motion
fails,
will
now
continue
discussion
on
the
main
motion.
Mr
Karen,
Thomas.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
in
all
honesty,
I
I
want
to.
First
of
all,
thank
thank
all
of
you
because
we
had
a
thorough
conversation
about
all
the
options
before
us.
I
came
down
to
the
option
to
d
as
in
Denmark.
This
is
920.
D
They
are
the
residential
zoning
system
graph.
Today,
however,
it
changes
the
minimum
viable
lot
size
for
R5,
the
smallest
zoning
designation
district
from
five
to
six
thousand
four
five
and
six
dwellings
for
the
larger
units,
and
to
me
this
is
an
important.
D
This
is
this
is
important,
so
the
R5
districts
are
not.
We
don't
have
too
many,
but
we
have
significant
ones
there
down
in
Crystal,
City
in
Aurora,
Highlands.
Sorry,
not
Crystal,
City.
Next
to
Crystal
City
Aurora
Highlands,
an
Arlington
view,
which
is
a
you
know:
old
black
neighborhood
in
Columbia
Pi
in
Columbia
Heights,
around
Virginia
Square
across
from
Lion
Park,
so
I
think
that
while
I
understand
the
philosophy
that
that
has
permeated
the
discussion
of
you
know
all
the
time
that
look
these
are.
D
These
are
the
Minima,
but
we
have
so
many
other
conditions.
You
have
to
come
through
with
these,
so
it's
not
going
to
happen
that
you
will
see
six
dwellings
on
the
5
000
square
foot
lot,
or
at
least
it's
it's
not
only
I'm
highly
highly
unlikely,
it's
basically
it
doesn't
fit.
However,
it's
a
good
thing
to
to
be
a
little
bit
more
considerate
in
describing
the
minimal
lot
size
on
our
five
districts.
D
In
addition,
I
would
like
to
in
this
in
this
motion
2D
in
this
version,
2D
I
would
like
to
also
propose
to
have
a
small
change,
so
under
non-conforming
lots
of
which
we
have
quite
a
few
in
Arlington.
These
are
smaller
Lots
than
their
successive,
like
their
corresponding
Art
District
under
2B.
This
is
a
penultimate
line
on
on
the
site
57.
D
A
A
D
So
this
is
I.
I
argued
that
the
seven
thousand
or
non-conforming
Lots
there
are
several
that
are
really
small.
They
are
in
also
in
some
of
them
are
in
a
traditional
black
neighborhoods.
There's,
there's
still
a
very
healthy
viability
of
five
dwellings
and
I
think
that
this
is
a
reasonable
type
of
compromise
between
2A
and
a
a
more
and
and
to
the
the
2D
is
a
compromise
between
this
and
more
restrictive
options.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr.
D
I
understand
that,
if
it
an
R6
is
6000,
it's
not
non-conforming
it.
It
would
if
it's
under
a
6000
would
be
non-conforming.
This
basically
sets
the
addresses.
Non-Conforming.
Lots
that
are
you
know,
are
eight
non-conforming.
That
would
be
seven
thousand
instead
of
eight
thousand.
That
will
be
otherwise
required.
B
D
A
So
not
to
be
crass,
and
please
correct
me
if
your
understanding
is
differently,
but
you
know,
as
I
was
trying
to
articulate
with
2C
with
this
one.
The
net
effect
is
this:
action
does
not
reduce
the
potential
size
of
any
structure
and
its
relation
to
its
neighboring
properties.
What
it
does
limit
and
restrict
is
how
many
households
are
within
that
structure.
D
D
So
this
is
not
only
in
black
I
mean
our
it's
only
R5
that
is
different
than
2A,
and
it's
only
the
five
and
six
dwellings,
so
it
makes
five
and
six
dwellings
in
our
five
viable
starting
at
six
thousand
instead
of
five
thousand
square
feet.
So
that,
in
my
opinion,
is
a
you
know,
response
to
the
to
to
to
to
the
concerns
that
have
been
discussed
here
even
before
meal
under
2C,
that
this
seems
to
be
a
building.
That's
urbanistically
a
little
bit
bigger
than
it
would
be
today.
D
B
And
I
would
just
say:
I,
don't
pres
I
think
it's
a
fair
question.
There's
been
an
implicitous
assumption
in
this
debate
by
various
individuals
across
our
community
that
either
density
is
exclusively
good
or
exclusively
bad
and
I.
Don't
think
there
should
be
a
an
assumption
or
presumption,
but
I
do
think
that
in
an
effort
to
to
at
least
it
is
responsive
to
some
number
of
of
individuals
who
I've
listened
to
who've
raised
concerns
and
I
also
think
that
the
non-conforming
is
sort
of
an
addition
piece.
B
A
non-conforming
lot
is
an
additional
level
of
unexpected
density
that
responds
also
to
some
of
the
concerns,
and
so
that's
why
I'm,
supportive.
E
I'm
prepared
to
support
this
I
think
it
is
relatively
circumspect
and
what
it
draws
out
and
I
wanted
to
just
sort
of
observe,
as
we
talk
about
taking
the
temperature
of
the
community,
I
I
think
the
importance
for
me
that
this
one
of
the
few
perspectives
that
does
seem
to
be
shared
among
those
concerned
with
the
neighborhood
bases
on
a
neighborhood
basis
is
that
this
be
born
across
the
county,
and
this
not
be
something
that
that
clusters
around
a
particular
neighborhood
or
particular
region
of
the
county,
in
my
case
I,
think
the
benefits
of
more
households,
particularly
more
households
who
can
buy
in
at
price
points
lower
than
certainly
what
the
market
is
currently
providing
outweigh
any
drawbacks
and
and
I
think
from
a
place
of
positive
Vision,
that
that
is
an
opportunity
that
every
neighborhood
should
have
and
welcome,
and
so
I
believe
this
proposal.
A
Thank
you
any
further
comments.
I'll
just
say
for
me:
it
appears
that
I'm
going
to
lose
this
vote
and
I
too
Mr
D
Franti
I'm
comfortable
with
with
that
outcome,
I
I
will
say
just
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
doesn't
fit
within.
You
know
my
overall
goal
to
bring
as
little
noise
in
our
zoning
ordinance
and
as
few
arbitrary
barriers
in
our
zoning
ordinance.
I
understand
the
point
of
view.
A
I
understand
your
desire
to
help,
but
I
will
also
just
point
out
that
this
action
would
in
effect
and
who
knows
what
the
real
world
impact
would
be,
because
again
on
these
5
000
square
foot,
Lots
I,
don't
anticipate
that
there
would
be
a
lot
of
six
Plex
five
and
six
Plex
projects
being
proposed.
It
just
really
doesn't
really
fit,
but
by
limiting
them
to
two
to
four.
We
are,
presumably
in
the
event
that
there
was
a
case
where
five
or
six
were
viable
and
compatible.
A
We
are
gearing
those
sites
towards
delivering
fewer
units
with
the
potential
risk.
Those
would
come
at
higher
cost
and
be
less
attainable.
So
that's
that's
a
real
risk.
It's
a
small
scale.
I.
Certainly
think
2D
among
the
options
other
than
2A
is
the
most
desirable,
so
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that
and
I
think.
A
Seeing
no
other
comments,
we're
ready
to
move
to
a
vote
on
Mr
Karen
Thomas's
motion
to
adopt
2D
with
the
edit
to
section
2B,
which
changes
the
non-conforming
minimum
side
area
requirements
from
six
thousand
to
seven
thousand,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye.
E
A
Those
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
nay,
the
eyes
have
it
four
to
one
with
Mr
Dorsey
and
the
minority
and
option
2D
is
now
part
of
the
main
motion
now
ready
to
move
on
to
our
next
section,
which
is
Lord,
knows
I've
forgotten
at
this
point
parking.
Thank
you,
Miss
Crystal,
a
lot
coverage.
Okay,
four
Series
right.
D
So
the
reason
first
of
all,
I
have
to
say
that
I
do
that
with
a
sense
of
you
know
as
a
as
a
a
benefit
of
doubt
issue,
because
I
I
cannot,
nobody
can
guarantee
that
the
the
intention
here
is
to
provide
the
ability
to
add
habitable
space
to
an
age-o
building.
This
is
the
intention.
This
is
a
five
percent
that
otherwise
would
be
a
garage
and
a
detached
garage
by
the
way
that
reduces
the
the
previous
space
that
takes
away
trees.
D
That
makes
the
yard
smaller
and
all
this
have
it.
You
know
attached
to
the
main
main
building,
so
that
the
yard
is
bigger,
more
available
to
people
more
more
more
per
view
space.
That's
the
intention.
The
way
load
coverage
is
handled.
This
may
be
converted
into
parking
during
implementation.
I
will
be,
I
will
be
flagging.
That
and
I
will
be
looking
very
carefully
what
actually
happens
in
reality,
and
you
know
what
kind
of
projects
come
forward
and
how
they
Implement
option
for
B
I
think
this
is
a
good
incentive.
D
It's
a
it's
a
fair
incentive
to
create
ehos
that
that
work,
and
since
we
have
discussed
that
a
a
you
know,
detached
garage
for
vhos
is
not
really
a
desirable
outcome.
I
think
option.
4B
is
a
good
option
to
adopt.
A
Ion,
thank
you.
Anyone
else,
I'll
just
say
for
my
own
purposes:
I'm,
not
sure
that
your
noble
goals
are
actually
achieved
with
this,
since
we
can't
guarantee
that
that
outcome.
So
we
have
to
absorb
the
fact
that
it
could
work
at
Cross
purposes
to
some
of
the
conversations
that
we
previously
had
on
minimum
Site
Area,
for
example,
but
I
think
that's
all
I'll
say
about
that.
Any
further
discussion,
Mr
Mr,
deferanti
Excuse
me
I,.
B
Think
I
just
would
refer
to
the
questions
that
Miss
Crystal
asked
and
the
broad
sense
and
I
I
take
your
point
that
there's
detail
there
that
it
might
not
result
in
the
outcome
but
I'm
willing
to
take
that
risk,
because
I
think
that
there
should
this
seems
broadly
within
the
sentiment
single-family
analogous
to
EA
to
eho
and
and
larger
numbers
of
units.
So
that's
why
I
support
4B
all.
A
Right
so
we're
now
ready
to
move
to
a
vote
on
Mr
Karen
Thomas's
motion
to
amend
the
main
motion
to
include
option
4B,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
I
I
any
opposed
yeah
I.
Have
it
five
zero.
You
said
that
yesterday,
oh
well,
you
know
I,
you
know
what?
Let's
do
it
we'll
call
that
vote
again,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye.
C
A
E
I'm
in
the
somewhat
strange
parliamentary
position
of
wanting
to
speak
to
your
motion,
which
is
to
say
the
manager's
recommendation,
if
I
may,
the
main
one
on
the
floor,
I
really
appreciated
the
opportunity
for
pretty
extensive
conversation
during
our
dialogue.
I
appreciate
how
extensively
our
staff
has
thought
about
that
across
Department.
E
The
perspectives
that
we've
gotten
from
our
commissions
as
well
and
and
I,
wanted
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
manager's
recommendation
not
or
to
not
only
advocate
for
the
way
they.
The
recommendation
answers
the
question
on
parking,
although
I
agree
with
that,
but
to
advocate
in
particular
for
how
it
implicitly
frames
the
question
of
parking.
I,
don't
actually
think
the
question
here
is
Will
residents
of
missing
middle
forms,
live
car,
free
or
not,
there
are
I,
think
is
some
have
been
brought
up
already
and
suspect.
E
More
will
be
so
many
use
cases
for
who
will
live
in
these
types
of
housing
who
will
have
cars
or
whose
life
will
include
cars
right,
whether
that's
a
family
with
a
kid
in
trial
soccer
or
a
senior
that
doesn't
drive
themselves,
but
maybe
relies
on
visits
for
a
daily
caregiver,
which
is
the
point
I
think
our
chair
is
made.
E
As
Mr
Ladd
noted,
the
rate
of
of
car
free
households
has
grown
of
the
last
10
years
at
twice
the
rates
of
General
household
growth
in
in
Arlington
wide,
and
certainly
there
are
more
Innovations
happening
in
transit
and
car
sharing
and
micro
Mobility.
To
kind
of
answer
that
threshold
question
of,
should
we,
as
the
government
be
preventing
the
creation
of
the
kind
of
housing
that
would
meet
the
needs
of
these
households?
Who
will
choose
to
live
car
free
and
that's
what
parking
minimums
do
right?
E
The
question
is:
not
you
know:
will
these
units
be
parked
or
not?
As
we've
talked
about
right,
the
the
market
is
going
to
dictate
certain
things
that
I,
you
know,
I
think
we
can.
We
can
all
expect
a
fair
amount
of
parking,
but
should
a
builder
a
homeowner
have
the
opportunity
to
to
try
this
type
of
housing
that
might
be
attractive
to
the
agreed
minority
of
people
who
might
wish
to
allocate
the
precious
space
of
that
they
have
towards
something
other
than
car
storage.
E
E
Think
that
may
in
fact
Be
A,
Bridge,
Too
Far,
but
I
think
the
manager's
recommendation
is
is
a
thoughtful
one
and
again
it
at
least
allows
the
type
of
households
that
we
are
seeing
more
and
more
an
opportunity
to
allocate
some
of
that
precious
space
to
uses
other
than
car
storage.
A
B
I
have
come
a
long
way
on
in
the
on
on
parking.
It
is
very
important
it
it
in
as
I
listened
to
the
20
conversations
we
said
in
in
on.
It
is
a
very
significant
concerns
if,
as
I
think
back
to
the
taking
the
96
bus
and
the
42
bus
in
DC
and
how
sweaty
I
would
get
you
know,
it's
we're
in
a
totally
different
world
with
the
strength
of
our
apps.
B
That
tell
us
exactly
when
something
is
going
to
come,
but
I
appreciate
the
comments
you
made
regarding
that
we're
already
coming
down.
Mr
chair
I
also
think
that
the
manager's
recommendation
has
good
pieces.
I
do
have
an
amendment
that
I'd
like
to
propose.
That
is
a
little
less
than
the
manager's
recommendation
and
I
think
the
clerk
has
it.
If
you
could
show
that
it's
not
a
grand
mystery
I,
I
I
would
strike
the
primary
Transit
Network
at
this
point.
B
I
am
I'm
open
to
considering
Less
in
the
future,
but
at
this
stage
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
guard.
Rail.
B
Both
things
can
be
true
that
doubled
availability
from
three
percent
to
six
percent
is
doubled,
but
if
I
do
the
dishes
six
percent
of
the
time,
my
wife
will
not
have
that
and
and
so
I
just
am
not
quite
there.
I
don't
mean
to
be
too
Cavalier
or
or
ridiculous.
B
E
Generally,
we
are
seeing
of
the
households
that
are
willing
to
orient
their
lives
around
Transit.
This
may
be
the
one
that
is
most
of
most
a
stretch
so
and
and
to
just
be
clear
what
happens
here
by
deleting
that
the
sites
that
that
are
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
primary
Transit
Network
fall
into
all
other
sites
and
have
a
one
space
pre-dwelling
unit
right,
yep?
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm,
happy
to
support
this
one.
A
Thank
you,
I'll
say
for
my
own
purposes.
You
know
I
I
found
this
parking
thing
interesting,
because
I've
had
so
many
conversations
about
parking
and
the
policy
conversation
that
we're
having
today
is
certainly
a
a
useful
one.
It's
a
great
one,
but
I
am
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
absent
people
who
may
redevelop
their
property
into
ehos
who
are
interested
in
parking,
these
decisions
about
what
parking
will
be
delivered,
are
not
going
to
be
made
by
people
who
are
having
these
parking
conversations.
It's
going
to
be
being
by
others.
A
So
I
largely
think
our
conversation
is
not
moot,
but
you
know
we
have
to
recognize
that
other
people
who
have,
maybe
you
know
different
perspectives
and
points
of
view-
are
going
to
be
making
these
decisions
about
what's
actually
delivered,
and
you
know
when
you
think
about
it
practically,
particularly
if
there's
ownership
product
that
comes
from
this
can't
imagine
a
circumstance
where
a
side
by
side
is
going
to
come
with
one
parking
space
for
the
two
of
them
to
share
I
guess
it
could.
A
But
I
can't
imagine
that
it
would
I
can't
imagine
that
the
townhouse
cluster
of
three
is
going
to
have
the
availability
of
two
where
one
is
just
going
to
be
left
out.
Could
but
I
don't
expect
that
it
would.
That
said,
you
know
this
is
also
what
we
hope
will
be
a
zoning
ordinance
that
better
reflects
the
community
that
we
live
in
decades
from
now,
and
we
do
hope
that
the
trajectory
continues
towards
people
adopting
more
sustainable
ways
of
getting
around
up
to
everyone,
including
being
car
free
I.
A
Wouldn't
be
me
if
I
didn't
just
know,
we
ain't
there
yet,
and
even
though
the
numbers
have
grown
a
lot
when
the
number
is
really
small,
you
can
actually
chart
a
significant
amount
of
growth
and
still
be
at
within
three
quarters
of
a
mile
of
Metro.
Eighty
percent
of
people
owning
a
vehicle,
and
you
know,
let
alone
all
the
other
ways
in
which
vehicles
still
serve
households,
but
the
policy
conversation
really
doesn't
need
to
pervade
the
zoning
ordinance.
I
think
this
is
reasonable,
I'm
comfortable
with
it
we'll
recognize,
Mr,
Karen,
tonis.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I'm,
also
comfortable
with
Mr
difference
Amendment
here,
I
fully
subscribe
to
miss
Crystal's
description
of
the
rationale.
Why,
in
fact,
minimum
parking
requirements
begin
to
be
to
show
their
age
as
a
policy
tool
for
not
saying
that
they
are
almost
about
to
be
absolutely
useless
as
possible.
Not
only
because
practitioners
on
the
in
the
marketplace
will
make
these
decisions
eventually,
but
the
the
the
determinants
of
these
decisions
begin
to
be
more
more
complex,
so
we're
looking
at
the
beginning
of
the
electrified
Mobility
era.
D
We
have
seen
improvements
with
micro,
Mobility
workability
becomes
better
in
Arlington.
We
are
you
know
it's
not
only.
It's
not
only
the
need
the
perceived
need
for
parking,
but
it's
also
all
the
other
options
that
are
available
to
to
households,
but
I
think
that
this
is
a
conversation
that
we
need
to
have
in
depth
when
we
are
going
to
discuss
the
mass
transportation
plan,
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
respond
right
now
with
a
few
more
conservative
assumptions
and
and
go
with
that
for
for
this
moment,.
A
A
Should
some
sort
of
an
a
permit
applicant
apply
for
a
reduction
based
on
a
parking
survey
which,
according
to
the
following
criteria,
if
they
are
met,
could
be
granted
by
the
zoning
administrator
yes,
and
that
could
be
any
amount
from
0.99
to
0.5
0.5,
even
though
we
know
that
that
would
be
really
based
on
the
number
of
units
total
right
right.
Thank
you.
Okay.
A
Any
further
discussion
on
this,
so
we'll
now
move
to
consider
the
amendment
to
the
manager's
recommendation
to
amend
the
parking
requirement
which
effectively
am
I
getting
this
right.
Mr
D
for
anti
just
simply
removes
the
one-quarter
mile
from
a
primary
Transit
Network
as
a
site
location
eligible
for
a
minimum
parking
of
one
half.
Thank
you
all
right.
All
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it
5-0?
A
Is
that
our
first
5-0,
maybe
with
the
allowed
uses
I,
don't
know
that
we
didn't
need
to
vote
on
that,
yet
so
yeah
we're
good.
First,
five,
zero!
All
right!
Moving
on!
We
go
back
to
the
seven
series:
the
permit
caps,
Miss
Crystal
I.
E
Would
like
to
move
a
substitute
motion
to
the
Chairman's
Mark,
which
is
options
7c,
which
is,
let
me
make
sure
clerk
has
the
right
number.
It
is
about
page
65
of
the
text,
zoning
ordinance.
It
would
essentially
read
during
the
calendar
years
2023-28
no
more
than
58
expanded
housing
option.
Developments
shall
be
permitted
in
any
one
calendar
year.
E
Few
thoughts
about
caps,
a
few
thoughts
about
the
downsides
of
potentially
not
getting
this
right
to
me.
The
inclusion
of
caps
is
I.
Think
you
put
it
this
way.
Mr
chair
earlier
is
an
expression
of
humility.
The
sort
of
what,
if
we're
wrong
I
will
say,
are
estimates
about
a
relatively
no
low.
E
Number
of
these
forms
are
not
just
based
on
one
consultant
study,
although
I
think
that
consultant
study
was
quite
robust,
they
are
based
on
what
we
know
from
other
communities
that
in
the
first
year
of
Portland's
residential
infill
project
or
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan,
the
number
of
units
permitted
relative
to
population
was
generally
on
the
scale
of
or
lower
than
the
21
projects
a
year
that
the
PES
analyze
and
and
proffered
to
us
in
working
through
some
of
those
potential
performas.
These
estimates
are
also
on
the
scale
of
what
we
learn
from
our
own
experience.
E
E
And
then
so
right,
so
we
saw
just
three
accessory
dwellings
a
year
after
we
after
they
were
legalized
in
Arlington
and
then
after
we
further
liberalized
their
creation
and
by
the
way
we
did
that
because
they
were
so
popular
in
2019,
we
saw
only
about
27
a
year,
County
Wide,
so
I
do
think.
We
have
reason
to
feel
confident
in
our
estimates.
I
I,
don't
think
they've
been
drawn
out
of
thin
air
I.
E
So
why
this
instead
of
the
the
Chairman's
Mark
the
trouble
for
me,
is
what
happens
when
that
hedge
or
that
Fail-Safe
starts
to
threaten
the
promise
of
the
overall
policy
and
I
think
that
could
happen,
and
it
could
warp
even
the
relatively
few
projects
we
were
likely
to
get
a
year
if
they
are
too
low.
To
be
clear,
My
worry
is
not
the
one
or
two
projects
that
come
in
over
the
permit
or
past
the
permit
level
and
don't
get
built.
I
think
that
is
maybe
a
reasonable
enough.
E
Trade
My
worry
is
that
the
risk
of
a
too
low
cap
is
to
create
an
artificial
Dynamic
of
scarcity,
which
leads
property
owners
and
and
property
prop
homeowners
and
property
developers,
in
all
cases,
to
make
different
calculations.
So,
to
give
a
couple
of
examples,
if
you
have
a
senior
who
is
thinking
about
whether
they
want
to
convert
their
home
into
a
duplex
to
move
in
a
family
member
and
age
in
place
versus
moving
out
of
their
neighborhood.
E
Now
they
have
a
big
question
mark
a
big,
expensive
question
mark
about
potential
timing
in
their
Pro
con
column.
The
developer,
who
maybe
would
like
to
try
a
new
model
with
more
attainably
priced
quad
Plex
units
now
has
to
decide
whether
they
want
to
put
that
project
in
direct
competition
with
a
much
higher
iroi
townhouse
or
a
side-by-side
project.
An
affordable
housing
developer
who
is
operating
on
a
razor
thin
margin?
E
Who
now
is
thinking
about
potentially
having
to
carry
a
project
and
the
growing
interest
on
their
debt
for
acquiring
that,
for
whom
an
additional
calendar
year
risk
makes
a
whole
effort
and
feasible
and
in
every
single
one
of
these
circumstances,
when
someone
makes
the
choice
away
from
developing
eho
because
of
this
risk
of
a
cap
or
this
artificial
scarcity,
what
happens?
Isn't
that
the
modestly
sized
starter
home
stays
intact
and
sells
for
an
affordable
price?
It's
at
the
sold
property
is
going
to
be
redeveloped
into
a
large
and
very
expensive
single
family
home
instead.
E
So
those
are
some
really
high
costs
potential
risks
of
a
tool.
That's
really
about
being
a
Fail-Safe
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
keep
our
caps
at
a
level
that
is
reasonable
to
manage
the
impact
on
our
community
and
across
zoning
districts
high
enough
and
the
time
Horizon
short
enough
that
they
allow
us
to
intervene.
If
all
of
our
indicators
are
wrong,
I
think
that's
what
caps
are
about,
but
not
so
high
or
for
so
long
that
they
actually
end
up
denying
us
the
early
success
stories.
E
If
all
of
those
estimates
are
right,
so
I
really
appreciate
the
consideration
and
the
opportunity
to
make
the
case
I
think
we
maybe
have
not
really
thought
about
the
downside
risk
of
setting
those
caps
too
low
and
I'm
glad
to
have
the
opportunity
to
try
to
make
a
plea
for
it.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
colleagues.
B
My
second
was
probably
more
for
discussion
than
for
I'm,
not
quite
there,
but
I
was
because
there's
a
lot
of
pieces
ins
in
the
Caps,
I
heard,
2028
and
I
know.
That's
was
much
discussed
but
you're
offering
the
text
as
it
is
here,
and
your
rationale
is
makes
sense
to
me,
but
I'm,
not
at
58
I'm
at
you
know,
as
we've
discussed
a
little
smaller
sense
and
not
quite
the
cheers,
Mark
but
I
think
we
had
two
or
three
speakers
on
Saturday
who
talked
about
you
know.
B
Certainty
is
a
key
and
in
knowing
the
standards
is
it
such
a
key
in
this
so
I
hope
that
gives
a
little
context.
I'm.
Also
mindful
that
we
have
a
number
of
different
pieces
that
we
will
want
to
discuss
on
that
so
I
misheard,
the
28th
and
and
didn't
quite
know
that
this
this
language
so
I'm
not
there
on
this
I
appreciate
the
sentiment.
I
think
that
the
guard
rails
need
to
be
tighter,
but
not
frankly,
as
tight
as
the
as
the
chair
would
due
respect
to
the
chair.
G
You
yeah
I'm
not
going
to
support
this
at
the
moment.
My
and
it's
just
it's
a
it's.
A
difference
in
approach.
I
have
concerns
that
we
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
work
out
and
I
have
more
concerns
of
certain
neighborhoods
being
overwhelmed
than
I
do,
of
something
not
getting
built
in
one
year
that
might
get
built
on
another.
So
I
am
not
supporting
the
current
location.
D
You
Mr
chair,
I
I,
moved
originally
at
the
RTA
to
include
the
option
of
five
years
and,
as
we
heard
here
effectively
three
years
would
be
two
and
a
half
and
five
would
be
two
a
four
point:
five
for
four
and
a
half
years.
D
I
am
very
much
aware
that
a
cap,
especially
low,
very
low
cap,
is
basically
a
a
tool
to
suppress
the
the
the
the
development
and
also
it
has
the
adverse
effect
of
Pro.
You
know
giving
a
a
priority
to
those
who
are
better
capitalized
who
have
already
projects
who
are
you,
know,
quick
and
fast,
to
realize
opportunities
as
they
see
that
and
leaves
others
who
have
to
find.
D
D
So
I
do
believe
that
so.
For
this
reason,
I
I
supported
a
higher
number
at
the
same
time.
I
think
that,
together
with
the
idea
of
Distributing,
these
caps
I
do
think
that
we
need
some
time
to
really
evaluate
what
is
actually
happening
and
to
be
open
and
accountable
to
our
to
our
constituents.
About
that,
because
I
heard
a
lot
of
concern
and
fear,
I
don't
agree
with
the
majority
of
those
who
have
the
who
say
that
this
is
a
going
to
be
a
tsunami
of
speculative
development.
D
Etc
I
think
a
cap
is
responding
to
this
concern
having
the
buy-in
and
having
the
data
to
show
with
certain
depth
of
time,
with
a
reasonable
depth
of
Time.
How
this
is
working
this
to
me,
an
important
Capital
that
will
support,
hopefully,
will
support
the
the
deployment
of
this
zoning
change
and
this
policy
shift
on
the
long
term.
This
is
why
I
am
more
conservative
on
this,
and
I
am
still
on
five
years.
Instead
of
three
or
honestly,
two
and
a
half
and
four
and
a
half
instead
of
two
and
a
half.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Miss
Crystal.
You
wanted
something
else
so
in
case
I
lose
the
opportunity
to
just
say,
because
I
I
want
to
make
some
defense
of
the
original
item
that
was
in
the
market
and
just
give
a
sense
of
what
was
intended
by
it
can't
say
it
enough.
You
know.
The
whole
notion
of
a
cap
does
send
a
signal
that
this
is
somehow
undesirable
and,
and
so
I
want
to
make
clear.
That's
not
the
intent
here.
A
One
of
the
risks
of
that
must
be
acknowledged,
though,
is
that
we
are
presuming
a
certain
level
of
impact
in
terms
of
ehos
as
a
share
of
development
and
based
on
that
assessment,
we
have
made
I
believe
the
absolute
right
determination
that
our
Capital
infrastructure
is
well
able
to
not
only
support
that
pace
of
take
up
in
the
market,
but
also
to
allow
us
the
time
to
make
the
appropriate
investments
in
the
future,
as
this
grows
in
matures.
A
That's
an
important
conversation
that
we've
had
with
the
community
and
it's
important
enough
that
I
feel
like
we
should
commit
to
it,
at
least
for
a
period
of
time,
the
minimum
period
of
time
to
actually
have
real
world
data
so
that
these
very
ephemeral,
abstract
conversations
can
become
real
based
on
what's
on
the
ground.
So
the
recommendation
for
the
cap
number
for
three
years
was
with
some
intention
and
I
appreciate.
Miss
Crystal
sincerely
held
concerns
about
whether
or
not
you
know
we.
We
lost
an
opportunity
in
what
that
would
do
to
the
market.
A
I
think
that's
a
a
well-reasoned
concern.
I
just
don't
happen
to
share
it,
because
the
risk
of
the
project
that
may
come
in
over
a
cap
number
is
not
that
it
becomes
a
single
family
house.
It
just
may
mean
that
it
has
to
wait
until
the
next
year
when
permits
may
be
available,
which
happens
all
the
time
in
real
estate
development.
But
beyond
that
the
cap
numbers
themselves
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
if
we
were
expecting
somewhere
in
the
20s
in
terms
of
an
annual
share
of
new
development.
A
The
cap
number
is
nearly
triple
that
and
as
it
relates
to
the
particular
areas,
you
know
if,
for
example,
the
R8
number,
which
looks,
looks
low.
It's
six
like
we
worried
about
that,
but
we
have
to
remember
that
on
an
annual
basis,
at
least
for
the
last
three
years,
we've
had
11
R8
projects,
so
it's
accounting
for
up
to
half
of
those
to
be
ehos,
while
that
percentage
doesn't
persist
across
all
of
them.
A
I
feel
pretty
comfortable
that,
at
least
in
the
early
years,
we're
not
going
to
come
anywhere
close
to
the
cap
and
the
risk
is.
If
you
keep
the
cap
regime
in
place
too
long,
you
increase
the
likelihood
whether
you
distribute
it
by
zoning
District
or
just
have
it
overall
that
you
could
forego
some
of
those
good
projects,
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
We'll
move
I!
Think
to
oh.
You
want
to
respond
sure.
E
Just
clarify
for
the
record
I
want
to
be
very
precise.
My
worry
is
not
the
one
or
two
projects
that
get
shut
out
by
the
cap
and
have
to
wait
another
year.
My
worry-
and
this
has
really
been
echoed
by
the
people
who
build
this
type
of
housing,
whether
they
are
affordable,
housing
developers
or
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
in
their
letter.
Writing
us
is
that
it
changes
everyone's
Behavior
under
the
cap
and
so
a
developer,
who
might,
for
example,
bring
forward
that
project.
That's
you
know
so
to
speak.
E
Riskier
is
going
to
instead
bring
forward
the
much
more
expensive
version
of
the
eho
and
then
what
we
end
up
with
is
the
sort
of
Prophecy
that
we've
all
been
most
worried
about,
that
we
only
get
the
most
expensive
forms
of
this.
I
am
on
the
losing
end
of
it.
I
will
let
it
go
after
that.
I
just
really
wanted
to
clarify.
My
concern
is
not
the
one
or
two
that
have
to
wait
another
year,
I
think
I'm
with
you
and
thinking.
That's
a
reasonable
enough
cost.
D
Oh
nothing.
It's
just
a
comment.
It's
really
about
the
size
of
the
sum
of
the
sample
size
for
for
judging
it
properly
those
who
are
well
capitalized.
They
will
rush
into
the
market.
I,
don't
want
anybody
to.
You
know
misinterpret
this.
You
know
because
in
the
short
term
it
may
it's
logical
to
happen.
It
happens
very
often
just
having
a
better
sample
size.
I
wish
we
would.
G
A
Correct
subject
to
any
subsequent
Amendment:
yes,
all
right,
I
think
we're
now
ready
to
move
to
a
vote
on
Miss
Crystal's
motion
to
adopt
the
language
in
7c,
which
has
been
further
amended
as
shown
on
the
screen,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye.
E
D
E
Of
having
humility
and
policy
making
always
have
a
plan
B,
so
I
may
I'd
like
to
offer
another
substitute,
which
looks
quite
a
bit
more
like
the
chairs,
Mark
and
I.
Think
our
clerk
has
it,
and
this
is
an
effort
to
essentially
maintain
the
bundling
with
the
larger
our
districts,
because
I
do,
for
all
the
reasons
expressed.
I
feel
like
those
numbers
are
very
low
and
I.
Think
when
you
see
the
the
R20
through
our
10
through
R8,
bundled
you're
still
at
a
number.
That
is
consistent
with
our
estimates.
E
So
again,
I
think
we'd
be
very,
very
unlikely
to
see
that
many
in
any
of
those
individual
districts
I
think
we'll
be
fortunate.
If
we
see
one
or
two
in
those
districts.
But
again,
the
idea
of
having
more
a
higher
cap
is
not
necessarily
about
getting
more
of
them,
but
about
not
changing
the
behavior
savior
we're
warping
the
market
of
what
gets
built
there,
so
that
it
is
only
the
most
expensive
of
the
eho
project,
so
I'm.
Sorry,
I
just
explained
that
without
moving
it.
E
Also
want
to
be
honest,
although
I
do
prefer
a
three-year
cap.
I
don't
want
to
achieve
it
by
trying
to
sneak
it
past.
Anyone
so
I
will
note
that
by
amending
the
chairs
Mark,
that
is
consistent
with
the
chairs
Mark,
which
includes
three
years,
not
five,
so
that
is
my
Amendment
on
the
table.
I
suspect
I
may
have
colleagues
who
wish
to
further
amend
the
substitute
before
a.
B
A
B
On
the
allocation
I'm
supportive
of
this,
because
we
have
to
have
more
economic
and
racial
diversity
in
larger
Lots
on
r10
and
R20
we
have
to,
and
so
I
think
that
the
strict
allocation
is
too
narrow
with
for
me
for
my
taste,
with
respect
to
r10
R20
and
an
R8
and
I
think
it
addresses
some
of
the
comments
made
on
Saturday,
I
would
say:
I
think
it
Bears
just
brief,
repeating
that
the
number
30
for
R6
is
based
on
the
fact
in
part.
B
G
E
Areas
that's
correct,
yeah.
It
also
means
that,
for
example,
and
if
the,
if
the
green
Minds
scrolling
up
a
little
bit
yeah,
it
also
means
that
five
could
be
built
in
R20,
which
would
not
be
possible
under
the
chairs
Mark.
So.
G
Yeah
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
the
chairs
Mark
for
the
for
the
beginning.
Thank
you,
I
I'm,
just
worried
about
as
I
said
dispersion.
It
seems
to
me
really
important
I
think
we
don't
know
how
people
are
actually
going
to
be
thinking
and
what
they're
going
to
be
doing
so
I'm
more
comfortable
with
the
chairs
mark.
Thank
you.
D
You
Mr
chair,
Miss,
Crystal,
I
I'm
inclined
to
support
your
allocation.
Our
zoning
just
creates
two
consistent
classes
of
zoning.
Our
10
or
20
and
R8
are
pretty
much
con.
You
know
contiguous
the
with
exception
of
a
you
know
in
an
area
entirely
Heights
leeway
Heights.
D
Allocation
of
different
of
these
caps.
I
do
think.
I
agree
with
Mr
deferanti.
Indeed,
R6
is
the
most
predominant.
It's
66
and
I'm
happy
to
see
that
our
our
five
is
treated
with
with
distinction,
which
is
a
smaller,
very
dispersed,
and
it
will
be
interesting
to
see
how
this
performs.
I
think
this
is
a
logical
apportionment
of
potential
development
that
creates
sufficient
space
for
flexibility
to
see
indeed
and
collect
the
data.
D
A
Thank
you
I'll
recognize
me
just
because
I
do
believe
that
some
parts
of
the
original
proposal
have
been
misinterpreted,
so
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
that
the
current
one
does
allocate
a
disproportionate
share
of
these
permits
to
R8,
r10
and
R20.
In
fact,
in
total
36
percent
of
all
permits
go
to
those
places
and
just
to
marry
this
conversation
and
make
it
a
little
bit
more
concrete.
That
means
that
at
annual
permit
rates
in
R8
of
11
6
would
be
available
on
an
annual
basis.
Through
this,
more
than
50
percent
are
10.
A
E
We'll
note
Mr
chair
that
it
was
a
very
wise
board.
Member
who
said
at
the
time
of
RTA
that
building
these
off
of
the
existing
construction
permits
assumes
that
what
has
currently
been
happening
over
the
past
few
years
is
normative
and.
A
B
Mr
D
Franti,
yes,
Mr,
chair,
I,
I,
believe
what
I
I
have
a
semi-friendly
amendment.
That
I
think
is
acceptable
to
the
author
regarding
the
three-year
versus
five-year
piece
of
things.
I
would
like
to
I
support
five
years
and
that's
a
piece
of
why
I
support
the
amendment
that
Miss
Crystal
is
making
and
I.
Don't
know
how
to
effectuate
that.
A
You
all
right,
you
seconded
that
is
now
your
Amendment.
We
won't
call
it
a
friendly
we've
just
been
reframed,
so
this
is
to
adopt
a
distribution
model
that
includes
21
to
be
shared,
for
districts
are
8,
10
and
20,
and
our
six
having
a
hard
number
of
30
and
R5
a
hard
number
of
seven.
That's
now
the
motion.
B
Two
pieces
as
to
why
five
years
for
me
very
briefly:
it's
because
it's
four
and
a
half
2028
is
four
and
a
half
in
practice
and
also
I
want
a
sample
size
large
enough,
so
that
we
can
really
look
at
this
I
know
there
are
different
opinions.
We
talked
about
this
in
January
I
wanted
to
make
that
point.
I
also
have
received
email,
and
there
were
comments
on
Saturday
that
touches
the
question
of
sun
setting
and
there's
two
ways
to
interpret
Sunset.
B
It
can
either
mean
that
the
cap
will
sunset
or
it
can
mean
that
the
whole
eho
program
will
sunset.
I,
do
not
support
the
whole
eho
sunsetting
interpretation,
you
know
or
understanding,
because
the
languages
I
believe
fairly
clear
that
the
capwood
sunset.
But
for
me,
big
picture,
it
is
whether
how
it
sunsets
I
believe
we're
going
to
have
another
big
discussion
in
four
years
or
before
this
happens,
irrespective
of
whether
it's
sunsets
or
not,
and
we're
gonna
have
another
big
conversation
about
this.
A
All
right
so,
colleagues,
at
this
point,
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
to
see
if
anyone
has
any
lingering
amendments
to
offer
on
any
of
the
other
remaining
areas
and
those
include
the
glop
Amendment
which
why
I
don't
expect
any
but
could
also
include
the
six
series,
trees,
8
series,
condo,
Co-op,
conversions,
duplex
definitions,
planning,
district
applicability,
gross
floor
area
or
accessory
dwellings.
Any
further
amendments,
okay,
to
recap:
we
now
have
a
main
motion
on
the
floor,
which
we
will
move
to
vote
on,
which
includes
flowerable
uses
up
to
six
minimum
sight
area
of
2D.
A
We
are
now
ready
to
you
know.
How
do
you
want
to
do
it?
Colleagues
leave
it
up
to
you.
Do
you
want
to
do
concluding
comments
before
the
vote
or
the
vote?
First,
it's
up
to
you
go
first
up,
first,
lovely
all
right,
so
we'll
now
move
to
a
vote
on
a
main
motion
that
includes
the
elements
that
I
described
all
those
in
favor.
Please
say:
aye
aye.
Are
there
any
opposed
hearing?
None
that
motion
carries
five
zero.
A
We'll
now
have
an
opportunity
to
have
concluding
comments
on
this
very
long,
but
meaningful
process
on
the
board
of
the
board
and
in
the
community
and
I'll
exercise,
chairs
prerogative
and
go
first,
and
so
much
has
been
said
about
this
already.
I
will
try
to
make
this
as
succinct
as
I
can.
But
I
do
have
a
few
things
to
say.
A
First,
you
know,
as
we
look
back
over
the
last
three
years
originally
in
March,
2020
March,
2020
I
believe
is
when
staff
really
focused
on
presenting
what
would
be
the
goals
of
the
missing
middle
housing
study
and
Community
engagement,
those
two
primary
goals
where
2A
increase
the
housing,
Supply
and
B,
diversify
the
range
of
housing
choices.
That's
what
we
articulated,
then
that
has
remained
consistent
throughout
it's
important
to
think
about
the.
Why
the
why
it
was
simply
a
recognition
that
growth
and
change
are
period,
not
good,
not
bad.
A
Just
are
it's
happening
and
we
have
a
couple
of
choices
when
we
think
about
it.
We
can
recognize
why
that
growth
and
change
is
happening.
We
are
part
of
a
dynamic
Vibrant
Community
in
Arlington
and
within
the
region
that
has
for
Generations,
invested
in
the
kind
of
living
conditions
that
make
this
a
place
that
I
think
most
people
here
value
and
that,
naturally,
other
people
would
be
attracted
to.
That
is
not
a
bad
thing.
In
fact,
it's
a
damn
good
thing.
A
We
should
all
be
proud
of
it,
but
certainly
it's
our
responsibility
to
think
about
how
we
accommodate
that
to
make
sure
that
it
continues
to
work
well
for
as
many
people
as
it
possibly
can.
Arlington
is
known
for
its
attention
to
its
planning
corridors,
where
we
specifically
and
purposefully
have
medium
and
high
density
building
to
accommodate
the
preponderance
of
that
growth.
A
But,
as
we
have
learned
over
the
years
as
much
as
that,
has
hewed
to
good
smart
growth
principles
and
has
produced
wonderful
places
for
people
to
live,
it
has
produced
a
predominant
housing
type
that
by
no
means
reflects
the
only
way
people
want
to
live.
There
is
a
desire
for
them
to
live
in
places
and
in
spaces
that
are
different
than
what
is
primarily
being
delivered
here.
A
That's
not
bad
either
and
when
we
think
about
what
that
should
mean
is
how
do
we
look
at
the
rest
of
the
areas
of
our
County
that
hitherto
they
have
been
precluded
from
growing
in,
because
we
preclude
that
growth
overall
and
it's
there
that
I
think
we
should
also
apply
smart
growth
principles
and
maximize
the
efficient
use
of
available
space
that
we
should
have
bulk
and
mass
that
is
consistent
and
also
compatible
with
its
surrounding
environment.
A
We
should
leverage
public
infrastructure
and,
as
we
think
about
the
current
conditions
in
our
R
districts,
we've
got
to
face
reality.
What
happens
now
in
our
R
districts
is
that
those
are
redeveloped
and
changed
as
well.
They
are
changed
into
bigger
structures
that
have
the
net
effect
of
accommodating
zero
percent
of
the
growth
in
our
County.
Bigger
structures
accommodate
a
net.
Zero
percent
of
our
growth
and
I
want
to
put
some
real
numbers
on
this,
just
to
be
clear.
A
A
Those
buildings
didn't
accommodate
up
to
six
households,
they
accommodated
one
and
if
you
think
that
I'm
just
cherry
picking
numbers
I'm,
not
the
numbers
from
2023
what's
available
on
the
market
right
now
we
have
four
homes
available
that
are
averaging
8145
square
feet.
I
really
think
that
we
can
accommodate
growth
and
make
our
community
vibrant
with
a
better
use
of
eight
thousand
square
feet
in
our
residential
districts,
and
so,
as
we've
looked
through,
this
we've
talked
about
our
current
system
being
a
Vestige
of
exclusion.
A
It
wasn't
based
on
effective
land,
use
planning
principles
and
it
wasn't
based
on
an
eye
towards
making
the
community
vibrant
and
in
many
ways
it
stands
in
stark
contrast
with
other
elements
of
our
zoning
ordinance.
When
you
think
about
a
commercial
zoning
regime,
we
very
much
care
about
where
it
is
we
care
about
what
size
it
is
we
care
about
a
whole
lot
of
things,
but
you
know
what
we
don't
care
about
at
all.
What
goes
on
inside
of
that
commercial
building
right?
A
We
we
also
have
this
zoning
ordinance,
which
has
said
that
the
number
of
people
you
have
in
it
need
to
be
tightly
regulated
like
if
it's
one
family
whatever
that
means
and
be
as
many
people
as
you
want.
But
my
goodness,
if
you
want
to
have
two
three
four
households
within
that
building,
that's
bad
I,
don't
see
a
basis
for
that.
A
A
much
is
as
much
of
the
the
the
barriers
that
are
not
rooted,
planning
principles
as
possible
and
say
what
could
we
do
in
Arlington
if
we
took
all
that
stuff
away
and
from
it?
We
have
this
proposal,
which
doesn't
add
any
new
height,
with
the
exception
of
the
action
today,
to
give
the
five
percent,
which
is
de
minimis,
doesn't
add
any
more
bulk.
It
says:
what
can
we
do
within
what
we
currently
have
that
can
accommodate
the
growth
in
a
way
that
doesn't
cause
harm,
and
so
this
action
with
the
additional
guard
rails?
A
If
you
will
of
allowing
us
to
see
this
materialize
and
learn
for
a
few
years
to
see
if
any
shifts
or
changes
need
to
be
made
in
terms
of
the
policy
is
a
way
to
ensure
that
we
can
get
rid
of
all
of
that
discriminatory
noise
from
the
past
and
have
a
framework
that
works
well
for
people
moving
into
the
future.
Now
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
start
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
the
overall
Narrative
of
this.
A
This
does
stand
as
a
significant
advancement
toward
dismantling
government
imposed
barriers
that
are
not
serving
a
public
purpose
and
that
are
limiting
our
ability
to
fully
realize
our
vision.
That's
based
on
inclusion
and
expanding
opportunity.
This
is
a
big
deal
when
we
think
about
three
quarters
of
our
land
area
being
devoted
to
residential
uses
that
have
provided
no
net
gain
in
the
number
of
households.
A
I
find
that
to
be
untenable
frankly,
and
when
we
think
that
all
of
the
growth
that
we
have
is
confined
to
about
10
percent
of
our
land
area,
forcing
people
into
either
medium
or
high
density
structures
without
any
opportunity
to
participate
in
90
percent
of
the
rest
of
Arlington's,
neighborhoods
I
find
that
pretty
indefensible,
and
when
we
think
about
you
know,
we
don't
allow
for
the
the
supply
the
housing
Supply
in
those
neighborhoods.
That
is
more
cost
attainable.
A
Just
because
it's
a
different
product,
that's
going
to
be
delivered
at
different
price
points
that
we
currently
and
would
continue
to
not
allow
that
to
me.
That's
unconscionable
and
so
I
think
that
this
form
moves
us
to
a
better
place
of
providing
not
only
Equity
but
just
fundamental
good
policy
in
Arlington
and
I
do
believe.
We
put
appropriate
conditions
and
restrictions
in
place
that
mean
it's
not
going
to
do.
What
a
lot
of
people
in
the
community
really
expressed
as
a
key
concern.
Let's
not
have
this
change
come
at
our
expense.
A
A
We
have
enabled
new
conditions
that
require
a
degree
of
compatibility
with
existing
communities
that
we've
done
the
best
that
we
can
with
an
allowable
legislative
authority
to
ensure
that
tree
canopy
is
normalized
between
the
two
come
up
with
a
sensible
way
to
accommodate
the
desire
to
promote
reduced
vehicle
usage,
while
at
the
same
time
not
ensuring
any
undue
impacts
spill
over
into
communities.
These
are
all
sensible
things
that
are
the
result
of
a
robust
Community
process.
A
Now
recognize
there
are
people
in
the
room
who
don't
see
it
that
way,
maybe
the
250
people
that
we
heard
at
our
hearings,
many
of
whom
expressed
strong
concerns
at
all
levels
of
being
opposed
to
this
I,
certainly
know
that
this
is
not
something
that
everybody
agrees
with
and
doesn't
see
it
the
same
way,
and
through
that
hearing
we
heard
lots
of
different
words
about
Division
and
lack
of
community
sense
consensus,
and
we
even
heard
words
about
the
lack
of
legitimate
lack
of
legitimacy
of
this
board
to
make
these
decisions
in
the
first
place.
A
Well
without
addressing
all
of
those.
Let
me
just
say
to
those
of
you
who
engaged
in
good
faith
in
this
debate.
I
applaud
you
and
I.
Thank
you.
There
are
a
great
number
of
people,
despite
their
strong
positional
orientation
towards
one
way
or
the
other
nonetheless
engaged
in
good
faith
learning
all
they
could
throughout
the
process
to
solidify
their
positions,
and
they
held
fast
to
those
positions,
but
also
created
room
to
accept
and
accommodate
what
might
be
necessary
compromises
or
accommodations
to
take
into
account
other
views
and
points
of
view.
A
E
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
thank
yous,
are
also
in
order
to
our
staff.
I
could
not
begin
to
express
the
gratitude
for
the
extraordinary
work
and
the
unbelievable
amount
of
time
that
you
have
put
in
to
the
proposal
that
was
ultimately
before
us.
Our
thank
you,
my
thank
you
to
our
commissions
and
to
everyone
who
has
dedicated
so
much
of
their
time
to
this
issue.
E
Over
the
past
few
years,
I
really
appreciate
the
number
of
speakers
who've
joined
us
in
the
past
few
days
and,
like
our
chair,
I,
really
appreciate
those
who
engage
in
Earnest
with
questions.
I
have
been
tempted
to
try
to
use
this
time
to
answer
directly.
Some
of
the
criticisms
that
we've
heard,
but
I
am
not
naive
about
my
ability
to
persuade
those
who
are
most
opposed
to
this
action.
Only
time
and
the
actual
impact
of
this
zoning
change
can
do.
That.
E
In
short,
I
know
on
Whose
shoulders
we
stand,
but
the
reason
we
stand
there
is
to
see
out
further
to
a
greater
Horizon,
because
the
moment
has
come
when
continuing
to
rest
on
our
Laurels
of
past
Innovation
leaves
us
unprepared
to
meet
our
future.
This
is
true
in
terms
of
housing
attainability,
it's
true
in
terms
of
the
environment
and
it's
true
in
terms
of
equity,
first
hand
in
glove
with
Arlington's
tradition
of
smart
growth.
Is
this
community's
conception
of
itself
as
a
place
where
public
sector
workers
can
make
a
home
and
build
a
future?
E
Last
year,
the
average
sales
price
for
a
single
family
home
in
Arlington
was
nearly
nine
times
the
salary
of
a
first
step,
gs-15
and
so
all
of
those
young,
and
not
so
young
adults
who
have
testified
over
the
past
few
days
that
they
don't
have
a
future
in
Arlington.
Without
zoning
reform,
they
are
not
entitled
newcomers
who
expect
special
treatment.
Nor
do
they
have
an
unrealistic
idea
about
the
purchasing
power
that
should
be
associated
with
their
salaries.
Rather
they
are
the
exact
echo
of
the
generations
that
built
Arlington
and
who
are
now
shut
out.
E
For
this
community,
the
best
way
to
guarantee
a
dramatic
change
in
the
characteristics
of
our
neighbors
is
to
do
nothing,
but
for
our
future
to
look
like
our
past,
where
Arlington
is
shaped
by
arlingtonians
with
public
servants,
hearts
and
public
servants
salaries.
We
have
to
act,
and
that's
also
true
when
it
comes
to
climate
and
to
Transit
oriented
development.
Arlington
has
always
been
a
green
community
in
its
values
and
in
its
natural
resources.
E
But
what
has
changed
from
those
earliest
Earth
days
that
focused
so
much
on
conservation
is
the
Primacy
of
greenhouse
gas
reduction
as
the
most
existential
of
our
environmental
concerns,
and
the
science
is
clear
that
denser
communities
produce
fewer
per
capita
carbon
emissions
than
spread
out
communities.
Housing
units
that
share
walls
use
less
energy
density
is
Central
to
walkability
and
Transit
use,
which
emit
far
far
fewer
missions
per
mile
than
personal
cars,
trees
and
grass
and
Gardens.
E
It
is
also
true
that
it
is
a
direct
result
of
all
of
that.
Smart
growth
planning
is
economic
development.
That
means
Arlington
is
now
so
much
richer
in
opportunity
and
access
than
we
were
before.
We
aren't
just
feeding
a
Workforce
into
downtown
DC.
We
can
now
measure
distances
between
homes
and
jobs
within
our
26
square
miles
and
advances
in
micro,
mobility
and
massive
investments
in
transit
and
walkability
have
shrunk.
Those
distances
even
more
in
Practical
terms.
E
Finally,
this
community
is
so
proud
of
its
civil
rights
history
of
our
resilient
historically
black
neighborhoods
of
our
ties
to
civil
rights,
pioneers
of
four
students
in
1959
who
made
Arlington
the
county
that
defied
Massive
Resistance.
We
should
be
proud,
but
The
Bravery
of
four
teenagers
ago.
It's
four
teenagers
half
a
century
ago
does
not
absolve
us
of
the
responsibility
now
to
affirmatively,
address
and
dismantle
the
sources
of
segregation
that
remain.
E
We
honor
that
Legacy
by
continuing
to
make
progress,
I,
don't
think
by
the
way
that
these
relatively
modest
changes
to
allowable
densities
in
our
districts
actually
do
represent
that
fundamental
of
a
break
or
a
break
at
all,
with
our
smart
growth
principles,
The
Proposal
that
we
just
voted
on
is
fundamentally
conservative
one.
It
endorses
the
current
form
of
a
single-family
home
as
normative,
and
it
allows
Alternatives
in
only
insofar
as
they
fit
within
it.
E
It's
also
not
out
of
keeping
with
actions
of
Prior
boards
that
allowed
uses
of
things
like
family,
home,
daycares
or
forms
like
accessory
dwellings
in
all
districts
all
at
one
time.
What
these
changes
represent
instead
is
an
evolution
which,
ultimately,
is
what
successful
and
forward-facing
communities
do.
They
evolve.
E
I
suspect
that
each
one
of
the
five
of
us
just
cast
that
vote
with
a
former
colleague
in
mind
who
embodied
the
smart
growth
values
of
Arlington's
past,
while
urging
us
to
focus
on
the
future.
I
believe
that
balance
has
been
reflected
in
the
changes
that
we
just
adopted
and
I
am
so
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
support
it.
Thank
you,
Mr
chair.
A
Thank
you,
Miss
Crystal,
we'll
move
next
to
Mr
Karen
Thomas.
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
colleagues,
like
all
of
you
and
the
overwhelming
majority
of
arlingtonians
on
both
sides
of
the
argument.
I
would
agree,
approach
this
decision
with
humility
and
with
the
commensurate
sense
of
responsibility
that
emanates
from
the
realization
that
housing
is
always
about
people
about
who
we
are
and
about
our
values.
D
So,
as
you
Mr
chairman
mentioned,
Miss
Crystal
as
well,
Legacy
restrictive
zoning
came
to
be
for
the
explicit
purpose
of
separating
arlingtonians,
based
on
their
color
of
the
skin,
their
social,
economic
status
or
cultural
demographics.
All
attributes
that
we
repudiate
today
we
have
come
a
long
way
to
reverse
the
Deep
historical
consequences
of
past
segregation.
We're
still
working
on
that
and
today
this
war
takes
another
step
forward
on
this
very
long
path.
D
First
and
foremost,
our
path
to
Shared,
Prosperity,
Economic,
Development,
a
chronically
Supply,
starved
housing
market
in
a
chronically
supply
store.
Supply
starved
region
has
a
long
past
the
threshold
of
causing
severe
economic
pain
to
all
of
us
as
good
as
we
may
be
in
attracting
leading
Corporation
attracting
and
retaining
a
resilient
mix
of
middle
attracting
and
retaining
a
resilient
mix
of
middle-sized
companies,
their
jobs
Investments
their
people,
where,
if
we
don't
going
to
accomplish
that,
we
are
severely
burdened
by
our
lacking
ability
to
offer
adequate,
attainable
housing
options.
D
D
Now
it's
the
time
to
intervene
to
shape
change
on
our
terms
before
change
shapes
us
ual.
Smart
growth,
I
heard
concerns
that
have
been
raised.
That
Arlington
is
abandoning
its
smart
growth
path
by
increasing
density
beyond
the
plant.
Corridor
boundaries
I
believe
that
actually
and
I
agree
with
Ms
Crystal
on
that
the
opposite
is
the
case:
the
transportation,
the
retail
service,
the
Leisure
benefits.
The
efficiency
of
our
Urban
corridors
continue
to
be
at
the
center
of
our
development
model.
D
D
We
already
know-
and
the
EPA
confirms,
that
that
residents
and
multi-family
and
single-family
attached
homes
in
higher
density,
neighborhoods
use
about
40
percent,
less
electricity,
50,
less
water
than
residents
in
low,
very
low
density
areas,
let
alone
the
carbon
footprint
of
multi-car
dependence
for
commuting
for
shopping
for
running
errands
and
occasionally
having
to
drive
students
to
their
many
activities.
Low,
very
low
density
residential
is
by
Design,
not
low
carbon
multi-family
households
not
only
tend
to
own
less
cars
per
household,
but
also
tend
to
generate
significantly
less
trips
per
household.
D
D
I
can
not
speak
high
enough
about
about
how
much
I
appreciate
and
recognize
the
amazing
process.
The
great
Community
built
by
generation
that
delivered
us
an
Arlington,
a
place
that
can
act
like
we
are
acting
today,
but
it
would
be
always
very
unfair
to
pass
significant
future
defining
problems
like
housing,
attainability
and
affordability,
climate
mitigation
and
adaptation
issues
with
racial
equity
and
income
inequality
to
pass
these
problems
to
the
next
generation,
without
taking
action
to
prevent
all
the
way
above
from
becoming
worse,
more
complex
and
way
more
expensive
and
problematic
to
solve.
D
Arlington
is
in
a
far
better
shape
and
conditioned
than
any
other
community
to
afford
to
act
today,
focusing
on
our
future,
which
also
will
make
for
a
even
greater
Community
than
the
one
we
enjoy
today.
Managing
growth
proactively
and
at
critical
inflection
points
of
our
community's
history
is
actually
our
DNA.
This
is
the
actual
Arlington
Way.
D
D
I've
had
these
conversations
with
Eric
gutshaw
about
10
years
ago
approximately,
and
they
left
a
lasting
impression
of
me
since
then.
The
realization
matured
that
truly
enhancing
housing
options
for
our
Olympians
who
live
here
today
and
those
who
will
choose
to
live
here
tomorrow,
is
one
of
these
decisive
actions.
We
cannot
afford
not
to
take
and
I'm
very
happy
that
we
accomplished
to
take
it
today
to
that
as
well.
I
share
the
sentiment
of
thank
everybody
who
engaged
in
this
process,
regardless
of
where
you
stand
in
the
argument.
D
It
was
extremely
enhancing
for
my
way
to
see
the
issues
to
understand
the
pathway
forward,
to
understand
the
bifurcations,
to
appreciate
the
risks
and
make
sure
that
we
will
be
observing
all
together
very
carefully
and
up
and
Uprising
what
is
actually
happening
in
the
actual
field
in
the
market
and
be
very
centered
of
the
equity
questions,
or
does
it
benefit?
Who
does
it
burden
who
is
missing
and
what
we
do
about
that?
Thank
you.
So
much.
B
You
Mr
chair
101
years
ago,
Arlington
was
born
out
of
Alexandria
County.
Since
then,
we've
made
two
major
land
use
decisions
before
today
in
the
1930s
we
banned
row
houses
and
non-single
family
homes
to
exclude
African
Americans
from
moving
to
Arlington
and
dilute
the
percentage
of
black
residents
living.
Here,
the
ban
on
row
houses
was
not
repealed
until
the
late
1960s.
B
Fourplexes
five
plexes
and
six
plexes
are,
admittedly,
more
controversial,
ultimately
I
believe
the
goal
of
flexibility
and
the
specific
need
to
economically
and
yes,
racially
better
integrate
our
neighborhoods,
as
well
as
the
environmental
climate
benefits
of
this
policy.
With
respect
to
those
three
types
of
units
make
this
the
right
thing
to
do.
B
I
listened
to
the
232
speakers
who
have
presented
to
us
over
the
last
week
and
to
the
many
thousands
of
arlingtonians
who
emailed
us
came
to
the
20
listening
sessions
and
participated
in
organizations
both
against
missing
Midland.
For
it,
a
significant
majority
of
the
emails
we
received
and
one
large
petition
were
against
it.
Many
organizations
forums,
render
pop-up
sessions
and
I
would
respectfully
submit
the
85
000.
Voters
who
voted
in
last
November's
elections
seem
to
be
at
least
open
to
it.
B
Not
categorically
opposed
Arlington
residents
have
shared
My
Views
in
their
words,
Hector
Herrera
shared
his
American
dream
of
attainable
homeownership.
After
years
of
work
in
construction
malathi,
a
university
Professor
asked
to
think
about
the
future,
and
she
is
a
single
mother
who
wants
opportunity
for
her
children,
Michaela
Kathy
and
Kip
asked
me
to
think
about
the
possibilities
if
more
of
our
teachers
lived
here,
Josh
and
Dean
pointed
out
that
climate
change
is
a
crisis
and
moved
me
forward
this
past
Saturday
to
think
bolder.
B
The
more
I
considered
the
specific
concerns
opponents
have
raised.
The
more
I
believe
the
facts
support
what
we
just
passed-
storm
water
and
flooding
are
a
challenge
for
us,
but
the
work
our
staff
has
done
leads
me
to
conclude
that
we
will
need
and
are
planning
for
significant
investments
in
our
system
of
trains
and
pipes
and
streams
to
meet
the
challenges
of
climate
change,
irrespective
of
missing
middle
school
capacity.
B
If
we
look
at
the
frequently
asked
questions
and
the
analysis,
we
do
have
a
relocatable
classrooms
and
that's
a
challenge,
but
missing
middle
will
add
9
to
13
students
per
year
and
in
the
context
of
our
overall
system.
That's
not
a
lot
over
the
next
10
years
parking,
the
number
of
single
family,
the
number
of
single-family
parking
spaces
is
limited.
That's
a
challenge
that
we
can
handle
infrastructure.
The
staff
report
points
to
newer
Plumbing
that
is
already
reducing
our
water
and
wastewater
systems
and
I
believe
we
can
meet
that
challenge
the
traffic.
B
The
data
shows
that
our
traffic
is
down
in
the
major
corridors
we
can
handle
that
problem
on
climate
change
and
in
the
environment.
We've
heard
both
about
the
environment,
that
is
your
personal
environment
and
also
climate
change.
Ultimately,
climate
change
is
an
existential
threat
and
I
believe
this
policy
moves
it
forward
on
affordable
housing.
This
is
not
directly
benefiting
those
who
make
under
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
but
it
is
a
policy
that
we
should
pursue
on
process,
not
perfect.
B
I
suspect,
homeowners
and
renters
may
have
a
different
perspective,
I
think
based
on
Saturday
and
what
I've
been
listening
to
that
there
is
a
majority
that
supports
this
over
the
last
year
in
the
campaign.
I
promise
to
focus
on
the
details,
work
to
build
consensus
and
listen
and
engage
I,
think
my
votes
today
on
the
details,
show
I
care
about
them
and
ultimately
speak
for
themselves
on
consensus.
I,
don't
claim
that
there's
a
large
consensus
I
do
think
that
we
have
listened
and
tried
to
reach
more
of
a
consensus.
B
B
Missing
middle
will
not
fix
all
our
problems
or
deliver
housing
that
is
Affordable
to
every
income
level,
but
it
will
and
is
a
critical
step
forward
in
providing
greater
access
to
housing
choices.
That
I
believe
will
be
more
affordable.
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
with
opportunities
for
people
from
any
and
all
walks
of
life.
G
You
very
much
and
thank
you
all
for
staying
for.
Staying
with
us
over
the
word.
That's
our
two-year
and
thank
you
and
I
do
have
thank
yous
and
Incorporated.
My
prepared
remarks,
but
I
forgot
to
thank
one
I
recognize
one
important
person
which
actually,
which
is
our
chair,
I've,
been
doing
this
kind
of
work
for
over
a
quarter.
Century
I
had
never
had
an
issue
with
this
many
permutations
and
votes
and
complexity
in
one
issue,
and
just
thank
you,
Christian
I,
really,
no
thank
you.
G
I
I
really
appreciate
it
and-
and
you
all
have
been
great
too.
Thank
you.
You
know
I
and
I
also
actually
before
I
want
to
recognize
your
mentioned
Eric.
Thank
you.
Taucus
I've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
Eric
gotchaal
for
the
last
couple
of
weeks.
G
You
know
I
voted
yesterday,
because
I
do
firmly
believe
that
we've
got
to
make
some
changes
if
we
want
Arlington
to
thrive
in
the
future
and
because
these
particular
changes,
while
not
perfect
or
exactly
what
I
wanted,
will
definitely
help
move
us
forward.
There's
been
a
lot
of
passion
and
upset
in
this
process
and
I
know
many
people
are
convinced
that
this
is
going
to
be
terrible
for
Arlington
and
I
know.
Many
people
are
convinced.
It's
going
to
be
wonderful
for
Arlington.
G
But
most
people
have
been
civil
and
I
want
to
say
it
really
has
been
a
privilege
to
engage
with
so
many
people
with
our
professional
staff,
who
are
amazing
and
with
our
public
and
all
of
our
residents,
I
mean
I,
have
gotten
to
know
new
people
I
haven't
known
before
I
have
reacquainted
myself
with
some
friends
that
I've
had
for
a
long
time.
It
really
has
been
a
privilege
to
talk
with
so
many
thoughtful
people
about
this
really
important
topic.
G
I've
also
learned
a
lot,
including
about
the
shameful
history
of
exclusionary
zoning
and
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
today.
Now
over
the
past
years.
Of
all
these
conversations
with
dueling
experts,
dueling
research
I've
become
convinced
of
a
few
things.
Most
importantly,
one,
no
one
really
knows
for
sure
how
this
is
going
to
turn
out.
No
one
number
two.
G
We
have
got
to
make
some
changes
and
move
forward,
which
is
why
I
view
what
we've
adopted
today
as
a
pilot
and
I've,
supported
a
number
of
guardrails
to
allow
us
to
try
this
throughout
Arlington
but
to
mitigate
possible
harm
from
unintended
consequences.
I
did
not
get
as
many
guardrails
as
I
had
hoped,
but
I
think
we
will
do
all
right
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
helpful
information
as
we
monitor
what
happens,
situations
and
information
will
change
and
maybe
we're
going
to
decide.
We
need
to
make
some
adjustments
sooner
rather
than
later.
G
Don't
worry,
Steph,
not
too
many.
Don't
worry,
colleagues,
but
it
could
happen,
and
you
know
I
always
try
to
remember
that
every
system
is
set
up
to
get
exactly
the
results
it
gets.
The
current
single-family
zoning
system
that
we've
just
changed
is
getting
results
that
are
not
what
I
think
most
of
us
want.
G
Our
current
zoning
system
in
place
for
almost
100
Years
first
created
a
housing
market
that
kept
out
people
of
color
and
now
is
causing
small
houses
to
be
torn
down
and
replaced
with
single-family
Mansions
all
over
Arlington.
It
is
now
keeping
out
lots
and
lots
of
people
now
large
single-family
homes
are
not
bad
in
and
of
themselves.
G
Small
County
that
allows
nothing
but
huge
homes
for
single
families
over
most
of
its
land
is,
as
one
speaker
put
it
not
conducive
to
a
sustainable
and
diverse
Community.
Doing
nothing
and
staying
the
same
as
some
have
asked.
Just
isn't
possible
change
is
here
and
we
see
it
every
day,
as
one
of
our
speakers
put
I
thought
quite
well.
The
question
is
not
how
to
save
small
single-family
homes,
but
whether
they
will
be
replaced
by
huge
single-family
homes
are
the
changes
we
adopted
today.
G
The
right
changes,
probably
not
exactly
I,
don't
think
I
have
ever
seen
something
involving
people
work
out
just
as
planned
people
just
don't
work
that
way.
I'm
pretty
sure
we're
going
to
find
the
need
to
make
some
adjustments
in
the
future,
maybe
the
near
future,
and
that's
why
monitoring
and
continued
engagement
will
be
so
important.
G
Is
there
a
better
way
to
have
done
this
process?
Probably,
but
we've
tried
to
do
it
right
with
years
of
study,
another
big
shout
out
to
our
staff
and
hours
and
hours
of
engaging
people
to
get
feedback
and
then
responding
to
that
feedback.
Another
big
shout
out
to
our
staff.
Lots
of
work
has
been
done
by
commissions
and
residents
and
everybody
here
in
this
room
and
I
want
to
thank
everyone
who
has
worked
and
engaged
with
us
in
this
process.
G
It
has
not
always
been
pretty,
but
democracy
is
messy
and
we
have
been
talking
about
far
more
than
a
zoning
change.
We've
been
having
an
important
discussion
about
Who,
We
Are
and
what
we
want
our
Collective
future
to
be
that
discussion
has
long
been
needed,
which
is
part
of
the
reason
it's
been
so
hard.
G
As
I
often
remarked
when
you
talk
to
people,
one
person
can
say:
I,
love,
Arlington
and
they're.
Thinking
of
the
real
vibrant
urban
areas
that
we've
got
and
another
person
can
say,
I,
love,
Arlington
and
be
thinking
of
our
leafy
neighborhoods
and
our
big
parks.
These
are
two
totally
different
views
of
what
is
great
about
Arlington,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
views
in
between
so
I
do
understand
the
dismay
and
the
pleas
for
us
to
end
the
division.
G
We
have
got
some
things
to
work
out
as
a
community.
Now,
when
I've
talked
in
the
past
about
a
strategic
plan
or
visioning
process,
I've
often
been
assured
that
we
have
a
vision
statement
already,
and
it
is
a
nice
one.
I'll
just
remind
everybody.
Arlington
will
be
a
diverse
and
inclusive
world-class
urban
community
with
secure
attractive
residential
and
Commercial
neighborhoods,
where
people
unite
to
form
a
caring
learning
participating
sustainable
community.
In
which
each
person
is
important,
I
think
few
people
would
quarrel
with
this
vision
statement.
G
But
what
this
actually
means
for
housing
has
created
a
lot
of
quarrels
for
the
past
several
years,
because
it
means
different
things
to
different
people
and
I'm
sure.
The
disagreements
about
what
the
vision
actually
means
for
housing
will
not
end
with
this
vote
and
while
I
doubt
the
divisions
will
ever
completely
end
I
think
it
really
would
help
if
we
can
find
some
ways
to
come
together
over
the
next
few
years
to
talk
about
what
we
want
Arlington
to
look
like
and
be
in
the
future.
G
So,
while
I
do
regret,
the
upset
I
do
not
regret
that.
We
have
tackled
this
issue
of
how
to
provide
a
sufficient
supply
of
housing
that
meets
the
needs
of
every
level
of
the
economic
ladder
and
every
stage
of
life.
We
certainly
have
not
met
those
needs
simply
by
our
action
today,
but
just
loosening
the
grip
of
one
dominant
form
of
housing
put
in
place
almost
100
years
ago
helps
and
we've
started
an
important
discussion,
so
moving
forward
I
do
believe.
G
We
should
have
some
real
data
on
how
these
changes
we
just
made
are
working
out
and
then
we
can
see
if
these
changes
are
taking
us
where
we
want
to
go
or
if
we
should
make
some
adjustments
and
I
do
look
forward
to
that.
So
everybody
take
a
break,
we'll
come
back
together
and
talk
some
more.
Thank
you.
A
You
with
that
anybody
who's
interested
can
come
back
in
19
and
a
half
hours.
We
have
a
work
session
on
Public
Safety,
invite
you
all
to
come,
but
otherwise
we
are
adjourned.