►
From YouTube: County Board Work Session: POPs
Description
To view the agenda, go to http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
A
B
A
A
We
are
very
glad
to
be
here
with
staff
and
committed
citizens
and
members
of
the
working
group
to
talk
about
the
plan
for
our
places
and
spaces
and
public
spaces
Master
Plan
Update.
A
lot
has
changed
since
we
last
updated
our
public
spaces
master
plan
in
2005
I
believe
there
was
a
lot
of
change
in
this
county,
all
of
which
has
had
consequences.
A
We
have
more
seniors
more
young
people,
a
lot
more
dogs,
and
there
I
think,
has
also
been
a
lot
of
growing
attention
to
how
we
make
decisions
in
this
county
about
using
our
limited
resources
of
space
and
money.
So,
in
light
of
all
of
that
change,
I
think
we
are
especially
appreciative
to
staff
to
the
consulting
group
and
certainly
into
the
citizen
advisory
group
and
working
group
that
has
really
put
significant
effort
into
this
update
over
the
last
two
years
now,
I
think.
So.
A
Let
me
just
begin
by
saying
our
thanks,
at
least
to
the
committee
members.
I
know
the
manager
and
our
DPR
director
will
have
an
opportunity
to
say
thank
you,
but
to
those
of
you
who
have
joined
us
and
have
served,
we
really
do
appreciate
it.
Our
objectives
for
today
just
to
set
the
tone
a
little
bit
for
the
the
board
before
I
hand,
things
over
to
the
manager
and
to
staff,
certainly
to
receive
an
update
as
board
members
on
all
of
this
good
work.
A
That
has
been
afoot
in
recent
months
to
give
broad
level
feedback
and
then
specifically
give
direction
on
a
couple
of
areas
where
feedback
from
the
board
is
really
needed
for
staff
and
for
the
workgroup
to
be
able
to
finalize
a
plan
to
bring
a
plan
for
us
for
advertisement
and
then
adoption
leader
in
and
we'll
talk
about
these
in
greater
depth.
But
those
areas
really
our
level
of
service,
land
acquisition,
natural
resources
and
trees
and
casual
use.
A
So
this
is
an
opportunity
again
for
us
to
get
to
get
up
to
speed
and
then
give
some
feedback
on
the
areas
where
our
feedback
is
needed,
and
we
will
do
all
of
this
in
the
name
of
an
adoption
later
this
year
after
public
meetings
and
hearings
and
I
know,
staff
will
talk
as
well
about
the
timeline.
So
with
that
mr.
manager,
I
will
turn
things
over
to
you
to
make
all
necessary
introductions.
A
C
We're
dealing
with
a
whole
system
of
public
spaces
that
include
casual
use,
spaces,
Natural,
Resources,
multi-use
trails
and
recreational
amenities,
and
we
have
a
hundred
zuv
recommendations
in
this
draft
report
and
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
land
acquisition,
definitions,
synthetic
field,
conversion
lighting
and,
as
you
mentioned,
coming
up
with
a
way
to
deal
with
dogs
and
dog,
runs
and
casual
use.
Space
as
I
mentioned
level
of
service
analysis.
C
Some
new
planning
tools
a
whole
whole
panoply
of
new
items
that
have
come
up
since
2005,
and
so
we
all
know
that
the
population
in
the
county
is
projected
to
grow
to
about
to
a
little
bit
over
280,000
by
2040
and
ApS
has
already
said
what
they
need
by
then,
which
is
at
least
somewhere
between
two
and
four
more
elementary
schools,
one
or
perhaps
two
middle
schools
and
additional
high
school.
And
as
the
you
know,
our
population
grows.
Our
student
population
grows
and
our
other
population
grows.
C
C
Thousands
of
comments
and
a
lot
of
work
from
the
public
space
master
plan
working
group
co-chair
by
Caroline,
Haynes
and
Jane
Rudolph,
and
if
there
are
other
members
of
the
group
here
today,
if
they
don't
want
to
raise
their
hands
great
glad,
you
could
be
here
and
they
spent
a
lot
of
time
debating
the
various
terms
that
we
may
get
into
a
little
bit
today.
So
I
feel
like
we're
in
a
great
place.
C
We
still
have
a
lot
of
things
that
are
have
to
be
clarified
and
recommendations
to
go
through,
and
it's
not
as
simple
as
saying
we
have
five
new
fields
that
we
want
to
build
and
we
know
exactly
where
we're
going
to
go,
or
we
want
to
take
five
fields
and
rip
them
up
and
turn
them
into
something
else.
So
with
that
before
we
turn
it
over
to
Irene.
I
wanted
to
give
Caroline
a
chance
to
comment
on
behalf
of
the
working
group.
Thank.
D
You
very
much
mr.
manager
appreciate
that
and
appreciate
having
this
opportunity
to
do.
A
touching
base
with
the
board
is
a
good
time
for
us,
as
we
are
moving
forward
on
this,
and
we
were
just
recounting
that
it's
actually
been
three
years
since
we
were
formed
and
and
working
on
this.
So
we've
had
many
many
many
discussions
and
lots
of
lots
of
good
process
in
there
too.
I
want
to
just
echo
that
I'm
really
grateful
for
both
the
advisory
group.
Members
that
have
stuck
with
this
and
I
will
mention.
D
I
will
emphasize,
is
stuck
with
because
a
number
of
them
have
rotated
off
their
various
Commission's,
but
if
it
continued
to
serve,
which
has
been
wonderful
to
have
that
continuity,
because
the
discussions
have
been
deep
and
wide
and
to
be
able
to
not
have
to
start
all
over
again
has
been
really
wonderful.
Also
very
grateful
for
the
staff
on
this
one.
D
We've
had
some
excellent
collaborative
process
and
it's
been
one
of
the
best
that
I've
been
involved
in
and
so
I
really
commend
staff
in
this
process
and,
as
the
manager
said
we
have,
there
is
a
whole
lot
in
this
plan
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
to
note
that
as
well,
and
what
we've
heard
loud
and
clear
is
that
we
need
to
have
that
balance
between
all
of
the
various
needs.
The
recreational
facilities,
the
casual
use
and
the
natural
areas
and
I
would
just
note.
D
D
We
did
come
up
with
a
bunch
of
key
issues
and
we
spent
some
time
in
December
with
Irena,
we'll
talk
more
about
that
and
the
other
one
that
we
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
is
this
concept
of
the
creation
of
a
casual
youth
space
and
realizing
that
that
is
new
and
different
and
we're
we're
forging
new
territory
on
that.
We
look
forward
to
developing
that
more
thoroughly
as
we
go
forward.
D
We're
gonna
have
to
use
what
we
have
more
intensively.
We're
gonna
have
to
be
much
more
aggressive
about
finding
that
balance
and
I
would
also,
as
a
footnote
note
the
one
of
the
other
issues.
We
heard
a
lot
about
with
land
acquisition
and
I
do
think.
There
is
an
urgency
in
that,
especially
land
adjacent
to
existing
parks.
D
Where
we
know
we
can
more
easily
accommodate
and
expand
some
of
those
uses,
and
there
is
some
sense
that
maybe
we've
lost
some
opportunities
along
the
way
and
for
whatever
reasons,
but
I
would
just
just
highlight
that
that
that
is
going
to
continue
to
be
an
issue
and
that
we're
gonna
have
to
be
able
to
act
on
those
quickly
when
they
come
up.
I
would
also
want
to
note
that
this
is
a
living
document.
D
That's
the
hope,
anyways,
because
we
don't
intend
to
go
back
and
do
another
three-year
process
any
time
soon,
but
that
they're,
you
know
if
we
can
update
this
more
regularly.
So
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
issue
on
some
of
the
numbers,
but
I
would
just
say
that
that
is
something
that
we're
the.
The
objective
is
to
have
updates
on
a
five-year
basis
so
that
we
can
really
capture
what
those
demographic
changes
are.
We
can
capture
the
needs,
changes
and
I.
Think
that's
really
a
key
element
that
we
need
to
remember
in
this
process.
D
I
guess
the
bottom
line
is
that,
with
the
clear
message
we're
getting
is
that
the
smart
growth,
whether
it's
2.0
or
3.0,
I,
don't
know
where
we
are
now
really
does
need
to
include
parks,
natural
areas,
recreation
facilities
and
is
an
integral
part
of
our
planning
and
I
hope
that
this
plan
will
will
really
move
us
along
in
that
process.
So
thank
you.
E
Public
spaces
master
plan,
a
document
that
is
being
updated
with
this
process
is
one
of
11
elements
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
is
a
major
planning
document
that
provides
guidance
on
how
we
plan
of
our
public
space
system.
There
are
three
sub
elements
of
this
plan:
urban
forest
master
plan,
natural
resources,
management
plan
and
public
art
master
plan,
and
there
is
other
planning
documents
that
inform
the
way
we
plan
for
our
public
spaces,
such
as
area
and
sector
plans,
other
comprehensive
plan
elements,
Park
master
plan,
CIP,
etc.
E
There
are
several
planning
processes
happening
concurrently
with
the
Pops
process.
The
public
art
master
plan
is
being
updated,
as
well
as
a
bike
element
of
the
master
transportation
plan,
they're
being
updated
concurrently
with
the
pubs
but
by
separate
processes,
also
important
to
mention
that
the
urban
forest
master
plan
and
the
natural
resources
management
plan,
sub
elements
of
the
PSP
will
start
their
update
process
after
pops,
completion
and
I.
E
Think
is
everybody
mentioned
there
after
almost
three
years,
so
working
with
our
advisory
committee
and
engaging
with
the
community
we're
moving
closer
to
the
final
stage
of
this
process.
We
anticipate
that
the
pops
draft
will
be
presented
to
the
final
pops
draft
will
be
presented
to
the
community
in
the
spring.
The
public
will
have
a
chance
to
review
the
document
online
as
well
as
provide
their
feedback
during
the
final
public
engagement
activities.
E
E
Throughout
this
process,
we
have
been
working
closely
with
our
pops
Advisory
Committee,
as
well
as
seeking
feedback
from
the
broad
community
in
the
terminology
of
the
county's
new
public
engagement
guide.
This
has
been
a
collaborative
engagement
process.
Our
public
engagement
strategy
is
focused
on
exploring
different
ways
to
reach
out
the
broad
community
and
stakeholders.
As
part
of
this
process,
we
have
completed
a
statistically
valid
survey
with
over
1400
survey
responses.
We
have
conducted
a
series
of
stakeholder
groups
interviews.
E
We
also
explore
a
different
public
engagement
format,
staff
and
our
advisory
committee
members
participate
in
various
pop-up
events,
where
we
engaged
with
our
residents
in
a
more
informal
way
and
solicited
their
input
on
definitions,
priorities,
etc.
We
also
hosted
the
planning
and
design
charrette
in
December
2016,
where
we
invited
local
planning
and
design
professionals
and
stakeholders
who
volunteered
their
time
to
brainstorm
ideas
for
our
public
spaces.
We
also
conducted
three
series
of
more
formal
public
meetings
at
the
beginning
of
the
process.
E
Our
pops
Advisory
Committee,
was
appointed
by
the
county
manager
almost
two
years
ago.
The
committee
consists
of
representatives
from
various
County
Commission's
to
members
of
the
public
and
DPR
leadership.
Our
advisory
committee
has
been
a
great
partner
in
every
step
of
this
process
and
they
provided
guidance
and
recommendations,
but
also
helped
us
facilitate
many
of
our
public
engagement
activities.
There
are
more
tasks
ahead
of
us,
but
we
are
grateful
for
their
patience
in
support
throughout
this.
E
E
This
draft
includes
detailed
recommendations
on
various
aspects
of
the
public
space
system,
as
well
as
specific
policy
guidance
compiled
in
appendices
section
for
land
acquisition,
dog
parks,
level
of
service
standards,
definitions,
etc.
It
also
includes
action
plan.
The
details
part
is
responsible
for
implementation,
anticipated
timeframes
and
funding
sources.
E
E
As
part
of
this
draft,
we
are
also
exploring
new,
fresh
ideas
as
being
mentioned
already
and
different
ways.
We
can
approach
some
of
these
important
aspects
of
the
public
space
system
that
were
not
addressed
in
too
much
detail
in
the
current
public
spaces
master
plan
document.
The
preliminary
draft
includes
recommendations
on
level
services,
land
acquisition,
synthetic
turf
and
lights,
and
we
also
introduced
the
new
concept
of
casual
youth
spaces
and
we'll
talk
more
about
all
of
the
each
of
these
topics.
In
next
few
slides.
E
We
have
received
over
1,100
comments
on
the
preliminary
draft,
and
comments
were
related
to
many
the
various
topics.
As
part
of
this
document.
However,
many
of
the
comments
were
grouped
around
several
themes:
land
acquisition,
level,
service
fields,
synthetic
conversion,
lights,
natural
resources
in
trees
and
casual
use
spaces
based
on
the
community
input.
We
have
decided
to
conduct
additional
public
meetings
in
December
last
year
to
solicit
additional
input
on
these
topics.
E
The
following
slides
are:
will
focus
on
each
of
these
topic
and
we'll
provide
an
overview
of
the
feedback
we
heard
and
our
proposed
approaches.
When
appropriate.
We
will
highlight
how
our
approaches
are
evolving
from
what
was
included
in
the
preliminary
draft
or
presented
in
the
meeting
in
December.
E
Press
topic
that
we'll
cover
is
level
of
services.
There
are
no
national
standards
on
level
of
services,
so
every
locality
has
to
develop
their
unique
approach
to
developing
standards.
Working
with
our
consultants
and
our
advisory
committee,
we
have
developed
an
approach
that
includes
both
population
based
and
access
standards.
The
population-based
standards
indicate
how
many
of
each
amenity
we
need,
whether
we
need
more
or
have
a
surplus
of
a
particular
amenity.
The
access
standards
indicate
where
we
need
more
of
your
fewer
of
these
amenities
used
in
combination.
E
These
standards
provide
a
snapshot
of
the
level
of
services
provided
by
current
public
space
amenities
and
are
used
as
a
planning
tool
to
identify
if
gaps
in
services
exist
or
where
existing
amenities
could
be
repurposed.
It
is
also
important
to
mention
that,
based
on
the
feedback
from
the
community,
we
are
changing
slightly
our
level
of
service
approach
and
we
will
be
estimating
the
needs
by
2035
instead
of
2045.
E
We
have
developed
population-based
standards
for
all
amenities
listed
on
this
slide.
Amenities
listed
on
the
left
and
middle
column
have
both
access
and
population
based
standards
applied
so
where
and
how?
Many
together,
the
amenities
listed
on
the
right
only
have
population
based
standards.
How
many,
as
there
are
specialized
amenities
with
unique
client
needs
and
people
are
more
likely
willing
to
travel
across
the
county
to
get
to
that.
E
In
order
to
develop
a
population
based
standards,
we
had
to
develop
a
recommended
standard
for
each
of
these
amenities.
We
started
with
our
current
inventory
and
examine
how
many
people
each
of
these
amenities,
we
included
amenities
by
the
owned
by
the
county,
but
also
men.
It
is
owned
by
ApS
or
privately
originally
owned
amenities.
If
there
is
a
public
access
to
them,.
E
Then
we
use
benchmarking
information.
We
know
that
Arlington
is
unique
and
there
is
no
place
that
completely
matches
our
system.
As
part
of
this
process,
we
benchmarked
our
system
against
four
cities:
three
of
them
city
of
Alexandria,
Virginia,
Valley,
Washington
and
Berkeley
California
are
our
peer
cities
selected
based
on
some
similarities.
They
have
with
Arlington
County,
either
population
density,
median
household
income,
location
or
close
proximity
to
the
major
city,
median
housing
prices,
etc.
E
Despite
having
a
socio-economic
characteristics
different
from
Arlington,
st.
Paul
Minnesota
was
selected
as
a
more
aspirational
City,
as
this
city
consistently
ranks
toward
the
top
of
the
Trust
for
Public
Lands
park
score
list.
When
data
was
available,
we
used
a
median
level
service
number
provided
by
these
four
localities,
also
important
to
mention
that
city
of
Alexandria,
Bellevue
and
Berkley
were
used
by
other
County
Department
community
planning
and
also
our
economic
development.
So
it
made
sense
to
use
similar
cities
for
this
for
analysis.
We.
E
Also
wanted
to
see
what
is
the
national
average
level
of
service
number
for
these
amenities,
as
I
mentioned,
there
is
no
national
standard
for
level
of
service
level
of
services
for
public
spaces,
as
our
communities
are
very
different.
Not
only
that
there
is
their
public
spaces
systems
are
different,
but
they
also
use
different
ways
of
defining
and
classifying
similar
amenities.
Just
for
example,
some
communities
may
have
different
types
of
diamond
fields.
For
example,
they
classify
them
differently,
so
it
could
be
a
software
Lewton,
adult
baseball,
Hughton
and
all
t-ball
diamond
field.
E
While
we
use
only
one
category
diamond
fields
which
are
used
by
various
sports
and
age
groups.
In
addition,
some
agencies
only
report
what
is
owned
and
managed
by
their
own
agency,
but
we
rely
on
all
of
our
public
spaces
and
with
their
accessible
to
residents,
including
ApS,
privately-owned
with
publics,
access,
easement,
etc.
E
We
examine
reports
that
different
agency
compiled
such
as
the
Trust
for
Public
Land
or
the
National
Recreation
and
Park
Association,
but
we
utilize
our
sub
consultants
on
this
project
pros
Consulting
that
have
who
have
worked
with
many
parks
and
recreation
agencies
in
47
states
and
provided
national
averages
for
population
based
standards
based
on
their
experience
and
were
able
to
provide
national
averages.
The
bet
that
best
match
the
way
that
we
define
elements
within
our
system.
E
The
statistically
valid
survey
conducted
as
part
of
the
pops
process
ask
people
where
a
day
or
their
households
have
the
need
for
various
outdoor
in
indoor
amenities
and
how
well
those
needs
are
currently
being
met.
Our
consultants
looked
at
the
combined
responses
on
those
two
questions
and
rated
amenities
is
low,
medium
and
high
priority.
That
is
how
that
is.
How
do
you
see?
That's
what
you
see
in
this
column
in
order
to
develop
a
recommended
standard
for
each
of
these
amenities.
E
We
looked
into
all
of
these
inputs
and
any
other
available
data
such
as
a
trans,
weightless,
etc,
and
use
our
professional
opinion
about
what
the
recommended
standard
should
be
in
some
cases,
a
holistic
look
at
these
factors
supported
raising
the
current
level
service
standard
in
others.
This
unique
this
information
supported
either
keeping
the
current
level
of
service
unchanged
or
lowering
at
the
current
level
of
services.
E
E
After
establishing
the
recommended
level
of
services
for
each
amenity,
we
took
into
consideration
the
forecasted
population
increase
to
better
understand
what
will
our
needs
be
in
the
next
10
or
20
years.
An
example
basketball
court
shown
here
since
our
recommended
standard
is
lower
than
our
current
standard.
We
currently
need
any
additional
basketball
courts.
We
won't
need
any
additional
basketball
courts
by
2025,
but
by
2035
we
will
need
two
additional
basketball
courts.
I'm
going
to
show
you
few
more
examples,
just
to
clarify
the
methodology.
E
So
slide
this
slide
and
the
next
slide
at
least
all
amenities
that
are
included
in
our
population-based
level
of
services,
and
these
numbers
are
the
same
as
they
were
presented
in
the
preliminary
draft.
So
let
me
walk
you
through
a
couple
of
examples.
If
we
look
at
the
diamond
fields,
for
example,
our
current
level
of
services
is
one
field
per
a
little
bit
more
a
little
bit
over
5,000
people,
our
benchmark
cities
provide
better
level
of
services.
It
is
one
field
per
40,
4,100
people,
the
lower.
The
number
is,
in
this
case,
the
lower.
E
The
number
is,
the
better.
The
services
being
provided
and
national
averages
for
diamond
fields
are
one
per
six
thousand
people
in
diamond
fields
were
low
priority
on
the
lower
priority
on
the
survey
we
also
looked
at
the
translator
than
can
tell
us
that,
although
the
needs
for
diamond
sport
is
growing,
it
is
growing
on
a
slower
pace
than
in
some
other
sports.
So
it
was
our
recommendation
to
lower
our
current
standard
for
diamond
fields
and
instead
of
one
field
serving
5,500
people,
our
field
in
the
future
would
serve
6,000
people.
E
Another
example
in
case
of
hiking
trails,
one
mile
of
hiking
trails
is
currently
serving
a
little
bit
over
15,000
people,
since
national
average
is
closer
to
10,000
people,
and
this
was
one
of
the
highest-rated
priorities
on
the
survey.
We
decided
to
improve
our
standard
and
recommend
the
standard
of
the
one
mile
of
hiking
trails
per
10,000
people.
That
means
that
currently,
we
would
need
additional
eight
miles
of
hiking
trails.
In
order
to
meet
that
standard
by
2025.
E
We're
also
looking
into
how
residents
can
access
these
amenities
and
how
long
does
it
take
them
to
get
there,
so
the
areas
were
drawn
around
each
individual
amenity.
In
this
case,
this
is
an
example
of
basketball
courts
within
which
one
could
reach
that
amenity
within
a
specific
specified
time
by
walking
biking,
transit
and
driving.
The
resulting
four
maps
that
you
can
see
on
the
left
by
type
of
amenity
were
then
overlaid
to
determine
which
areas
have
the
best
access
and
which
have
more
limited
access.
E
This
analysis
is
our
initial
attempt
to
develop
a
level
of
service
approach
since
the
2005
public
spaces
master
plan
did
not
include
any
level
of
service
standards,
with
an
understanding
that
this
approach
could
be
improved
and
there
are
communities
changing.
Our
current
pops
draft
includes
recommendation
to
conduct
a
public
space
needs
assessment,
including
a
statistically
valid
survey
and
love
of
service
analysis,
at
least
every
five
years,
and
also
there
is
a
recommendation
in
a
draft
to
update
inventory
and
level
service
numbers
annually.
I
will
pause
here
now
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
A
You
so
much
very
helpful.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
detailed
walkthrough
we're
gonna
pause
here.
This
is
one
of
the
topics
that
I
know
our
staff
and
the
and
the
work
group
needs
to
hear
from
us.
So
as
we
see
on
the
slide
before
us
again,
just
to
summarize
the
approach
here
really:
is
this
population
plus
access
based
standards,
as
well
as
coupled
with
the
five-year
time
frame
for
assessment,
so
questions
and
feedback
about
this
question
before
us?
Mr.
Weiss
I'll
start
with
you
thank.
F
You
mister,
I,
madam
chair
and
ms
rudolph
and
miss
Haines,
really
appreciate
your
your
labor
on
this.
It
was
a
labor
of
love,
I'm
sure
your
your
your
still
smiling,
both
of
you
and
I'm
sure
I
know
that
it
wasn't
easy
from
time
to
time
so
great
dedication
as
well
to
the
entire
work,
so
Arlington
prides
itself
on
being
a
data-driven
community.
F
The
manager
has
a
new
open
data
initiative
which
we
had
a
work
session
on
just
about
a
week
ago,
and
while
we
all
agree
that
we're
not
where
we
need
to
be
yet
were
we're
making
great
leaps
forward.
So
with
respect
to
data,
it
seems
like
sometimes
over
this
past
year
and
a
half
or
two
years,
we've
been
not
unlike
a
phenomenon,
that's
occurring
at
the
national
level,
where
we
have
alternative
universes
of
data
and
facts
and
so
forth,
and
and
so
not
to
be
glib
about
it.
F
F
So
we
heard
from
the
Sports
Commission-
and
we
heard
from
several
other
community
members
on
the
data
and
I
would
like
to
quote
from
from
a
document
that
I
believe
is
on
the
website
called
creating
a
community
centered
final
Pop's
plan
quote
some
have
alleged
that
the
in
the
e.t.c
institute's
community
survey
results
understate
the
needs
and
priorities
of
younger
residents.
Ie
Millennials.
This
allegation
is
untrue
if
anything,
residents
under
age,
35,
expressed
even
greater
household
needs
for
multi-use
trails,
92%,
hiking
trails,
75%
and
natural
areas
and
wildlife
habitat
73%
than
the
community
at
large.
F
On
the
other
hand,
the
Sports
Commission
says
quote
responses
to
the
statistically
valid
survey.
Do
not
reflect
the
overall
Arlington
population,
specifically,
the
responses
were
heavily
weighted
towards
an
older
generation.
The
aged
55
and
over
the
survey
alone
does
not
fully
representative
of
the
entirety
of
public
input,
the
DPR
received
and
then
going
back
to
the
other
source
highest.
Priority
maintained,
preserve
existing
trees
and
natural
areas,
acquire
open
space
for
parks
to
develop
passive
facilities,
lowest
and
second
lowest
priority
develop
and
improve
various
types
of
fields.
So
where
are
we
on?
F
G
G
G
They
answered
quite
enthusiastically
about
having
hiking
trails,
but
you
can
also
look
at
that
when
you
crossed
add
that
to
their
response
to
the
need
for
sports
fields,
they
tend
to
also
answer
higher
than
older
age
brackets,
and
so
there
is
a
variety
of
opinions
out
there
on
what
people
need
and
what
they
want,
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
way
the
survey
results
were
used,
is
to
use
that
high
medium
low
system
and
try
to
help
that
flavor.
Our
professional
judgment
opinion
we.
H
Back
to
level
of
service
Thank
You
mr.
beech,
for
that
explanation
and
Arina,
you
mentioned
it
as
well
your
professional
judgment.
You
know
as
much
as
we
we
love
to
have
data,
inform
our
decision
making.
There
is
really
no
measurement
or
calculation
that
you
conducted
or
really
that,
quite
frankly,
could
be
conducted
reasonably.
That
could
give
us
a
dispositive
view
of
the
way
forward
for
how
we
think
about
this.
Your
professional
judgment
has
to
be
overlaid
with
that.
H
G
If
you
go
down
the
column,
almost
all
the
level
servers
are
within
the
range
of
the
median
and
the
national
averages
and
where
we
are
but
they're
tweaked,
one
way
or
another
to
make
them
fit.
Arlington
now
I
will
also
say
the
other
piece
that
went
into
that
was
we
also
looked
at
what
those
numbers
did
over
from
present
to
2035
and
at
times
he
also
took
an
account
that
the
range
or
the
reality
of
achieving
what
we
need
to
do
also
play
it
into
those
those
suction
hose
numbers.
G
H
If
I
could
just
as
a
follow-up
to
this
real
quickly,
so
to
what
extent
did
the
level
of
service
analysis
and
the
benchmarking
and
national
average
taken
to
the
account
the
efficiency,
the
usability,
the
capacity
of
various
elements
that
you
measured?
So
just
you
know,
think
of
you
know
one
thing
do
we
do
we
know
that
where
we're
measuring
you
know
usable
basketball,
courts
and
Arlington
vs.
cracked
unplayable,
not
usable
basketball,
courts
elsewhere,
to
what
extent
that
we
get
into
that
level
of
detail.
I
So
we
did
not
get
into
that
level
of
detail,
so
the
level
of
service
is
a
planning
tool
to
help
us
think
forward.
What,
as
we
have
to
make
decisions
going
forward
and
future
master
plans,
future
projects
future
yeah?
You
know
as
we're
developing
in
the
county,
so
we
didn't.
It
was
not
to
say
that,
like
the
basketball
court
in
X
location
is
not
currently
useable,
so
it
should
be
repaired.
So
we
really
just
looked
at
our
inventory.
I
We
try
to
keep
our
fields
and
courts
and
natural
areas
everything
into
a
level
of
high
levels
used,
and
then
we
also
have
our
capital
improvement
plan
to
help
sort
of
plan
for
those
improvements
as
needed.
But
no,
we
did
not
take
in
specific,
like
status
of
any
of
the
items
on
the
list
as
part
of
our
decision-making.
Okay,.
H
And
you
know
again
to
use
the
basketball
analogy:
did
we
even
get
to
the
level
of
how
one
measures
or
defines
a
basketball
court
with
it's
two
goals
at
either
end
where
a
game
can
be
conducted
or
was
it
a
basketball
goal,
for
example
that
constituted
a
court?
Do
we
have
any
sense
of
what
that
means,
or
was
it
just
simply?
A
self
reporting
from
various
other
places
tell
us
what
you
have
and
it's
up
to
them
to
decide
how
they
define
it.
E
So,
unfortunately,
sometimes
that
we
don't
know
exactly
what
they
will
be
included
in
some
of
their
benchmarking
and
some
inventory
or
some
even
the
reports
that
we
see
out
there,
so
it
really
is
up
to
its
self-reported
data.
So
it's
basically
how
we,
as
a
county,
that's
how
we
provide
data
for
other
reporting,
we
as
a
county
perceive
or
define
our
facilities.
So
basically,
that
is
how
it
usually
works.
Thank.
H
A
J
One
quick
one
so
some
folks
reading
this.
If
you
read
the
survey
overwhelmingly,
people
want
passive
spaces
and
trails
and
trees,
and
if
you
look
at
the
numbers
that
say
they
want
a
diamond
field
or
a
soccer
field,
it's
a
lot
lower.
So
some
folks
are
arguing
we're
not
really
following
what
the
survey
data
is
telling
us
I.
Think
I
know
the
answer
to
my
question,
but
I'd
like
you
to
address
that
point.
If
you
would
sure.
I
I
We
got
back
feedback
from
our
first
meeting
in
February
2016
and
realized
that
there's
sort
of
a
missing
piece
from
our
inventory
and
that's
what
Sur
kicked
off
this
whole
process
of
trying
to
identify
what
casual
use
is
so
there
is,
and
we
will
get
into
it
much
more
deeply.
There
is
natural
lands
were
on
there
now
after
resources,
the
hiking
trails-
and
they
did
came
up
high
and
you'll.
See
that
they
are
being
reflected
in
our
level
of
service
is
something
that
we
do
feel
like
needs
to
grow
within
the
county.
I
So
we're
not
again.
These
are
a
planning
tools.
So
you're
looking
to
see
like,
like
you
know,
we're
suggesting
miles
of
trails
is
also
another
increase
of
about
also
looking
to
increase
some
fields
as
well.
We,
as
Eric
mentioned
mr.
Beecham,
mentioned
there
is
the
crosstabs,
which
is
that
in
there,
while
it
wasn't
as
high
across
all
age
groups,
there
are
areas
where
fields
or
other
kind
of
recreational
facilities
come
and
hire.
I
So,
as
a
result,
you'll
see
that
it
doesn't
mean
that
we're
choosing
one
over
the
other,
they
all
have
demands
and
how
we
balance.
Those
demands
to
what
we're,
hoping
that
this
plan
helps
us
to
grapple
with,
and
these
levels
service
again
serve
as
a
planning
tool
for
what,
when
we
need
to
make
investments
where
the
right
investments
to
be
making
and.
J
I'm
also
I've,
also
sort
of
as
soon
I
did
a
little
sort
of
thinking
about
this
myself
I'm,
assuming
almost
everybody
uses
passive.
They
take
walks
and
things
not
everybody
uses
a
baseball
diamond,
not
everybody
uses
a
court,
and
so,
if
you
talk
get
people
do
a
survey,
not
that
many
people
are
gonna,
respond
anyone,
but
that
probably
doesn't
mean
we
don't
want.
J
It's
a
you
know
it's
a
sense
of
who
you
are,
as
are
I,
think
there's
some
art
into
in
this,
as
well
as
some
science.
But
given
the
nature
of
this
beast,
this
seems
really
the
best
I
mean
a
really
good
way
to
go
about
it.
I'm
sure,
there's,
probably
a
better
way
in
some
ways
you
could
be
improved
and
I
assume
every
five
years.
Maybe
we'll
look
at
improving
it,
but
I
really
do
like
the
approach
here.
K
D
To
him
a
lot
of
discussion
about
peer
cities
and
yes,
it
was
heavily
discussed
and
there's
lots
of
different
ways.
You
can
choose
peer,
City
and
golly
I,
don't
know
how
many
meetings
we
had
on
this,
but
several-
and
this
is
what
what
we
determined
made
the
most
sense,
given
all
the
different
parameters
around
it,
which
you
really
don't
want
to
know
all
the
details.
But
in.
K
Terms
of
the
grip
it
was
a
it
was.
This
is
a
this
represents
a
consensus.
Would
you
characterize
it
that
way,
yeah,
okay,
thank
you
and
then
a
question
in
terms
of
we've
had
input
from
from
the
community
as
you're.
Well
aware
of
that
really
want
that
dives
into
the
current
use
of
facilities
and
getting
into
how
the
cities
are
that
you
overused
or
underused,
etc.
I
Okay,
I'm
happy
to
start,
and
then
I
may
ask
my
colleagues
to
help
out
as
well,
but
as
a
sort
of
easy
one
to
start
off
with
community
gardens.
For
example,
we
have
large
wait
lists
for
our
community
gardens.
So
when
you
go
back
and
you
look
on
the
sheet
for
these
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
put
it
back
up.
But
when
you
look
on
the
it
came
in
medium,
we
have
a
standard
of
31,000
per
1,
/,
1
garden,
purple
31,000
folks,
our
benchmarking
was
actually
higher.
I
The
national
average
was
about
one
per
30,000,
and
so
we
decided
that
that
would
be
a
good
standard
for
us.
We
lowered
our
slightly
so
that
to
reflect
where,
where
we
are
not
not
so
much
where
our
benchmarking
community
is
so
that's
just
an
example
of
one
where
we
looked
at
our
wait,
lists
and
realized.
This
wait
lists
are
real,
and
so
this
was
one
way
to
meet
it
Morris.
You.
K
I
So
once
we
took
as
we
shared
before
once
we
take
each
of
those
different
elements
and
then
staff
worked
with
our
own
staff,
expertise
in
running
park
systems
and
knowing
what
we
have
weed
that's
right
took
all
the
information
we
had
and
when
we
had
to
determine
is
our
standard
going
up
down
or
staying
the
same?
That's
where
we
use
the
data
that
or
the
information
we
have
at
a
department
level
to
make
a
decision.
So
you
won't
see
that
the
way
it
lets
reflect
it
on
this
chart
per
se.
So
is.
I
Each
one
there
is
some
level
of
information
that
we
have
a
different
type
of
data
that
could
back
up
the
decision.
So,
for
example,
we
want
to
just
get,
as
we
looked
at,
for
example,
with
the
diamond
fields,
because
we've
already
gone
through
that
one
as
Miss
LASIK
said,
while
diamond
fields
are
continuing
to
grow
and
we
see
it
continuing
grow,
it
does
not
growing
at
such
a
fast
rate.
I
I
One
thing
I
would
like
to
note
is
that
these
again
are
planning
tools,
and
so,
for
example,
if
between
now
and
2035,
for
example,
if
a
new
school
was
to
be
built,
middle
or
high
school
and
their
field
needs
for
that,
one
way
to
meet
this
at
the
building
of
those
fields,
but
this
doesn't
reflect
those
demands.
Those
future
needs
here
in
these
projections
sure.
K
H
I
comment
on
that,
mr.
ghost,
all
along
those
lines,
I
think
we're
illustrating,
and
even
the
social
science
is
a
case
study
or
two
might
be
useful
with
the
final
draft
of
the
approach
where
you
can
take
a
couple
of
these
areas
and
show
just
what
the
marriage
is
between
the
data,
the
levels
of
service
standards
and
the
professional
judgment
that
you
impose
on
all
of
it
to
arrive
at
your
decision
making,
because
it's
not
going
to
necessarily
be
intuitive.
A
F
So
MS
Rudolph,
you
just
mentioned
schools.
Let
me
ask,
and-
and
this
this
slide
is-
is
just
fine
slide
23
and
then
slide
24.
So
our
schools
have
various
various
components
to
this.
They
don't
have
community
gardens
per
se,
although
they
have
raised
beds
here
and
there,
especially
at
the
elementary
level.
But
you
know
our
schools
have
playgrounds,
they
have
diamond
fields,
they
have
tennis
courts
and
and
various
combinations
and
numbers
depending
on
grade
level
and
so
forth.
F
I
So
to
answer
your
first
question
about
sort
of
school
utilization
versus
county
utilization
during
the
school
day,
we
do
not
count
the
utilization
so,
for
example,
folks
our
schools
are
using
their
fields
for
PE
they're,
using
their
playgrounds
in
the
example
of
certain
schools,
they're
using
County
field
and
County
playgrounds
in
order
for
them
to
have
their
PE
in
their
recess.
So
we
do
not.
I
It
is
not
part
of
our
factor
when
we
look
at
our
demand
or
our
utilization
from
the
what
we
schedule,
but
from
what
we
schedule
it
does
include
both
county
and
school
and
for
the
after-school
evening
and
weekend
time.
So
all
of
our
demand
data
or
all
of
our
use
data.
What
currently
is
being
used
is
based
on
both
school
and
county
yep.
G
I
I
It's
a
nice
problem
to
have,
but
we
do
have
a
lot
and
so
as
we're
looking
and
we
looked
at
our
standard,
we
actually
brought
it
up
closer
to
our
benchmarking
because
it
seemed
like
the
county
was
out
of
line
both
bench
both
at
our
benchmarking
communities
and
even
at
the
national
average.
Well,
a
new
school
particular
in
elementary
school
may
have
a
new
playground.
I
Maybe
we
won't
have
a
playground,
because
there
is
one
that
has
good
access
to
that
surrounding
community,
so
it
just
again
I'm
not
saying
we're
how
that's
going
to
happen,
but
it
gives
us
that
kind
of
planning
tool
to
sort
of
think
about
how
we
want
to
approach
our
spaces
as
we
have
opportunities
for
renovation.
That's.
F
That's
helpful
and
it's
good
to
see
that
coordination
with
schools
do
you
have
any
final
comments
with
respect
to
scheduling
fields
back
to
mr.
guts,
all's
question
in
terms
of
schools,
working
school
staff
working
with
county
staff
in
terms
of
scheduling
after
school
weekend's
evenings
and
so
forth.
So.
I
We
work
really
closely
with
schools
to
schedule
schools
again.
They
too
are
feeling
a
lot
of
pressure
to
provide
their
scholastic
sports.
So
even
before
this,
you
know
the
school
days
over,
but
even
before
we
start
scheduling,
there's
a
whole
scholastic
sports
program
that
happens
before
we
even
have
our
folks
get
on
the
fields,
so
we're
coordinating
with
them
all
the
time.
We
know
that
we
can
continue
to
improve
our
scheduling
of
fields
across
the
county.
I
We
know
that
that
we
it's
one
of
the
reasons
we're
working
really
closely
with
the
field
community
on
our
allocation
policy
to
ensure
that
we're
utilizing
our
fields
as
best
that
we
can.
But
we
also
feel
know
that
there
is
a
demand
out
there
to
use
our
fields
to
get
active
and
to
have
fun
and
to
recreative.
A
J
I
J
At
some
point,
and-
and
maybe
it's
just
because
it's
you
know
I'm
just
so
used
to
where
I
live
in
Farrington,
where
there's
a
playground,
every
two
blocks
I
mean
we
just
have
playgrounds
all
over
the
place
and
to
think
that
that,
because
there's
nothing
there's
only
one
that
there's
not
much
access
and
I
don't
know
so.
There's
like
as
there's
casual
use,
maybe
there's
another
way
to
I.
A
A
One
thing
we
haven't
talked
as
much
about
in
this
level
of
service
is
population
based
and
access
standards
and,
for
my
part,
I'm,
really
enthusiastic
about
the
good
work
that
you
all
have
done,
that
really
surfaces
and
I
think
you
can
see
this
in
the
draft
plan.
Access
to
different
types
of
amenities
or
recreational
forms
by
geography
which
is
so
needed
and
I,
think
it's
been
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
I
found
when
we
look
upper
to
NIST
eclis
at
some
of
these
acquisition
opportunities.
A
H
A
G
So
I
had
my
deep
thoughts.
I
will
hold
for
a
moment.
I
think
the
land
acquisition
I
think
mr.
laser
is
going
to
go
through
sort
of
the
process
that
we're
recommending
to
get
there
and
where
you
might
place
your
priorities.
It's
a
question
of
balance
and
the
board
is
gonna
play
a
large
role
in
that
decision-making
process.
G
Whether
you
invest
your
dollars
in
expanding
existing
parks
or
in
maybe
larger,
more
costly
purchases
in
the
urban
quarters,
then
I
think
that's
what
you're
referring
to,
and
so
there
is
a
balance
question
there
and
partly
is
us
creating
a
tool
that
helps
you
make
those
decisions,
but
I'm
gonna
leave
it
at
that.
I
will
come
back
to
a
little
more.
So
that's.
A
It
that's
actually
a
fabulous
answer
and
I
think,
maybe
something
that
that
we
can-
or
at
least
I
will
carry
that
into
our
inquiry
about
some
of
the
emerging,
if
not
criteria
level
than
at
least
bucket
level
consideration.
So,
with
regard
to
the
question
you've
put
to
us
now
that
we've
asked
a
number
of
questions
of
staff
in
the
working
group,
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
colleagues
is
an
affirmation
of
this
population
plus
access
based
standards
with
the
commitment
to
the
five-year
assessment
with
I
think
what
I
did
here
is.
A
There
is
some
desire
and
willingness
in
turn
on
the
part
of
staff
to
pull
forward
some
case
studies
of
how
these
determinations
have
been
put
together,
whether
that
goes
into
the
hops
plan
itself
as
an
appendix
whether
that's
simply
part
of
the
community
engagement,
I.
Think.
As
my
colleagues
of
surface,
there
is
a
little
bit
of
or
a
lot
a
bit
of
desire
to
understand,
in
particular
how
data
about
current
use
factored
into
these
determinations.
K
K
Rather
if
it
goes
in
an
appendix
if
it
goes
wherever
just
that,
we
we
err
on
the
side
of
making
all
of
the
information
available,
recognizing
that
that
there
I
know
that
you
have
to
sort
of
strike
the
balance
between
information
that
you
make
available
and
then
trying
to
explain
how
we
use
it.
So
I
think
that
the
case
studies
can
be
where
we
explain
how
we
use
it,
but
go
ahead
and
make
the
raw
data
that
you
did
use
for
everything
available.
If
that
makes
sense,
that's.
I
A
I
think
this
actually
bears
some
framing
in
context
again.
You
know
we've
talked
about.
There
are
some
things
that
we
need
to
give
guidance
on
in
the
emerging
draft,
so
that
staff
can
finalize
the
the
public
spaces
master
plan
update.
It
will,
of
course,
come
to
us
for
an
RTA,
and
then
adoption
and
I
know
that
we
anticipate
having
a
pretty
fulsome
conversation
about
I
suspect,
probably
some
specific
types
of
uses
as
well
as
these.
These
higher-level
kind
of
general
approaches
more
lights
on
those,
so
perhaps
not
quite
ready
to
leave
the
staffing.
H
Just
very
quickly,
I
just
want
to
to
answer
the
question
at
hand,
a
firm
that
you
know
bringing
this
level
of
analysis.
The
level
of
service
approaches
a
far
greater
improvement
than
what
we
were
doing
before
so,
even
though
we've
exposed
some
of
the
areas
in
which
it
may
not
necessarily
be
sufficient
in
producing
that
dispositive
result
that
many
people
clamor
for
I
think
it
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
H
In
addition
to
what
we've
discussed
I
think,
to
whatever
extent
you
can
be
leaders
sort
of
in
the
industry,
whether
this
is
working
with
consultants
or
your
peer
municipal
groups,
in
charge
of
Parks
and
Recreation
to
come
up
with
some
common
reporting
standards.
So
we
can
really
know
that
we're
comparing
apples
to
apples,
I
think
the
qualitative
nature
of
amenities
is
an
under
explored
potential
problem
with
the
data.
H
I
have
no
idea
whether
it
exists,
but
to
the
extent
that
we
can
get
a
sense
of
you
know
whether
we're
talking
about
a
picnic
shelter
for
two,
with
our
picnic
shelters
for
twenty
two
or
basketball
courts
versus
basketball
goals.
To
the
extent
that
we
can
really
come
to
some
common
reporting,
metrics
I
think
that
will
help.
F
I
I
I
Potentially
during
the
same
season,
we
are
about
to
convert
the
Gunston
field,
the
diamond
field,
with
the
help
of
the
additional
funding
from
the
Arlington
Sports
Foundation,
by
converting
that
whole
field
to
synthetic
during
a
given
season,
you'll
be
able
to
do
both
softball
baseball
and
other
rectangular
sports
there,
because
the
we're
not
just
saving
it
for
diamond
for
the
one
season
or
keeping
it
for
you
don't
rectangular
for
that
season,
because
the
turf
doesn't
change.
So
that
is
one
trend
towards
enabling
multi
sports.
I
M
The
only
thing
I
would
say
about
that
I
think
constant
is
a
great
example
is
we
also
have
to
balance
that
with
the
amount
of
wear
and
tear
that
our
grass
fields
can
take,
and
so,
even
if
we
have
multi-sport,
there
is
a
limitation
to
how
much
play
we
can
sustain.
So
it
is
striking
that
balance,
although
we
are
definitely
trending
back
towards
more
multi
sport
multi-use
fields.
M
The
other
thing
is,
as
part
of
the
sports
analysis
that
we've
just
gone
through
we're
taking
some
of
the
things
that
used
to
be
only
by
permit
and
moving
towards
that
takes
priority.
So
when
they're
not
permitted,
they
can
be
used
and
so
I,
it's
20
some
fields,
I'm
looking
at
peep
at
20,
some
fields
that
we've
just
you
know,
taken
and
changed
that
category,
which
again
expands
the
ability
to
use
the
fields.
It's.
I
No,
so
we
are
moving
forward
and
we
with
converting
about
21
of
our
fields.
They
we
had
used
to
have
different
categories
or
a
fields
permit
only
permit
takes
priority,
and
then
community
feels
permit
only
really
needs.
You
can
only
be
on
there
when
there's
a
permit
and
as
we
were
going
through
this
process
and
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
from
the
public
about
access
and
will
you
have
access,
we
can
to
look
at
our
categorization
and
realize
that
many
of
our
fields
really
could
be
permanent
takes
priority.
I
They
didn't
need
to
be
permit
only
so
we
have
met
with
the
Sports
Commission
about
this.
It's
something
that
we're
looking
to
do
this
spring.
We
will
are
presenting
it
to
this
joint
meeting
of
the
sports
and
Parker
Recreation
Commission
next
Tuesday,
and
we
will
we've
also
shared
this
with
many
of
the
leagues
I
think
we
informed
you
all
did
another
way
as
well
and
we'll
be
putting
all
this
information
up
on
the
website
shortly,
probably
after
the
meeting
on
Tuesday.
So
we
just
think
this
is
another
opportunity
to
enable
better
access.
I
A
E
E
As
part
of
our
preliminary
draft
presented
to
the
community
in
July
of
2017,
we
have
presented
and
included
in
the
draft
a
land
acquisition
criteria
and
methodology,
and,
what's
highlighted
here
on
this
slide,
is
some
of
the
summary
of
the
feedback
that
we
heard
from
the
community.
There
was
a
general
support
for
additional
30
acres
of
new
public
space
over
the
next
10
years,
as
recommended
in
the
Pop's
preliminary
draft.
E
However,
there
was
also
some
suggestions
that
criterion
methodology
in
the
preliminary
draft
were
confusing,
and
they
should
be
clarified
also
that
we
should
include
I
should
include
funding
sources
and
acquisition
mechanism,
so
it's
more
transparent
process
and
community
can
understand
how
this
is
being
done.
Another
area
of
suggestions
was
to
identify
priority
areas
or
purpose
of
the
site
when
we
are
actually
making
a
decision
on
purchasing
a
property
also
identify
any
potential
acquisitions
that
we
know
now
in
the
document
and
also
to
be
transparent,
to
clarify
the
process
of
making
decisions
to
purchase
the
property.
E
As
I
mentioned,
the
draft
recommends
preliminary
draft
recommends
adding
at
least
30
acres
of
new
public
spaces
over
the
next
10
years.
New
park,
new
public
spaces
could
include
a
company
of
additional
land
acquired
by
the
county
public
spaces
developed
by
other
public
entities
developed
spaces
with
public
access,
easements
and
the
additional,
for
example,
rooftops
tack
parks
or
similar
spaces.
One
of
the
feedback
that
we
heard
from
the
community
is
they
they
wanted
to
better
understand.
What
are
those
acquisition
mechanisms
and
funding
sources
that
the
county
could
use
the
traditional
land?
E
In
order
to
evaluate
potential
acquisition
opportunities,
acquisition
criteria
have
been
developed
to
guide
the
county's
evaluation
and
decision
making
processes.
These
criteria
are
divided
into
three
parts.
Part
one
assassin
assesses
alignment
with
the
county
board
approved
plans
part
two
assesses
alignment
with
the
general
priorities
of
this
plane
and
part
three
assesses
alignment
with
the
goals
particular
to
the
Intendant
eventual
use
of
the
site.
E
There
are
three
sub
sections
of
criteria
for
part
three
and
they're,
based
on
the
primary
use
of
the
site,
recreation
and
leisure
purpose,
natural
resource
purpose
and
historic
preservation
purpose,
and
the
idea
is
that
each
site
would
be
evaluated
using
whichever
of
the
three
primary
purposes
is
being
considered.
The.
E
Criteria
developed
in
part,
one
are
related
to
the
existing
County
Board
adopted
or
accepted
plans
such
as
part
master
plans
or
framework
plans,
comprehensive
plan
elements,
sectoring
area
plans
or
NC
plans.
Our
goal
here
was
that
if
the
property
meets
any
of
the
criteria
in
part,
one,
the
county
manager
should
bring
this
potential
acquisition
to
the
county
board
for
its
consideration.
So
basically
the
property
was
identified
and
already
approved
plan,
so
it
should
be
considered
for
acquisition.
E
E
Generally,
acquisition
opportunities
come
in
two
forms:
it's
either:
expansion
of
an
existing
public
spaces
or
creation
of
new
public
spaces,
so
criterion
part
two
is
divided
into
those
two
sections.
Some
are
related
to
the
expansion
of
existing
space
and
some
of
the
creation
of
the
new
public
space.
E
Part
3,
as
I
mentioned,
assesses
alignment
with
the
goals
particular
to
the
Intendant
use
of
the
site.
So
these
three
subsections
that
we
have
developed
them
just
provided
a
few
examples
here,
they're
much
more
criteria
under
each
of
these
sections,
but
they
are
related
to
either
a
purpose
of
the
natural
resources,
expansion
or
creation,
recreation
and
leisure
purpose
or
historic
preservation,
purpose
and
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
an
example
how
this
how
this
would
work.
A
Let
me
again
try
to
frame
this
in
the
direction
you're
seeking
here
really
is
board
affirmation
of
the
of
the
multi-step
analysis
and
these
general
buckets.
If
we
want
and
I
assume,
we
will
want
to
have
further
conversation
about
the
criteria
themselves.
How
this
would
play
out
in
different
neighborhoods
they'll
still
be
plenty
of
time
for
that
within
the
realm
of
the
advertisement
in
the
public
hearing
great.
So,
let's
jump
in
colleagues.
A
N
M
Under
the
part,
2
criteria
for
creating
new
parks,
we
do
have
that
ability,
certainly
we're
looking
for
a
certain
size,
minimum
that
these
aren't
just
tiny
spaces
and
so
we're
proposing
at
least
a
quarter
of
an
acre
to
anchor
a
new
Park.
But
also
there
are
things
up
here
like
a
generational
opportunity
or
something
like,
let's
say
down
the
road
one
of
the
swimming,
the
private
swing
clubs,
you
know
can't
can't
afford
to
be
in
existence
or
what?
What
have
you
and
so
I
think.
F
M
It
it,
it
would
be
for
sure
and
I
think
you
know
part
of
it
is
looking.
We
also
look
at
redevelopment
potential
about
what's
going
on
around
that
site,
so
so,
yes,
I,
think
I,
don't
know
how
to
best
answer
it,
but
I
mean
we're.
Gonna,
whoop
staff
will
always
be
evaluating.
We
get
these
kind
of
inquiries,
our
department
does
or
the
real
estate
Bureau
does
all
the
time
and
I
think
this
anchors
the
why
we
would
be
bringing
it
if
there's
something
outside
of
these
criteria
that
we
still
think
is
worthwhile.
M
A
And
I'm
just
gonna
jump
in
actually
on
the
sort
of
related
point
in
some
ways.
I
think
this
is
an
effort
to
impose
a
greater
rigor
to
those
opportunistic
elements
as
they
arise.
My
my
strong
interest
and
my
hex
in
fact
discomfort
with
some
of
our
the
acquisition
opportunities
we've
seen
in
recent
years,
is
that
we
are
lacking
this
and
and
I
think
that
does
leave
us
open
to
charges
of
favoritism.
A
But
so
let
me
ask
again
that
kind
of
question
about
equity
and
making
sure
that
these
criteria
are
headed
in
a
direction
that
really
will
elevate
that
level
of
access
question,
not
just
the
population-based
standard.
We
need
another,
her
tennis
court
and
this
this
acquisition
would
present
us
an
opportunity
to
achieve
it,
but
that
analysis
of
we
know
this
neighborhood
or
this
area,
or
this
sub
region
of
the
county
is
underserved.
So
as
I
think
about
where
that
maps
I
mean
it's.
Why
I'm
looking,
for
example
at
the
at
the
part
three?
A
Would
it
be
fair
to
assume
that
natural
resources,
if
I,
look
at
slide
36
natural
resources,
recreational
leisure
purposes,
that's
where
those
access
based
standards
might
come
through?
Is
there
any
access
based
standard
way
of
thinking
about
historic
preservation,
for
example,
that
third
category
yeah.
M
I
think
the
access
based
standards
are
most
easily
looked
at
for
the
recreation
and
leisure
purpose.
While
you
certainly
can
create
some
new
natural
resources
by
revegetating
things,
a
lot
of
times,
they
as
well
as
historic
resources
are
where
they
are.
We
can't
place
a
civil
war
for
it
somewhere
or
an
old
cemetery
or
whatever
so
you're.
So
you
kind
of
you're
a
little
bit
more
limited,
I.
Think
Nikki
and
Natural
Resources
may
have
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
but
I
think
the
real
value
comes
in
the
recreational
and
leisure
purposes.
M
So
we
know
from
doing
some
of
the
mapping
that
Irina
showed
you
earlier.
We
can
certainly
look
at
is
that
area
of
the
county
lacking
something
or
pulling
in
the
population
and
what
it's
lacking?
You
know
how
easily
walkable
or
drivable
or
whatever
is
it
and
I?
Think
that's
gonna
be
critical
to
saying
yes,
there's
some
areas
that
were
just
challenged
with.
We
also
know
a
lot
of
those
areas
that
were
challenged
with
are
gonna,
be
around
the
urban
corridors.
M
A
A
H
H
M
People
also
have
discomfort
with
playgrounds,
or
you
know
just
almost
anything
that
brings
people
even
even
a
trail
and
so
again,
I
think
that
helps
reduce
the
long-term
impact
by
by
squaring
those
boundaries
off
so
well,
I,
don't
think
it's
the
ultimate
criteria,
it
is
certainly
it
is
certainly
something
that
has
has
been
important
and
I
think
frequently.
We
are
approached
by
those
property
owners
when
they
wish
to
sell
anyway,
just
because
they've
had
to
live
with
that
and
they
understand
what
that
what
that
might
mean.
M
H
Very
helpful,
ms
Grandal
and
I
would
love
for
you
know
the
final
document
to
kind
of
reflect
that
larger
conversation
that
the
end
here
is
not
necessarily
to
create
a
nice
shape
or
to
broaden
resources
where
they
already
may
exist,
but
be
to
achieve
some
other
larger
priority
goals
of
you
know
working
more
harmoniously
with
neighborhoods
or
you
know
exactly
what
you
just
said.
That
now
comes
through
to
me.
A
lot
clearer
than
just
making
the
maps
look
prettier
and
you
know
making
something
a
little
bit
neater.
A
K
You
and
actually
I
will
just
piggyback
on
on
your
piggyback
mr.
Dorsey
and
agree
with
chair
crystals
comments
earlier,
but
also
to
clarify
what
I
just
heard,
because
I
think
I
had
looked
at
these
criteria
as
all
of
them
collectively
being
necessary,
but
not
sufficient
for
acquisition.
In
other
words,
nobody
should
come
in
with
a
particular
idea
of
acquisition
of
property
and
point
to
any
of
these
criteria
and
say
see
it
meets
these
criteria.
K
Therefore,
you
really
have
to
buy
it
or
ought
to
buy
it
that
every
opportunity
for
acquisition
will
be
evaluated
against
these
criteria,
but
will
be
evaluated
on
its
own
merits
in
the
context
of
the
cost
and
where
we
are,
and
and
and
and
issues
of,
Geographic
equity
and
distribution
and
all
kinds
of
competing
goals.
So
I
think
that
being
very
clear
that
the
this
does
not
set
up
specific
mandates
for
any
one
specific
parcel.
K
It's
the
context
in
which
each
parcel
will
be
evaluated
and
I'm
seeing
head
nods
and
everything
so
I
think
I've
made
my
point.
So
I
did
want
to
ask
about
rooftops
and
I
love.
The
fact
that
you
have
easements
in
in
the
list
of
potential
ways
to
acquire,
if
you
will,
because
easement
is
kind
of
a
it's,
not
a
true
acquisition,
so
I'm
glad
it's
there.
How
would
we
look
at
rooftops?
I
mean
I,
think
it's
interesting.
K
K
I
We
are,
you
know.
As
we
said,
we
are
excited
about
all
the
opportunities
and
necessary
shifting.
We've
we've
had
conversations
also
when
we
are
able
to
build
out
the
fourth
phase
of
Long
Bridge.
For
example,
we
have
a
parking
deck,
the
parking
lot
there
now
and
we're
supposed
to
deck
over
it.
That's
actually
not
land
acquisition
when
it
becomes
a
field
but
stacked
on
top
of
each
other
are
two
different
uses
parking
and
then
there'll
be
a
field,
and
so
we're
not
maybe
County
a
new
acreage,
but
it's
also
new
amenity.
I
So
there's
that's
an
interesting
kind
of
conversation
to
happen.
I
think
the
decking
over
66
could
be
that
I
think
it
gets,
though,
back
to
our
conversation
about
what
we're
counting,
and
so
we
are
counting
parkland,
we're
counting
regional
land,
we're
counting
places
where
the
public
access
easements
and
we're
also
counting.
You
know
schools,
so
if
somebody
would
be
willing
to
put
a
public
access
easement
over
their
roof
garden,
that
would
be
great
and
we
would
count
that
and
we
would
encourage
that.
It
seems
like
a
really
great
opportunity.
I
We
could
put
a
public
accessible
community
garden
on
a
roof
that
would
be
great
as
well,
but
so
the
one
in
your
community.
It
sounds
like
a
really
neat
opportunity,
but
it
since
it's
not
publicly
accessible
by
everybody.
It
doesn't
go
into
our
inventory,
but
I
think
that
that
is
the
sort
of
we've
been
always
talking
about.
M
A
F
And
just
to
supplement
that
I
mean
one
of
the
one
of
the
recommendations
of
the
urban
agriculture
task
force
a
few
years
ago
was
to
encourage
community
gardens
on
private
property.
You
know
at
different
apartment,
buildings,
condo
buildings
and
so
forth,
so
obviously,
to
the
extent
that
you
have
a
more
robust
community
garden
for
that
community,
Alby
--it,
that
that
helps
leaven
or
de-stress
the
community
garden
space.
F
That's
on
public
property,
likewise
with
green
roofs,
to
the
extent
that
we
can
encourage
and
foster
and
give
credit
for
green
roofs,
not
just
not
just
the
type
of
green
that
we
have
out
here
that
you
can.
You
know
measure
with
your
thumbnail
but
a
more
vigorous,
vegetated
green
roof
for
actually
growing
vegetables
on
private
property.
That
also,
you
know,
takes
away.
F
You
know
it
helps,
helps
alleviate
stress
and,
and
also
we
just
approved
and
I-
don't
remember
the
name
of
the
building
in
Crystal
City
a
few
months
ago,
where
there,
as
a
cute
as
a
benefit
for
that
building.
There
is
a
rooftop
dog
park.
So
you
know,
let's
continue
to
work
with
the
private
sector,
to
encourage
all
of
those
things
on
private
property
to
help
to
help
mitigate.
You
know
any
any
lack
thereof
on
public
spaces,
while
we
still
go
forward
with
expanding
public
spaces.
In
that
regard,
thank
you.
Yeah.
J
And
I
I
just
wants
in
my
time
on
the
board.
All
of
these
criteria
seem
to
be
pretty
much.
What
we've
been
doing,
it's
just
it
hasn't
been
made
explicit
and
its
really
good
to
make
it
explicit
because
sometimes
been
things
aren't
explicit
people
think
we
don't
really
know
what
we're
doing
or
they're
wondering.
Or
why
did
you
do
that?
Do
they
really
know
about
this,
and
I
think
it
covers
it
pretty
well,
and
I,
like
the
flexibility,
it's
clear
something
comes
on,
it
doesn't
fit
one
of
these
guidelines
criteria.
J
Whatever
we
want
to
call
it,
you
guys
will
bring
it
forward
and
in
the
end
it
is
the
board
that
makes
the
decision
and
we
bring
a
lot
of
things
into
play
and
making
that
final
decision.
But
I
think
it's.
I
think
this
is
just
fine
and
certainly
a
great
way
to
start
and
I
really
like
we've
talked
gardens
and
if
I
get
close
on
I-66
I'll
come
and
talk
to
you
guys.
A
Great
all
right
so
I
think
probably
we're
ready
to
move
on
some.
Some
general
support
and
affirmation
for
the
the
broad
buckets
here.
I
know
who
staff
has
heard
us
on
the
desire
for
greater
emphasis
on
those
access
based
standards
and
criteria,
and
it
sounds
like
we
might
expect
some
further
analysis
to
come
forward
with
pops
or
just
ongoing
about
how
we
consider
private
or
semi-private,
open
and
green
spaces.
And
our
inventories
is
a
good
discussion
there.
All
right
on
to
a
favorite
topic
of
this
community.
E
It's
part
of
our
preliminary
draft.
We
have
also
presented
synthetic
turf
and
lights
lighting
criteria
in
standards,
so
we
have
received
a
lot
of
comments
related
to
this
section
of
the
document,
comments,
included,
suggestions
to
separate
entity,
conversion
and
lights,
to
create
criteria
for
both
syntactic
conversion
and
light
list
of
priority
fields
for
conversion
and
lighting
standards.
There
were
also
some
comments
related
to
the
impact
of
lights
on
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhoods.
E
In
2002
the
first
first
full
synthetic
field
was
installed
in
Johnston
Park.
There
has
been
other
attempts
to
address
synthetic
field,
synthetic
turf
conversion
in
2003
synthetic
citizen,
Staff
synthetic
grass
working
group
submitted
their
recommendations
regarding
conversion
of
athletic
fields,
from
natural
grass
to
synthetic
grass.
As
a
result
of
that
report,
several
fields
were
identified
as
candidates
for
synthetic
surfacing,
and
some
of
them
were
converted
in
the
county
adopted
2005
public
spaces
master
plan.
The
first
guidelines
for
synthetic
conversion
were
adopted.
Today
the
county
has
15
existing
synthetic
fields
and
three
field
field.
E
E
As
I
mentioned
in
2003,
there
was
an
attempt
from
the
synthetic
grass
working
group
to
form
to
develop
a
criteria
that
would
be
applied
to
identify
priority
candidates
for
conversion
to
synthetic
turf,
and,
as
you
will
see,
we
consider
this
criteria
when
we
were
developing
criteria.
New
criteria
is
part
of
the
pops
process.
E
E
E
The
goal
for
our
criteria
was
to
develop
a
transparent
process
to
identify
potential
sites
for
a
synthetic
field,
conversion
and
lights,
to
establish,
objective
and
measurable
criteria
and
to
develop
a
set
of
criteria
for
new
synthetic
turf
conversion
that
can
be
objectively
applied
to
all
fields,
also
to
develop
a
set
of
criteria
for
siting
of
new
field
lighting
and
to
develop
a
set
of
lighting
standards.
Our
final
goal
was
to
develop
a
list
of
priority
candidates
for
conversion
to
synthetic
and
lights.
E
The
following
slides
will
show
how
we
changed
our
approach
and
recommendations
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
the
community.
At
the
meeting
in
December,
we
presented
criteria
for
conversion
to
synthetic
and
lights,
as
I
mentioned.
Our
approach
was
that
we
would
run
all
fields
through
the
synthetic
conversion
criteria
first
and
then
we
would
run
the
top
candidates
for
conversion
to
synthetic
through
the
lighting
criteria,
to
come
up
with
the
list
of
priority
candidates
for
conversion
to
synthetic
and
light.
E
E
Based
on
the
feedback
from
the
community,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
are
also
changing
our
level
of
service
approach,
which
will
now
is
estimating
our
needs
by
2035
instead
on
2045.
This
was
me.
This
would
mean
that
our
estimator
changing
also
so
instead
of
by
2045
in.
If
we
would
keep
about
20
by
2045
approach,
we
would
need
additional
16,
rectangular
and
6
diamond
fields.
E
When
we
change
this
approach
to
30
2035,
we
would
need
additional
11
rectangular
into
diamond
fields.
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
removing
the
following
recommendations
from
the
document
recommendation.
1.2
0.8
was
based
on
an
assumption
that
all
synthetic
fields
should
be
lit.
Since
we
are
proposing
to
separate
synthetic
conversion
from
light,
this
recommendation
is
being
removed.
There
are
also
different
ways.
We
can
meet
the
estimated
demand.
We
are
proposing
to
put
this
approach
in
our
document.
E
The
creation
of
a
new
field
is
one
way,
any
combination
of
converting
existing
field
to
synthetic
and
or
adding
lights
in
a
creation
of
a
multi-use
field.
The
recommendation
one
point
two
point:
nine
and
the
statement
that
all
new
synthetic
turf
fields
and
synthetic
field
conversions
should
include
lighting
will
be
removed
from
the
Pops
document.
E
The
criteria
for
syntactic
conversion
presented
in
December
received
generally
support
from
the
meeting
attendees,
but
there
were
some
criteria
that
needed
further
consideration.
Some
of
them
were
environmental
context.
Community
thought
that
we
should
include
impact
on
natural
resources,
not
only
trees.
Then
there
was
a
support
and
disagreement
and
community
fields
because
they
do
allow
more
benefits
to
the
community,
but
investment
was
too
high.
E
So
these
are
the
criteria
that
represented
in
December.
Under
that
general
category,
we
are
proposing
to
keep
these
criteria
so
we're
not
proposing
any
changes.
Some
of
them
are
related
to
the
minimum
size
requirement.
As
you
can
see,
some
of
them
are
related
to
the
adoption
or
identification
in
the
county
board,
adopted
plan
or
identification
for
the
school
or
public
facility
expansion.
E
E
These
are
also
the
criteria
that
represented
in
December
under
site
investment
and
amenities.
The
asterisks,
as
you
probably
saw
in
the
earlier
slide,
indicate
if
this
is
a
new
criterion
that
we
are
introducing
now
so
criteria
four
to
eight
remain
the
same
from
December,
and
these
are
this
criteria
related
to
amenities
that
already
exists
on
the
site,
such
as
lighting,
for
example,
or
ad
a
pathways.
Others
are
related
to
partnership
with
APs
and
nine,
and
ten
criterion
are
new
criteria,
as
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
heard
from
the
community.
E
Regarding
your
mental
contacts,
criterion
11
that
you
see
listed
on
the
top
was
presented
to
the
community
in
December
and
was
perceived
as
being
unclear
or
not
specific
enough.
So
we
are
now
proposing
a
more
specific
and
measurable
criterion.
Instead,
the
one
that's
listed
above
below
it
you
can
see.
E
Moving
on
on
the
lighting
criteria,
Oh
adding
lights
to
fields
provide
benefits
as
it
extends
the
hours
of
play
when
we
presented
the
criteria,
lighting
criteria
and
standards
to
the
community
in
December,
we
received
some
of
the
feedback,
and
some
of
the
feedback
that
you
see
here
summarizes
basically
comments
that
we
heard.
One
of
the
suggestions
was
to
separate
synthetic
turf
from
lighting.
There
was
a
disagreement
with
the
2025
feet:
distance
from
residential
property.
That
was
one
of
the
criteria
that
we
had
in
December
community
thought
that
it's
too
short
or
too
limiting.
E
So
what
we
have
done
now,
we
are
expanding
our
section
on
lighting
criteria.
As
you
will
see,
we
are
adding
some
of
the
criteria
that
are
same
for
synthetic
conversion
and
lights.
A
1
and
3
are
added
now
under
lighting
criteria,
but
were
already
presented
to
the
community
as
a
synthetic
conversion
criteria,
as
I
mentioned,
also
based
on
a
community
feedback
that
we
heard.
We
are
also
removing
the
criterion
on
community
field
from
our
lighting
criteria.
E
Important
distinction
from
the
meeting
in
December
is
our
proposal
to
remove
previous
criterion.
That
said,
is
the
field
already
synthetic
and
I
said
we
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
from
the
community
that
synthetic
field
and
lighting
should
be
separated.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
this
is
really
clear
in
our
criteria.
E
E
Lot
of
discussion
with
our
Advisory
Committee
on
the
tree
impact
criteria
for
a
synthetic
version,
but
also
for
lighting,
so
we
were
trying
to
develop
a
criterion,
that's
objective
and
measurable,
and
that
address
is
an
impact
on
healthy
native
trees.
So
the
criteria
number
10
is
the
new
criterion
that
we
are
proposing
and
we
will
continue
to
polish
this
with
our
advisory
committee.
E
As
you
remember,
probably,
the
Pops
draft
included
a
recommendation
on
the
one
foot
candle
increase
on
the
adjacent
property
line.
However,
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
heard
from
the
community
who
supported
lowering
the
foot
candle
on
the
property
line,
we
have
lowered
the
standard
to
no
more
than
0.5
foot
candles.
Also,
recent
field
light
projects
were
able
to
achieve
0.5
or
lower
food
handler
the
property
line,
as
lighting
technology
proves,
we
will
continue
to
review
and
update
these
standards.
E
Community
feedback
on
this
standard.
Very
so
some
thought
that
there
might
be
a
case
when
lighting
in
the
field
within
ten
feet
would
be
appropriate.
Others
thought
that
a
distance
of
at
least
hundred
hundred
feet
should
be
introduced
and
that
the
number
in
general
was
perceived
as
arbitrary.
Since
setbacks
already
are
addressed
in
this
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
we
decided
to
focus
on
0.5
foot
candle,
which
is
a
performance
based
standard,
and
we
are
removing
this
criterion.
That
was,
that
was
related
to
the
25
foot
distance,
from
the
property
line.
E
Also
in
December,
we
have
presented
mitigation
measures.
We
have
received
overall
support
for
these
draft
measures.
There
was
a
positive
experience
with
the
memorandum
of
agreement,
but
they
were
needed
additional
enforcement,
that
was
a
community
feedback
and
they
also
wanted
us
to
keep
up
with
new
technologies
to
increase
a
light
control.
So
these
mitigation
measures
did
not
change
in
December,
but
what
we
did
add
in
since
December
are
the
new
techniques
for
tree
preservation.
E
These
are
some
of
community
concerns
about
the
potential
impact
of
synthetic
turf
or
light
installation
on
trees.
We
are
now
including
these
potential
techniques
for
tree
preservation,
some
of
them,
as
you
can
see,
reuse
for
tree
protection
during
construction,
some
after
construction
and
some
related
to
the
field
design.
Oh.
B
A
You
so
much,
certainly
a
great
deal
of
analysis
and
anything
query
shaping
walked
through
that
iterative
process
with
community
feedback
before
we
dive
in
colleagues
I'm
just
gonna
do
a
brief
time
check
we're
scheduled
through
5:00
p.m.
but
I
know
we
have
the
DPR
staff
through
5:30,
because
we
talked
about
the
likelihood
of
potentially
running
over
with
all
these
media
issues,
I
believe
per
our
Clerk
that
board
members
calendars
also
prefer
for
us
to
go,
prefer
also
allow
for
us
to
go
a
little
bit
over.
A
Maybe
we
wouldn't
prefer
it,
but
I
know
we
have
many
questions,
including
on
this
matter,
so
again
being
asked
for
feedback.
This
is
a
pretty
significant
change
in
the
approach
from
the
first
draft
as
we
saw,
and
so
this
is
an
important
time
for
us
to
weigh
in
if
we
think
this
is
the
correct
direction
or
if
this
approach
should
of
course
be
course
corrected
before
we
move
to
an
advertisement
and
eventual
adoption
of
the
plan.
So
questions
and
thoughts,
we'll
start
with
mr.
Getchell
something
of
an
expert
on
this
topic.
Oh.
K
Actually,
I
do
that
this
name
that
I
think
it's
in
terms
of
overall
direction.
It
seems
like
we
really
have
hit.
The
right
stride
here,
which
is
frankly
is,
is
a
relief
given
the
experience
that
that
we
had
with
with
Williamsburg
where
it
was
really
difficult
for
the
community
to
cut
to
find
consensus
on
this.
So
I
think
that
this
is
setting
up
opportunities
for
better
processes
to
identify
better
better
sites.
So
moving
forward,
I
think
we'll
have
it'll
be
easier.
I
would
say
for
the
board
to
approve
certain
sites
for
both
turf
and
field.
K
Our
end
lights,
I
will
say
that
I
absolutely
support
the
separation
of
conversion
to
synthetic
turf
from
adding
lighting.
The
one
thing
that
I'm
not
sure
is
that
came
out
of
the
Williamsburg
work
group
that
I'm,
not
sure
is
captured
here
is,
is
giving
priority
to
it
does
say
in
there
about
having
if
it
if
an
existing
field
has
lights,
but
that's
a
criteria
for
adding
turf
but
I'm,
not
sure
kind
of
creates
the
priority
there
and
I
think
there
was
consensus
in
the
Westberg
process
that
that
should
actually
be
a
level
of
priority.
K
Not
just
the
criterion,
so
that's
a
comment
here
in
terms
of
identified
for
rather
identified
for
school
expansion.
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
to
talk
about
this
right
now,
but
like
how
I
identified
where
and
how
exactly
and
I
know.
This
is
something
that
the
je
FAC
is
going
to
be
diving
into
and
and
looking
at,
but
sort
of
what
one
person's
notion
of.
Rather
it's
you
know
tagged
or
flagged
for
potential
expansion
versus
how
it
informs
this
policy.
K
If
that
was
completely
non-controversial,
I
would
just
say
for
me
personally:
I,
don't
know
that
linking
restrooms
to
lighting
or
turf
conversion
I
feel
like
it
sets
up
the
potential
for
you
have
communities
that
fight
against
adding
restrooms
because
they
feel
it's
as
soon
as
you
add
restrooms
to
a
facility.
The
next
thing
you
know
along
comes
the
the
turf
conversion
or
otherwise.
So
yeah
I'm,
just
not
so
sure
that
I
would
link
those
so
directly
I'm,
not
sure
that
what
that
gains
us
exactly
and
then.
K
Lastly,
we
had
comment
a
letter
from
Roy
gamzee,
who
was
I,
think
very
helpful
in
the
Williamsburg
process
in
terms
of
trying
to
bring
some
of
the
outside
expertise,
bringing
that
to
the
table
in
terms
of
he
did
a
tremendous
amount
of
research
and
brought
it
forward,
and
one
of
the
things
that
he
suggested
that
I
would
be
interested
in
staffs.
Take
on
is
rather
than
just
having
the
half
foot-candle
standard
at
the
property
line
is.
K
Is
it
possible
to
have
some
kind
of
tiered
approach,
and
rather
that
would
be
based
on
the
uses
the
adjoining
uses
surrounding
the
community,
the
proximity
of
those
uses?
How
close
are
the
you
know?
The
nearest
residences
or
I
would
throw
out
there
looking
at
rather
or
not
it
rather
than
a
flat
half
foot
candle
coming
up
with
doing
some
analysis
and
coming
up
with
some
some
well
sliders
got
some
factor
right
that
it
that,
if
the
if
the
existing
lighting
is
one
foot
candle,
then
we
will
do.
A
It's
really
helpful
mr.
Getchell
I
think
a
lot
of
that
are
things
we
can
continue
discussing.
I
actually
would
really
love
to
know
staffs
reaction
to
your
first
question
or
your
first
example,
which
was
the
the
greater
explicitness
on
lit
fields
being
a
criteria
for
turf
field,
so
I
think
we're
pretty
clear
right,
as
you
saw
in
the
iteration.
A
We
don't
necessarily
want
that
line
of
causality
or
prioritization
around
the
other
way,
but
it
sounds
like
it
because
it
was
the
will
of
the
Williamsburg
workgroup
or
the
consensus
position
that
that
lit
field
should
be
a
priority
for
synthetic.
Is
that
consistent
with
your
understanding
and
it's
just
maybe
what
didn't
come
through
as
much
or
does
that
feel
like
a
new
piece
of
direct
information
or
a
change
in
direction?
I.
I
So
if
you
were
a
little
you'd
get
a
check
and
if
you
had
something
else,
you
get
a
check
as
well,
so
putting
a
greater
weight
on
the
fact
that
is
currently
lit
is
is
somewhat
new
into
it,
because
we
did
not
wait
any
of
our
none
of
them
are
weighted
more
so
or
less
of
than
the
other.
So
if
that
is
something
we
are
happy
to
explore,
so.
A
Mister
got
shall
then
it
taken
recognizing
that
it's
in
here
just
any
reaction
to
the
idea,
because
I
do
think
we
might
want
to
explore
that
a
little
bit
among
the
five
of
us
if
we're
gonna
head
in
a
different
direction.
I
I
think
I
appreciate
that
framing
because
it's
it's
it's
a
criteria,
no
greater
than
any
other
criteria,
and
in
order
to
make
it
we
would
need
to
change
a
little
bit.
The
way,
we're
thinking
about
the
criteria
overall.
So.
K
I
think
the
main
reason
there
were
lots
of
reasons
why
individuals
in
the
workgroup
supported
this
but
I,
think
one
of
the
common
themes
was
the
ROI
that,
where
you
have
a
where
a
field
that
has
already
lit,
if
you
convert
it
to
turf
you're
going
to
get
that
much
more
use
out
of
it.
So
it's
that's
the
bet.
K
It's
a
for
the
buck
concept,
so
rather
or
not,
you
want
to
like,
relate
it
directly
to
an
existence
of
to
a
priority
for
existing
lit
fields
for
conversion
to
turf
or
you
just
want
to
say
as
a
factor
there,
the
ROI
making
sure
that
we
can
get
that
we're
going
to
get
the
most
usage
out
of
that.
Those
dollars
invested
to
convert
I
personally,
don't
really
care,
but
I
would
encourage
this
board
very
much
to
make
to
to
factor
in
that
bang
for
the
buck
concept
in
some
fashion
or
form
of
another.
F
I
I
agree
with
mr.
guts,
all
and
while
I
I
also
applaud
the
decoupling
of
turf
and
lights.
I
do
think
it's
true
that
we
ought
to
give
a
higher
priority
than
other
factors
to
a
field
that
is
already
lit
as
a
candidate
for
turf
conversion
and
along
those
lines,
and
you
know,
we've
MS
Rudolph.
You
mentioned
the
word
and
there's
a
couple
of
slides
and
here
about
partnerships
with
the
private
sector
in
the
sports
community
and
I.
A
J
Yeah,
just
just
on
what
we've
discussed
already
I'll,
just
kind
of
go
down:
I
also
I,
like
separating
the
conversion
to
synthetic
from
lights.
I
think
that's
great!
Don't
link
the
restrooms
I!
Think
you're
right
I
was
said:
I'm
gonna
be
fighting
over
restrooms
when
it's
really
something
else,
I
just
wouldn't
go
there.
I.
K
J
It's
the
priority
thing.
Thank
you
very
much.
The
checklist,
I'm
kind
of
uncomfortable,
saying
that
this
has
to
have
this
much
weight,
and
this
has
to
have
this
much
weight
in
this.
It
seems
to
me
they
all
ought
to
be
I
like
the
idea
of
a
checklist,
and
it
seems
to
me
if
you
come
to
us
with
the
recommendations
for
a
field.
It's
gonna
you're
gonna,
give
us
a
return
on
investment,
and
it
could
be
what
the
light
you
know
what
the
lights
are.
Gonna
do.
J
J
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
but
there
could
be
field
was
really
poor
lighting
that
maybe
isn't
worth
replacing
and
all
of
a
sudden
that
becomes
like
the
the
deciding
criteria
when
really
it
shouldn't
be
so
I'm,
more
comfortable
keeping
in
a
sort
of
a
general
list
of
criteria
and
not
being
absolutely
specific
that
this
is
way
more
important
than
that
it's
the
bottom
line
of
the
return
on
investment
that
I'm
interested
not
from
one
particular
criteria
or
another.
Thank
you
for
helping
me
out
with
the
brain
freeze.
A
H
H
However,
I
don't
think
it
merits
or
necessitates
needing
to
create
a
weighted
priority
system
where
you've,
you've
carefully
and
assiduously
decided
to
construct
one
that
doesn't
assign
weights
I
think
we
can
get
around
that
much
in
the
same
way,
our
previous
conversation
about
land
acquisition
sort
of
focused
on
just
recalling
them
as
Grandal
Speas.
It's
one
element
of
how
we
evaluate
you
know
something
from
a
how
it
how
it
works
within
a
community
or
how
it
works
within
neighbors
and
a
lighted
facility.
H
That's
that's
already
grasped
as
people
playing
in
into
it
well
into
the
night,
and
you
have
a
much
different
level
of
change
introduced
than
all
of
a
sudden
having
a
facility
that
then
has
a
night
time
element
where
one
didn't
exist
before
so
I
think
you
can
probably
figure
out
how
to
communicate
that
in
such
a
way
where
it
speaks.
This
whole
idea
that
mr.
H
guts
all
surfaced
that
lighting
I'm
sorry
synthetically,
turfing
lighted
facilities,
perhaps
is
something
that
you
you
look
to
a
little
bit
more
quickly
than
you
do
the
the
latter,
without
necessarily
changing
the
whole
weighted
criteria.
I
think
I
might
be
a
voice
in
opposition
to
the
whole
idea
that
we
do
away
with
the
wrestling
thing
it
kind
of
makes
sense
to
me.
M
Sure
I
think
the
fields
have
a
obviously
more
hours
that
we
can
put
on
them
because
it's
synthetic
and
so
and
also
the
seasonality
of
them.
You
know
we
cover
over
a
lot
of
our
grass
fields
during
the
winter
to
rest
them,
and
so
when
we
have
restrooms-
and
we
include
heating
and
things
like
that-
that
matches
the
fact
that
they're
also
available
during
the
winter,
so
I
think
we're
looking
at
it
as
just
an
investment,
because,
certainly
everywhere
we
have
a
synthetic
field.
M
If
we
don't
have
a
permanent
restroom,
we
also
put
portable
toilets
there,
but,
along
with
that
comes
you
know,
maybe
an
enclosure,
an
accessibility
path,
and
things
like
that.
So
we
were
looking
it's
under
the
category
of
level
of
investment
that
it
just
saves
on
having
to
expend
any
more
funding
and
does
get
to
that
year.
That
ability
to
actually
make
use
of
them
even
during
the
winter
season,
could.
J
A
I
appreciate
that
miss
Garvey
I
want
to
be
clear,
though,
with
turf
and
lights
land
acquisition
anywhere
else
that
we
think
about
criteria.
It's
either
debated
now
or
debated
later
and
and
I
respect
the
desire
for
flexibility,
but
I.
Think
since
our
stuff
and
the
working
group
have
gone
through
a
tremendous
amount
of
effort
to
try
to
get
these
criteria
right,
we
should
in
turn,
to
seek
to
do
our
best
rather
than
preserve
flexibility
and
I.
A
I
think
that's
probably
one
where
we
do
have
some
continued
opportunity
to
weigh
in
I
think
that's,
we've
signaled
that
maybe
as
an
area
of
interest
or
potential
different
perspectives
on
the
board.
So
to
the
extent
those
would
like
to
come
and
give
public
comment.
The
time
of
adoption
participated
in
future
public
outreach
events
and
have
points
of
view.
I
think
we'd
benefit
from
hearing
from
it.
I
would
associate
myself
more
now
with
mr.
Dorsey,
but
again
I.
F
So
on
this
note
and
I
would
just
put
in
a
personal
plea:
let's,
let's
not
ever
talk
about
porta-johns,
you
know,
porta-potties
are
okay,
but
you
know
I
just
want
to
I
just
want
to
note
about.
You
know
the
the
creative
architectural
things
that
we're
doing
with
our
schools
and
our
community
centers
of
having
outward
facing
restrooms
adjacent
to
nearby
fields,
we're
doing
that
I
believe
with
the
Wilson
school
I,
think
weird
confirm
or
not
or
deny
that
we're
doing
it
with
love
or
run
as
well
for
restrooms
facing
out.
So
people
don't
have
to.
F
I
If
we
currently
have
it
at
the
discovery
school,
we
it's
gonna,
be
built
into
the
Wilson
School
Stratford
and
lover
run
as
well,
and
then
we,
if
I
say
we
already,
and
then
we
have
some
long-standing
ones,
Lisa
just
miss
Graham's
reference
at
Farrington
as
well,
there's
a
restroom
that
you
can
get
you
through
the
building.
So
it's.
F
K
Since
I
brought
it
up
to
conclude
my
thoughts
on
it,
which
is
that
I'm
fine
with
it
comes
back
to
us
and
we
can
hear
more
more
input,
I
do
think,
though
I
would
just
point
out
that
we're
already
doing
it
anyway.
My
the
reason
I
raised.
It
is
because,
when
it's
on
a
list
not
because
it's
not
a
good
idea-
and
we
wouldn't
want
to
do
that-
but
it'd
be
the
potential
as
I
think
miss
Garvey
had
pointed
out,
for
it
becomes
a
proxy
item
and
then
you
have.
K
We
have
folks
that,
are
you
said
you
know
fight
about
an
hour
fight
about
it
later
we
can.
We
can
pick
that
so
I'm
more
than
happy
to
let
the
community
come
forward
with
their
with
their
thoughts
on
it,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
it's
not
about
whether
or
not
it's
a
good
idea,
and
it
does
sound
like
it's
happening
anyway.
J
Okay,
one
just
a
general
comment:
I'd
actually
interested
in
my
colleague
I'm,
not
so
comfortable,
the
point,
five
candles
and
and
putting
that
into
a
policy
I
wonder
if,
by
the
time
we
get
to
actually
deciding
this
somebody's
going
to
decide,
it
should
be
point
a
torch.
It
I,
don't
know
how
specific
we
ought
to
be
lower
and
that's
right
anyway.
So
I'm
just
gonna
put
that
down
that
as
a
to
me
that
doesn't
feel
like
a
policy
item
that
feels
like
it's
administrative
and
at
the
policy
level.
J
J
Finally,
another
general
comment,
which
I'm
also
interested
in
in
folks
thoughts
about
all
of
this
discussion,
really
has
boiled
down
to
the
fact
in
Williamsburg
that
it
the
the
nature
of
the
neighborhood
and
put
it
the
nature
of
a
lit
field
and
what
that's
like
in
the
middle
of
a
neighborhood
that
is,
you
know,
got
a
whole
lot
of
trees
and
it's
basically
fairly
quiet
and
it's
that
kind
of
mixture.
It's
the
context,
and
that
is
kind
of
its
mentioned
a
bit
here.
J
But
it's
not
really
specifically
called
out
and
that
actually
for
me
making
a
decision
as
to
where
to
put
in
a
lit.
It's
really
going
to
be
the
context
and
the
end
the
effect
on
on
the
neighborhood
in
a
lot
of
ways
and
whether
that
seems
to
make
sense.
So
it
just
feels
to
me,
like
that's,
not
called
out
as
explicit
that
we
have
all
other
kinds
of
little
details,
whereas
the
real
big
to
me,
elephant
in
the
living
room
is
actually
not
explicitly
called
out
the
way.
A
Great
I
think
there
is
a
pretty
broad
support
for
the
decoupling
and
that
approach,
which
I
know
again,
has
been
a
change
in
direction.
I
think
you've
heard
from
all
of
us
with
quite
a
few
thoughts
actually
on
the
individual
criteria
themselves.
Some
some
feedback
from
each
of
us
that
I
think
we're
all
interested
in
continued
discussing
I.
A
Priority
is
weighted
and
others
are
not
I
think
we
would
maybe
perhaps
just
put
it
to
you
to
give
some
thought
to
given
the
the
the
strong
work
of
the
Williamsburg
Lights
group,
the
sense
and
I
think
I'd
associate
myself
with
it
made
by
a
couple
of
our
colleagues
that
that
actually
should
have
some
priority
they're,
perhaps
more
than
the
other
elements.
If
we
could
just
continue
that
conversation,
do
you
all
need
more
from
us
at
this
point
to
be
able
to
bring
forward
some
options
for
doing
that?
F
Yeah,
the
the
only
thing
I
would
I
think
you're
right
on
mr.
crystal
the
only
thing
I
would
say,
and
especially
it
keying
off
of
miss
Garvey's
comment
about
neighborhood
context,
which
I
completely
agree
with,
at
least
from
my
perspective.
There
may
be
some
fields
in
certain
parts
of
the
county
in
certain
neighborhoods
in
certain
contexts
that,
in
my
view,
will
never
be
appropriate
for
lights,
at
least
in
my
lifetime.
Yet
there
I'm
not
sure
that
I
can
say
the
same
thing
with
respect
to
fields
converting
from
grass
to
turf
thanks.
F
A
Ison
I
appreciate
that
I
do
think
that
is
a
little
bit
and
staff
or
working
group
members
can,
let
us
know
a
little
at
odds,
I
think
with
what's
being
discussed.
You
know
I
see
particularly
the
the
the
effort
made
to
really
be
explicit
and
not
general
about
environmental
impacts,
for
example-
and
you
know
these
efforts
of
about
including
MIT
against
as
a
way
of
to
me
at
least.
A
L
F
Mean
I'm
just
saying
from
my
perspective
as
a
general
proposition
and
I
use,
the
word
may
that
that's
my
perspective,
I
mean
you
know
decades
away
with
technology
with
with
with
new
MIT
against
and
I
and
I.
Do
believe
that
you
know
neighborhoods
need
to
work
with,
with
with
the
staff
and
and
people
need
to
have
a
true
conversation
and
dialogue
and
not
just
shut
down
conversations,
but
at
the
same
time,
I
do
think
that
it
will
be
a
long
long
time
if
ever
before,
before
some
fields
are
appropriate
to
be
lit.
Appropriate.
A
H
Just
to
speak
to
this-
and
this
is
gonna
address
some
of
mr.
Vyse
dad's-
concerns
just
themes,
but
not
really
a
rebuttal
to
them.
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
with
terms
like
neighborhood
context
and
and
and
the
like.
You
know
if
I
think
part
of
what
I
was
unearthing
about
the
link
between
already
existing
lighted
facilities
and
a
synthetic
turf
conversion
is
that
the
neighborhood
character
is
already
defined
by
that
condition.
H
Just
because
a
neighborhood
doesn't
have
that
condition
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
that
has
to
be
you
know,
protected
through
public
policy
and
perpetuity.
It's
just
an
acknowledgement
that
to
change
the
nature
of
a
way,
a
neighborhood
works
is
a
step
different
than
just
creating
more
activity
for
something
that
is
already
existing
there.
N
K
You
miss
Cruz,
Donna
and
I
actually
just
wanted
to
try
and
tie
up
based
on
this
conversation
in
terms
of
the
feedback
to
staff,
where
I
hope.
It
was
understood
that
the
idea
of
pride
of
a
little
bit
of
priority
and
weight
to
the
idea
of
existing
grass
fields-
it's
I'm,
not
I,
don't
think
I'm
suggesting
that
we
need
to
somehow
come
up
with
that.
This
is
going
to
be
a
quantitative
analysis
where
we're
ranking
and
adding
numbers
and
we're
not
going
there
at
all
and
I
think
we
all.
We
just
want
to
make
sure.
K
A
E
As
part
of
our
preliminary
draft,
we
have
also
included
some
recommendations
related
to
natural
resources
in
trees,
and
this
listed
here
is
the
feedback
that
we
heard
from
the
community.
So
there
was
a
support
general
support
from
the
community
on
updates
of
the
two
sub
elements
of
the
public
spaces,
master
plan,
natural
resource
management
plan
and
urban
forest
master
plan.
There
was
a
this
comments
or
suggestions
about
the
impact
of
population,
growth
and
development
of
sensitive
natural
areas
in
general,
access
versus
an
impact
of
views
comments
as
well.
E
There
were
also
some
suggestion
that
we
should
balance
recreation
and
a
resource
protection.
Also,
we
heard
some
comments
about
securing
funding
for
protection
and
expansion
and
maintenance
of
natural
resources,
and
also
land
acquisition
to
prioritize
expansion
and
protection
of
natural
resources
and
you're,
going
to
see
the
same
comment
for
trees
for
trees.
E
So
this
is
what
we
are
approaching,
how
we
are
proposing
our
new
approach
to
some
of
these
items.
We
we
will
revise
the
pub's
draft
by
strengthening
recommendations
on
natural
resources
in
trees,
as
I
mentioned
in
December,
we
had
a
very
successful
public
meeting
with
a
lot
of
attendees,
where
we
heard
a
lot
of
great
feedback,
so
we
are
going
to
incorporate
some
of
that
feedback
in
the
final
draft.
E
More
specifically,
our
here
are
some
examples
of
some
of
the
recommendations
in
the
plan
that
we
heard
from
the
community.
It
needs
to
be
reviewed
again
and
revised,
so
we
are
already
proposing
some
revisions
to,
for
example,
one
point
six
and
three
point
three
recommendation
in
the
draft
that
were
not
written
as
well
as
they
should
so
we
are
proposing
some
ways
of
revising
those
recommendations
to
respond
to
the
public
feedback.
E
Another
thing
that
I
mentioned
besides
other
recommendations
that
will
be
revising
and
editing
in
the
document.
Impact
of
private
development
will
be
studied
as
part
over
forest
master
plan,
because
this
is
a
public
spaces
master
plan
and
addresses
a
public
property.
We
will
also
add
data
from
the
tree
canopy
study
in
the
final
pops
document,
because
that's
not
a
has
been
a
it's
been
done
recently.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
again,
the
issue
before
us
is
actually
a
little
less
a
little.
Unlike
some
of
the
others.
It's
a
little
less
about
content
and
framing
and
a
little
more
of
a
recognition
of
process
here.
I
know:
we've
all
been
talking
quite
a
bit
recently
about
tree
preservation
and
protection
and
we've
even
started
to
talk,
as
was
referenced
about
an
interdepartmental
look
at
our
regulations
around
trees.
So
I
know
there
remains
a
great
appetite
for
us
as
board
members,
as
well
as
on
the
part
of
the
community.
A
On
this
issue
and
I
think
you
know
what
we're
hearing
what's
before
us,
at
least
for
a
reaction
and
potential
recognition,
and
is
that
the
some
of
this
will
come
with
pops.
But
in
fact
most
of
it
will
come
with
the
urban
forestry
master
plan
and
the
natural
resources
management
plan,
so
I'm
seeing
nods
reactions
or
questions
about
that.
Yes,
mr.
Boyett
thank.
F
F
If
you
look
at
slide
70
can
we
bring
that
up
the
1.6
current
and
proposed
I
think
eliminating
while
we
all
love
access,
and
we
all
love,
viewsheds
I,
think
it's
a
very
positive
adjustment
that
the
words
high
quality,
visual
and
physical
was
stricken,
lest
one
interpret
that
to
say
to
give
a
license,
for
you
know,
for
chopping
down,
trees
and,
for
you
know,
clearing
land
and
for
building
concrete
paths
and
so
forth.
So
I
applaud
that
change.
F
My
question
is
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
coordination
because
as
slide
slide
for
notes,
the
the
bicycle
element
is
in
the
in
the
in
the
process
of
being
updated,
as
well
as
our
public
art
plan,
and
then
these
two
plans,
the
the
the
urban
forest
plan
and
the
natural
resources
plan
are
going
to
be
updated.
Could
could
staff
refine
a
little
bit
for
us
the
timetable
and
milestones
ahead
with
respect
to
the
those
two
plans
and
just
a
little
bit
about
the
community?
I
I
guess
for
the
two
plans,
the
update
of
natural
resources
management
plan,
the
update
the
urban
forestry
master
plan.
We
are
excited
about
the
opportunity
to
do
a
joint
process
with
the
two,
as
you
can
see
through
this
there's
just
a
lot
of
overlap
of
different
priorities,
and
we
just
think
we
can.
F
I
So,
there's
a
lot
of
components
to
kicking
off
a
plan.
You
need
to
broken
sultans
and
you
need
to
fit
that
out
and
so
I
really
would
be
hard
for
me
to
say
when
we
would
be
officially
kicking
off
in
calendar
year
19.
That
said,
we
will
be
ramping
up.
We
I
could
see
us
in
at
least
in
the
first
and
second
quarter
of
19
coming
back
and
laying
out
a
plan
for
how
we
are
going
to
do
the
update.
Okay.
I
That
point
we'd
have
a
good
sense
of
the
time
horizon
and
our
hope
is
I.
Don't
anticipate
while
I
expect
a
robust
public
engagement.
I
don't
expect
this
to
be
a
three
to
four
year
process,
as
we've
been
going
currently
through
I'm,
hoping
to
lay
out
a
timeline
that
is
closer
to
more
like
a
year
or
so.
D
Three
member
Commission's
on
the
net
resources
joint
Advisory
Group,
and
we
did
send
you
an
update
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
on
the
progress
I.
Think
people
were
pretty
pleased
of
the
level
of
progress
that
we've
made
so
far
on
the
now
to
resource
management
plan
and
they're
definitely
areas
that
we're
not
addressed.
In
fact,
we
had
a
meeting
just
a
couple
months
ago,
focusing
just
on
that.
What
were
some
of
the
areas
that
were
not
addressed
in
the
original
natural
resource
management
plan?
D
What
are
some
issues
that
really
ought
to
be
addressed
going
forward?
So
I
think
there
is
some
good
groundwork
being
done
and
there
was
a
you
know.
Some
things
like
the
I-tree
canopy
studied
the
BioBlitz.
There's
gonna
be
another
one
in
September,
we've
got
other
data
collection
and
that
kind
of
thing
to
lay
the
groundwork
for
this,
so
I
think
there's,
there's
good
work
being
done
now.
It's
not
like
it's
just
sitting
still
and
I
would
note
from
the
urban
forestry
commission
perspective
as
well.
D
The
commissioners
have
sort
of
reread
the
existing
urban
horse
master
plan,
even
though
it
is
quite
out
of
date.
It
there's
still
really
great
information
in
there
that
is
being
used,
so
it's
not
like
people
are
just
sitting
still
but
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
anticipation
on
what
do
we
do
next
and
going
forward?
That's.
J
Comment
but
I'll
be
quick.
I'll,
be
quick
on
on
slide
70
AD
in
the
new
language,
improve
processes
for
early
review
of
public
projects
to
minimize
impact
on
tree
canopy
and
Natural
Resources.
Is
it
possible
and
I
know
it's
not
really
in
our
purview
to
include
private
projects
or
private
homes,
because
what
we're
we're
really
losing
the
tree,
canopy
is
in
the
homes
that
are
getting,
you
know,
cut
down
and
they
cut
down
all
the
clear
cut.
J
J
A
E
As
we
mentioned
several
times
by
now,
the
casual
use
space
concept
was
developed
as
part
of
the
pops
process
is
a
very
unique
and
a
new
new
approach
for
us,
and
this
term
relates
basically
to
spaces
that
are
intentionally
designed
to
support
casual
impromptu
use
and
connection
with
nature.
Our
Advisory
Committee
spent
many
meetings
discussing
definition
of
casual
use
space,
and
this
is
the
definition
that
you
see
here
was
presented
in
the
preliminary
draft.
There
is
more
work
to
be
done
on
this,
so
you're
going
to
continue
discussing
this
definition
with
our
Advisory
Committee.
E
In
addition
to
trying
to
define
these
spaces,
our
Advisory
Committee
work
hard
and
trying
to
understand
what
belongs
to
casual
use
spaces
and
what
doesn't
so
the
list
of
what
casual
use
space
is
include
and
what
not
was
developed
as
a
result
of
that
discussion,
and
it
also
was
also
included
as
part
of
a
preliminary
draft.
There
has
been
some
additional
conversations
with
some
of
our
advisory
committee
members
and
we
also
had
a
public
meeting
in
December
to
talk
about
casual
use
spaces.
So
some
of
these
approaches
may
change.
E
From
the
public
feedback
and
feedback,
we
heard
overall
positive
feedback
on
the
recognition
of
this
type
of
open
space.
There
were
some
differences
about
what
how
to
define
these
spaces,
what
to
include
what
not
specifically
related
to
shipping
code
field
should
we
include
natural
resources,
always
sort
of
partially
available
spaces,
etcetera.
There
was
also
discussion.
How
can
we
measure
these
spaces?
Can
we
do
a
lot
of
service
analysis,
or
can
we
map
these
spaces
and
what
amenities
and
how
to
design
them?
What
amenities
to
include.
E
So
this
is
our
proposed
approach.
We
are
proposing
a
short
term
and
long
term
strategy
to
address
casual
use
spaces.
In
short
term,
we
would
be
working
with
our
pops
Advisory
Committee
to
better
define
this
term
and
highlight
this
need
of
this
type
of
spaces
as
a
priority
in
the
final
pops
document,
we
would
also
work
with
our
committee
to
develop
design
characteristics.
So
what
should
be
included?
What
kind
of
amenities
the
spaces
should
include
in
long
term,
we
would
explore
access
standards
if
the
space
can
be
inventoried
or
mapped.
E
We
would
use
access
danger
to
determine
where
access
to
casual
use
spaces
is
lacking,
and
we
also
perform
access
analysis
and
we
would
also
consider
exploring
some
developer
developing
standards.
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
two
recent
project
that
we
are
already
starting
to
use
this
terminology
and
Benjamin
Banneker
Park
framework
plan
adopted
by
the
board
in
December
2017,
as
well
as
short
bridge
park,
master
plan
adopted
by
the
county
board
in
January
2018,
both
included
recommendations
for
these
type
of
spaces
to
be
included
in
the
plan.
K
Guess
my
first
question
is
when
you,
when
you
list
and
I
very
much
appreciate
the
direction
that
you're
going
I'll
just
state
that
up
front,
but
when
you
list
what's
and
I
know
that
there's
an
issue
with
trying
to
get
to
a
definition
and
there's
more
work
to
be
done
on
that.
But
I
am
curious
and
slide
74,
where
we
list
casual
use
space.
Is
that
what
it
includes
and
what
it
does
not
include,
notably
missing
from
either
of
those
lists.
Is
trails
and
I.
K
D
Actually
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this,
and
one
of
the
issues
that
we
talked
about
is
if
it
is
included
somewhere
else
that
maybe
it
doesn't
belong
here,
and
so
they
might
be
used
in
lots
of
different
ways.
But
if
we've
already
got
a
category
for
that
that
this
is
something
new
and
different,
and
you
know
flexible
use,
and
certainly
yes,
people
use
that
in
similar
ways
that
they
might
use
casual
use
but
sort
of
the
you
know,
I
hate
to
say
it.
D
K
D
The
spaces
that
you
could
go
throw
a
ball,
throw
frisbee.
That
kind
of
thing
is
sort
of
what
we
were
getting
at
in
coming
up
with
these.
So
trails
don't
exactly
fit
that,
but
we
definitely
get
that
that's
a
hype
for
the
community
and
are
used
in
lots
of
different
ways,
not
just
walking
and
biking,
but
you
know
rollerblading
whatever
else.
K
That's
actually
helpful
I
appreciate
that.
So
then,
my
follow-up
to
that
is
when
we
talk
about
the
long
term,
so
on
slide,
70s
on
slide,
76,
looking
at
short
term
long
term
and
we're
talking
about
specifically
you've
called
out
access
standards,
but
is
it
should
I
read
into
the
omission
of
level
of
service
standards
because
you
can
have
in
the
example
of
the
short
bridge
master
park
plan?
That's
you
know
a
reasonable
amount
of
space,
but
potentially
a
whole
lot
of
folks
around
there.
That
might
be
wanting
to
use
that
space.
D
I
think
we
came
to
the
conclusion
that-
and
we
spent
several
meetings
on
this-
you
know
of
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
this,
that
that
might
not
be
something
we're
going
to
get
done
in
this
plan,
and
you
know
who
knows
maybe
will
spur
others
to
create
and
help
this
in
other
communities.
We
don't
know,
but
just
that
might
be
too
difficult
to
try
to
grapple
with
at
this
stage
of
the
game,
but
that
that
would
be
a
further
recommendation.
K
I
respect
that
I
think
that,
given
the
huge
amount
of
a
dialogue
that
is
going
on
in
the
community
about
this
new
identified
need-
which
I
think
is
only
natural
given
at
how
we've
we've
continued
to
to
urbanize
and
to
add
more
density
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
that.
This
is
this
is
absolutely
important
to
the
quality
of
life
on
into
the
future
for
Arlington.
K
So
I
want
to
just
go
on
record
being
very,
very
firm
in
my
support
that
what
we're
putting
here
in
the
long
term,
I
actually
wish
it
would
say
midterm
instead
of
long-term
and
that
we
meaning
it's
outside
of
the
this
pops
process.
But
it
can't
be
in
the
next
version.
It
can't
be
five
years
from
now.
K
It
needs
to
be
sooner
than
that
I
firmly
believe,
and
that
we
need
to
include
in
that
it's
not
just
about
access
rather
I
get
that
maybe
alos
is
difficult
to
work
into,
but
somehow
capture
that
we're
going
to
come
up
with
a
way
to
balance
that
and
then
manager.
Just
real
quick
I'll
throw
out
a
thought
that
I
had
on
this
I
know.
K
We're
tight
on
time
is
that
I
would
I
would
love
to
see
some
kind
of
statement
and
the
document
that
we
ultimately
adopt
that
that
as
a
policy
matter
that
stipulates
that,
in
the
interim,
until
such
time
as
we're
able
to
figure
out
what
are
these
level
of
service
access
standards
that
we
have
a
policy
that
the
acquisition
and
conversion
of
area
devoted
to
casual
use
shall
be
roughly
proportional
to
that
for
active
or
program
uses.
And
that's
you
know
a
very
vague
statement
at
this
point
and
more
discussion
to
come.
K
But
I
think
we
need
to
lay
down
some
kind
of
marker
that,
as
we
have
all
of
these,
you
know.
The
the
forthcoming
CIP
and
this
pops
is
very,
very
heavily
focused
on
active
program
uses
that
we
have
to
make
sure
that
casual
use
cannot
can
no
longer
be
what's
left
over
after
everything
else.
In
all
of
the
things
that
we
are
trying
to
achieve
in
this
county.
A
Thank
you,
mr.
Rochelle
I
would
love
to
ask
just
a
clarifying
question.
I
think
it's
a
big
meaty
issue
for
us
to
continue
to
chew
on
and
and
so
let
me
just
ask
a
kind
of
a
logistical
piece
which
is:
could
staff
say
just
a
few
more
about
what
is
a
few
more
words
about
what
is
meant
by
implementation
phase,
I'm
thinking,
for
example,
of
when
we
think
about
how
incredibly
robust
the
implementation
phase
of
say,
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
has
been
I.
Think
you
know
that
might
give
some
comfort
in
this
regard
right.
A
But
perhaps
there
are
other
comp
plan
elements
where
an
implementation
phase
can
feel
a
little
weak
or
not
signal
as
much
robust
work,
because
there
are
so
many
other
priorities
can
can
you
all
just
say
a
little
more
about,
what's
meant
by
implementation
phase
in
terms
of
what
sort
of
work
would
be
underway
and
the
timeframe
to
mr.
Goetsch
all's
question
about
mid
versus
long
term.
G
Sure
the
document
itself
is
going
to
have
a
appendix
basically
of
implementation
and
there's
some
definition
of
short,
mid
and
long
term
in
there.
Although
I
will
say
and
I'm
gonna
ask
Irena
just
to
confirm
this
I
don't
believe
this
short
term
long
term
is
related
to
those
time
periods
that
you're
gonna,
see
in
that
document.
So
those
define
short
term
is
please
don't
quote
me
0
to
5
5
to
10
10
to
20.
G
This
was
just
more
to
indicate
that
short
term
being
as
part
of
the
adoption,
long
term
being
post-adoption
and
so
I
think
we
are
probably
very
open
to
look
at
that
time
frame
recognizing
if
it
is
important
to
the
board
to
do
that
as
one
of
our
earlier
implementation
steps
I
think
we
can
definitely
accommodate
that.
So
there
is
I,
don't
want
to
sleep
a
place,
but
it
is
not
intended
to
be
the
five-year
review
of
this.
It
was
intended
to
be
in
the
interim
time
period
and
we
can
work.
We
can
refine
the
time.
A
H
Excited
a
to
by
are
including
this.
It
is
innovative.
It
is
a
fresh
approach,
as
MS
crystal
said.
I
think,
though,
we're
probably
a
little
bit
too
early
to
get
to
the
point
at
least
where
I
would
be
comfortable
with
defining
it
too
greatly.
I
know,
Justice
Stewart
would
probably
be
thrilled
that
he's
invoked
in
perpetuity.
You
know
with
his
pornography
standard
is
applied
to
things
like
this,
but
certainly
clearly,
I
think
when
it
comes
to
implementation.
H
We
might
take
advantage
of
our
community
to
help
us
out
with
this,
to
you
know,
have
a
campaign
around
ass,
asking
Arlington
ian's.
What
are
their
favorite
casual
use
spaces,
because
as
much
as
I
think
this
is
a
good
list
to
start
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
exhaustive,
I,
don't
think
we'll,
probably
think
about
all
the
circumstances
in
which
people
may
use
facilities
in
Arlington,
which
may
constitute
casual
uses,
and
you
know,
there's
just
going
to
be
all
kinds
of
ways
in
which
I
think
we
can
more
robustly.
H
You
know
sort
of
figure
out
a
way
to
get
better
at
describing
it
and
then
mapping
them
throughout
the
county,
and
then
maybe
from
that
comes
a
level
of
service
standard
that
we
can
aspire
to
I
think
once
we
get
a
sense
of
really
what
all
this
could
be.
We'll
have
a
much
more
robust
conversation
with
our
community
about
how
much
more
we
need
to
provide
we're
from
an
equity
standpoint,
types
and
hours
and
all
that
good
funky
stuff,
but
I
just
don't
think
we're
quite
there.
H
A
F
I
agree,
I'm
very
enthusiastic
about
about
the
whole
casual
use,
rubric
and
I.
Think
it's
an
acknowledgment
that
not
all
of
our
public
spaces
need
to
be,
or
should
be,
you
know
programmed
paved
or
or
lit,
but
to
mr.
guts.
All's
point,
even
though
I'm
I'm
kind
of
I'm,
I'm,
receptive
and
I
think
it's
important
to
have
the
discussion,
as
acknowledged
by
mr.
Dorsey,
about
you
know
what
sort
of
a
low
level
of
service
or
a
rough
proportionality.
F
We
can
ask
the
same
question
about
your
concept
in
the
context
of
forested
and
completely
natural
areas
as
well.
You
know
we
have
kind
of
the
program.
Third,
we
have
the
casual
use.
Third,
and
then
we
have
the
the
completely
natural
and
forested
third
and
I,
don't
want
to
say
third
I
should
just
say
a
B
and
C,
and
you
know
what
is
what
is
the
level
in
each
and
and
and
where
should
they
all
be?
So
you
know
an
interesting
and
very
important
discussion
is
as
we
move
forward.
Thanks
Thanks.
A
I
think
we'll
continue
to
have
this
conversation.
I
think
it'll
be
that'll,
be
a
really
interesting
question
to
take
to
the
community
forum
for
and
the
Commission's
to
which
you're
going
is
recognizing
that
there
are
some
real
obstacles
to
coming
up
with
a
level
of
service
here,
not
the
least
of
which
is
no
one
else
in
the
country
is
doing
or
thinking
about
this.
How
do
we
prioritize
it
and
how
do
we
signal
our
prioritization
and
is
the
draft
language
strong
enough,
or
do
you
need
to
see?
You
know,
as
mr.
E
We
just
want
you
to
mention
a
couple
other
things.
Besides
all
these
topics
that
we
have
discussed,
there
are
other
other
important,
fresh
approaches
in
our
document.
One
of
them
is
a
trail
loop.
I
think
you
remember,
we
had
that
conversation
before,
but
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
we're
suggesting
as
part
of
the
expansion
of
our
network
of
off-street
trails.
E
We
are.
We
took
a
look
at
the
existing
standards
for
dog
parts
that
are
existing
in
our
current
public
spaces
master
plan.
We
revised
those
very
slightly.
However,
we
introduced
what
is
really
new.
With
our
approach.
We
introduced
a
concept
of
dog
rounds
which
is
basically
for
those
smaller
spaces,
less
than
10,000
square
feet,
a
spaces
that
they're
probably
most
appropriate
in
more
urban
corridors
where
people
can
go
after
work
and
go
with
their
dogs
and
they
have
dogs
that
exercise
for
a
shorter
amount
of
time.
E
Some
other
recommendations
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
this
list,
but
there
are
some
recommendations
that
are
that
are
related
to
updates
reviews
and
potential
revisions
to
the
County
codes,
regulations
or
policies.
Some
of
those
are
related
to
the
land
acquisition
discussion
about
exploring
the
ways
to
expand,
for
example,
counties,
transfer
of
development
rights
policy,
some
of
the
other
ones,
are
related
to
the
natural
resources.
E
One
of
the
recommendation
in
our
current
draft
talks
about
county
possible
joining
the
biophilic
cities
movement
also
how
to
convene
two
great
natural
resources
and
a
natural
resource
interpretation
into
the
design
of
public
spaces.
We
also
have
some
recommendations
on
hiking
trails
and
we
also
have
a
recommendation
more
regarding
recreational
uses
to
construct
two
new
multi-use
activity
centers
as
part
of
this
document
just
very
quickly.
What's
also
coming
up.
E
There
is
still
much
more
work
to
be
done
with
our
Advisory
Committee,
but
we
are
hoping
that
in
the
next
few
months
we
are
going
to
have
a
workshop
with
our
advisory
committee
to
talk
about
privately
owned
public
spaces.
Can
we
are
one
of
the
things
that
our
advisory
committee
really
wanted
us
to
explore?
Can
we
develop
some
design
characteristics
for
these
spaces,
not
to
be
very
prescriptive,
but
develop
some
design
characteristics.
E
Next,
after
the
work
session,
we
are
going
to
have
additional
pops
Advisory
Committee
meetings
in
March
and
April.
One
of
them
will
be
to
focus
on
the
privately
owned
public
spaces,
but
we
are
going
to
have
to
have
additional
discussions
with
them
sometimes
later
in
the
spring,
we
are
hoping
to
post,
revised
and
final
pops
draft
online
for
the
public
to
review
and
comment
and
also
to
have
a
final
public
outreach.
B
A
F
Just
there's
somebody
who
I
don't
believe
is
in
the
room
that
I
want
to
thank,
and
that
is
Brian.
A
Helfer
Brian
has
done
a
phenomenal
job
of
assisting
with
the
messaging
and
the
community
engagement
on
this
plan,
and
especially
those
three
work
sessions
in
December,
which
frankly
I
think
was,
was
almost
somewhat
of
a
turning
point
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
communications
between
the
county
and
the
community
and
and
so
just
kudos
to
Sabrina.
A
H
I
just
like
to
thank
everybody,
particularly
miss
LASIK
I
mean
presenting
85.
Slides
is
no
small
feat
given
the
nature
of
this.
This
conversation,
you
know
and
I,
also
know
that
this
has
really
been
challenging.
This
is
a
really
hard
subject.
You
know
it's
interesting
when
I
talk
about
the
nature
of
this
the
length
of
the
the
Pops
process
and
some
of
the
issues
before
us
people
are
shocked.
That
parks
would
engender
such
interest
in
open
spaces
would
engenders
up
such
interest.
I
think
it
is
a
testament
I
think
miss
crystal.
H
You
said
that
earlier
about
generally
people
really
being
happy
with
the
stewardship
of
our
public
spaces
and
wanting
to
really
have
a
sense
of
ownership
and
people
really
diving
deep
into
the
details
to
make
sure
we
get
it
right.
We're
certainly
taking
some
steps
to
really
be
responsive
to
that
by
corporative
data
and
fresh
thinking
and
I.
Think
that's
all
wonderful.
It's
still
a
work
in
progress
to
see
how
we
get
those
specifics
right,
but
this
is
definitely
moving
in
the
right
direction.
So,
thank
you
all.