►
Description
To view this meeting with live captioning and to view the agenda, go to http://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
A
All
right
welcome
everyone.
This
is
our
second
work
session
of
the
day,
this
one
dealing
with
residential
parking
and
the
recommendations
of
the
working
group
and
staff
to
the
board
just
to
clarify
and
I'm
gonna
bring
Libby,
and
why
don't
I
do
that?
First,
we
have
one
of
our
colleagues
who
is
not
able
to
join
us
at
the
table
today,
but
she
is
remoting
in
she'll,
be
participating
over
the
phone,
so
I
by
law
have
to
read.
A
This
I
have
been
notified
by
Libby
Garvey
that
she's
unable
to
attend
today's
meeting
because
of
a
temporary
disability
that
prevents
her
physically
attending
the
meeting
and
that
she
would
like
to
participate
by
phone
from
the
southern
part
of
Arlington.
This
is
allowed
by
law
and
the
board's
policy
and
arrangements
have
been
made
for
her
participation.
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
record
Libby's
notification
in
the
minutes
of
today's
meeting.
Okay.
B
A
So
today's
work
session
is
on
the
residential
parking
want
to
thank
before
we
get
started.
The
staff
for
their
work
to
date
and
Susan
Bell
I
know
was
a
consultant
to
the
process
and
James
roll
chaired
the
working
group.
How
many
people
that
were
on
the
working
group
are
here
with
us
today
in
the
audience
anybody.
A
So
there
may
be
a
member
showing
up,
but
thanks
to
all
those
who
put
some
time
and
energy
into
this,
this
is
the
next
step
along
the
way.
I
think
it
was
several
years
ago
where
we
tackled
the
issue
of
the
parking
ratios
in
commercial
buildings,
high-rise
commercial
buildings
and
that
took
a
while
and
once
again
as
we
tackled
it
with
the
residential
high-rise
buildings
in
the
in
the
corridor.
A
D
Off
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman,
we
have
Steven
Kremers
with
us
today.
I
think
you've
all
met
him
he's
with
our
parking
program
and
he's
going
to
deliver
the
slides,
and
then
we
have
James
and
our
esteemed
colleague
the
former
seat
is
this
is
like
old,
C,
PhD
Dave
here
so
Susan
Bell.
So
with
that
I'm
gonna
make
sure
that
Steven
has
the
slide
presentation
up
and
we'll
be
ready
to
go.
Okay.
C
Well,
the
site
gets
loaded
up.
Thank
you.
Mister
chair
members
of
the
board
I,
as
we've
discussed.
We
are
here
tonight
to
act
or
under
follow
up
on
request
from
the
board
in
December
of
2013,
to
initiate
a
study
akin
to
the
one
completed
for
commercial
parking
ratios,
but
for
residential
multifamily
projects
that
are
approved
through
the
site
plan
process
in
the
Metro
corridors.
C
C
Now
as
a
reminder,
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
here
tonight
is
policy.
This
is
not
a
change
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
It
is
also
a
policy
that,
as
I
mentioned,
applies
only
to
certain
zoning
districts
in
the
Rosslyn
Ballston
Jefferson
Davis
corridors.
It
would
not
apply
to
Lee,
Highway
or
Columbia
Pike
and
I.
Think
it's
also
important
to
realize
that
this
is
a
process
meant
to
create
policy
to
standardize
and
clarify
existing
practice.
C
With
this
broader
policy,
combined
with
some
scans
of
practices
and
other
communities
and
data
collected
about
parking
demand
at
multifamily
buildings,
as
well
as
the
vehicle
ownership
that
we've
seen
recently
in
arlington
county
staff,
embarked
on
a
process
that
began
last
September
and
which
included
a
multi-pronged
approach
to
community
participation
Central's.
That,
of
course,
was
the
working
group
which
had
members
pulled
from
a
variety
of
the
board
and
manager
advisory
Commission's.
C
As
well
as
ney
op,
Civic
Federation
and
the
Arlington
Chamber
of
Commerce,
in
addition
to
that
working
group,
we
have
made
presentations
to
four
of
the
advisory
Commission's.
We
have
made
nine
presentations
to
various
community
groups
and
held
two
open
houses,
as
well
as
two
focus
groups
and
then
through
an
online
survey
that
was
available
in
April.
We've
received
about
370
comments
from
individuals
before
I
describe
the
specific
elements
of
the
staff
recommendation.
I
want
to
mention
some
of
the
benefits
that
we
see
as
potentially
on
offer
from
this
policy
if
adopted.
C
That
use
transit
and
that
own
fewer
vehicles-
you
see
here
a
graph
that
demonstrates
the
difference
in
transit,
Comeau,
commute
mode
share
based
on
vehicle
ownership,
and
we
think
that,
therefore,
this
policy
is
right
in
line
with
the
continuing
and
growing
commitment
to
that
Arlington
County
is
making
to
transit
through
Metro
and
the
art
system.
We
think
that
this
policy
also
assists
with
the
creation
of
affordable
housing
which,
as
we
know,
the
affordable
master,
affordable
housing
master
plan
describes
as
vital
to
the
social
and
economic
sustainability
of
the
community.
C
And
finally,
of
course,
we
believe
that
this
recommendation
will
create
predictability
for
all
in
the
approval
process,
be
that
staff
developers
or
the
wider
community
now
for
your
reference
here
is
a
map
of
the
areas
where
this
policy
would
be
in
effect
or
where
it
would
apply
to
site
plan
and
certain
use
permit
development
in
the
Metro
corridors.
Those
are
the
zoning
districts
they're
depicted
in
the
pink
miss
crystal
they're
in
the
blue.
C
So,
in
other
words,
you'll
see
that
for
60%
of
ami
targeted
can
committed
affordable
units,
a
developer
would
only
need
to
provide
70
percent
of
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
they
would
be
required
to
provide
for
each
market-rate
unit,
and
then
the
requirement
goes
down,
as
the
affordability
requirement
goes
up
so
the
hardest
to
build
units,
those
targeted
for
people
or
households,
making
forty
percent
of
area
median
income
would
actually
have
no
minimum
requirement.
Now.
C
The
other
half
of
this
slide
is
the
part
above
which
is
the
introduction
of
an
excess
parking
threshold
which
is
set
here
at
1.65.
Now,
what
is
an
excess
parking
threshold?
Well,
what
this
means
is
is
that
if
a
developer
were
choose
to
build
to
choose
to
build
more
parking
than
1.65
spaces
per
unit,
then
they
would
be
required
to
pay
a
mitigation
contribution
of
approximately
$3,000
per
year
for
30
years
or
place
that
parking
in
a
tandem
configuration
or
stacker
configuration
now.
C
C
Now
I
want
to
go
through
a
few
slides
that
put
this
proposal
or
these
core
elements
of
the
proposal
in
context.
So,
first
of
all,
this
proposal
would
increase
flexibility
from
the
current
buy-rite
zoning
ordinance,
which
was
last
adjusted
for
this
land
use
in
the
1960s
in
which
you
can
see
here
in
the
two
green
bars
as
policy
is
also
more
flexible
than
recent
site
plan
approvals,
which
you
see
as
ranges
here
depicted
by
the
red
bars
and
which
are
broken
out
by
distance
to
Metro.
C
Then
you
also
see
that
we've
added
in
here
the
recently
seen
parking
demand
at
market
rate
and
mixed-use
to
building
mixed-use
buildings
in
the
Metro
corridors.
This
is
data
taken
from
our
studies
of
garages
at
site
plan
buildings.
It's
also
based
on
data
from
the
Commissioner
of
Revenue
about
vehicle
registration.
C
Think
this
is
similar
to
the
conversation
that
was
had
around
the
TDP
at
your
work
session
a
few
weeks
ago,
where
the
point
was
brought
up,
that
we
should
be
providing
transit,
not
necessarily
just
for
present
demand
of
transit,
but
for
future
demand
of
transit
or
the
future
that
we
want
to
see.
What
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
to
create
a
policy
that
allows
for
the
building
that
we
want
to
see
moving
into
the
future.
C
At
committed,
affordable
buildings
with
the
supply,
in
addition
to
those
core
elements
of
the
proposal,
we
have
included
provisions
where
a
developer
would
be
able
to
substitute
a
few
parking
spaces
for
investments
in
bike
share
bike
parking
over
and
above
the
minimum
required
in
the
current
base
site
plan
conditions
and
also
investment
in
car
share.
There
are
various
exchanges
possible
based
on
the
level
of
investment.
The
bike
share.
C
Investment
would
require
the
cost
of
the
station,
as
well
as
at
least
six
years
of
operating
expenses,
while
the
car
share
investment
would
require
service
guarantee,
in
other
words,
the
building
has
to
guarantee
the
service
will
be
there
to
provide
the
car
share
vehicle,
not
just
the
for
at
least
three
years
now.
Everything
I've
shown
you
thus
far
has
been
exactly
the
same
as
what
the
working
groups
submitted
to
the
county
manager
back
in
March.
This
next
item
is
actually
something
that
the
staff
have
added
since
that
time.
C
This
is
a
dedicated,
visitor
parking
space
requirement
that
would
be
in
addition
to
what
you've
seen
before
we
set
at
point
zero
five
spaces
per
unit,
and
it
could
not
be
exchanged
for
bike
share
or
car
share
or
bike
parking
investment
and,
in
addition
to
simply
providing
the
space,
is
the
site
plan,
like
all
site
plans,
would
have
to
submit
a
parking
management
plan
to
demonstrate
how
these
spaces
would
be
maintained.
Open
for
visitor
use.
C
One
of
the
pieces
of
data,
though
that
we
looked
at,
was
occupancy
at
metered
spaces
in
the
Metro
corridors,
as
you'll
recall
from
the
maps
that
we've
shared
there
is
metered
parking
throughout
these
areas,
and
the
interesting
thing
about
the
meter
occupancy
in
the
evenings
is
that
it
actually
peaks
at
7:00
p.m.
not
midnight
or
sometime
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
when
you'd
expect
people
who
had
come
home
to
be
leaving
their
vehicles.
C
Like
the
Working
Group,
we
are
also
proposing
language
to
encourage
shared
parking,
which
is
encouraged
in
our
broader
policy
documents
in
multiple
places.
But
this
would
allow
for
both
on-site
shared
parking
between
two
uses.
That
demand
parking
at
different
times
of
the
day,
say
residential
and
office,
and
also
off-site
shared
parking
where,
if
there
is
excess
parking
in
say
an
office
building
within
800
feet
of
the
new
residential
building,
the
developer
could
fulfill
some
of
their
parking
requirement
at
that
building.
C
A
clarification
that
we've
made
since
the
working
group
completed
its
work
is
that
again,
visitor
parking
could
not
be
located
off-site,
nor
could
any
of
the
handicapped
parking,
which
is
probably
not
possible
under
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
anyway.
But
we
want
to
be
clear
about
that
and
the
intent
of
this
policy.
C
So
after
trying
all
of
these
other
or
after
looking
at
all
of
these
other
policy
elements
that
the
developers
still
face
its
facing
some
sort
of
physical
constraint,
then
they
would
be
able
to
request
up
to
ten
percent
of
the
remaining
requirement
to
be
taken
off
of
their
requirement
due
to
a
variety
of
sources,
including
or
de
variety
of
conditions,
including
underground
immovable
utilities,
Metro
tunnels
or
size
and
configuration
or
a
historic
building.
That's
intended
to
be
preserved
and
reused
as
part
of
the
project.
C
Two
final
modifications
that
staff
have
made
are
additions.
That
staff
have
made.
We
are
proposing
that
the
minimum
number
of
handicap
spaces
be
set
above
the
that
which
would
be
required
in
the
building
code.
I
can
get
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
that
later,
but
one
of
the
responses
that
we've
made
from
speaking
with
the
disability,
Advisory
Committee,
is
to
increase
that
minimum
amount.
That
must
be
provided
as
handicapped
accessible.
C
Finally,
in
response
to
concerns
about
slowing
redeveloped
of
surface
parking
or
somehow
impacting
other
neighborhoods
just
outside
of
the
Metro
corridors,
we
are
including
provision
where
the
off-site
shared
parking
would
only
be
allowed
in
other
structured
garages
and
only
within
the
to
Metro
corridors.
You
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
your
off-site
shared
parking
somewhere.
A
few
blocks
north
of
the
Metro
planning
areas
during
briefings
with
you
all.
C
We
did
here
general
support
for
a
few
of
the
provisions
of
the
policies
laid
out
here
and
at
your
request,
we
did
make
another
offer
of
presentations
to
civic
associations.
We
made
three
of
those
presentations
in
the
month
of
June,
but
of
course
there
are
some
questions
that
I
think
remain,
and
so,
in
addition
to
simply
answering
any
clarifying
questions
you
might
have
now
or
anything
else
that
you
want
to
hear
from
us.
A
F
Think
Stephen
did
a
great
job.
I
just
want
to
thank
Stephen
and
and
Susan
for
all
their
help.
Also,
the
other
staff
that
are
with
us.
We
have
other
staff
that
have
joined
us
and
I
really
appreciate
their
willingness
to
make
themselves
available.
It
wasn't
just
transportation
staff.
We
have
affordable
housing
staff
that
did
some
great
research
as
well,
so
bang-up
job
by
staff,
great
support
of
the
working
group
and
Susan.
F
A
All
right,
well,
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
for
you
well
since
slide
20
tees
up
two
particular
questions.
Let's
start
with
the
first
one
and
the
way
I
interpret
this
question
is:
do
you
support
more
flexibility
for
projects
closer
to
Metro
you
are,
is
the
question
meant
to
the
flexibility
is
built
into
your
recommendation
correct,
so
it
really
gets
down
to
the
flexibility
and
if
we
gotta
go
back
to
the
slide
early
on
that,
where
is
that
one
slide?
A
Eight
okay
slide,
eight,
which
essentially,
on
the
bottom
axis
talks
about
one
eighth
of
a
mile,
1/4
1/2,
3/4
and
then
more
than
three
quarters
where
there
is
a
sliding
scale
clearly
based
on
proximity
to
metro,
and
so
your
first
question
is:
does
that
make
sense?
Is
that
right
to
have
a
sliding
scale
with
metro
at
the
fulcrum,
correct?
Okay?
G
You
know
the
additional
contributions
to
bike
share
or
car
sharing.
I
have
some
questions
about
the
the
constrained
property
criteria
and
how
that
would
interact
with
other
kind
of
you
know,
bonuses,
but
but,
as
laid
out
here,
I
think
this
is
this
is
thoughtful
and
the
way
it's
presented
is
really
helpful
and
reflects
a
great
way
of
thinking
about
this
right.
Proximity
to
transit
is
long,
guided
our
planning
principles
and
ought
to
be
reflected
here
as
well.
So.
A
E
Job:
okay,
okay,
thanks
mr.
chairman,
so
so
certainly
not
an
issue
for
me
in
terms
of
of
keying,
this
off
of
affordability
and
distance.
My
question
is
really
a
little
more
a
little
more
detail.
Oriented
in
that
you
know
you
have
this
gradation
40%
50%
60%
of
ami
and
I'm,
just
wondering
how
data-driven
that
was
in
terms
of
understanding
it
at
those
levels.
What
the
what
the
car
ownership
data
shows
for
for
folks
in
those
economic
strata,
so
I.
C
Think
one
slide
that
I
have
in
an
appendix
here
talks
to
a
degree
about
the
vehicle
ownership
patterns
that
we've
seen
in
the
county.
So
a
variety
data
sources
all
tell
the
same
story
that
vehicle
ownership
increases
with
income
in
the
Metro
corridors
and
the
county
as
a
whole.
I
think
some
of
the
figures
on
the
left
are
a
little
bit
closer
to
your
exact
question.
So
70%
of
the
households
that
receive
Housing,
Choice
vouchers
in
Arlington
do
not
own
a
vehicle.
C
That's
data
from
the
Department
of
Human
Services,
those
are
households
that
are
generally
below
40%
of
area
median
income,
those
who
are
at
approximately
60%
of
ami,
a
third
of
those
or
I'm.
Sorry
28%
of
those
do
not
own
a
vehicle
and
37%
of
the
households
at
40%
of
am
I,
do
not
own
a
vehicle.
Now
those
figures
are
on.
The
left
are
countywide,
so
that's
not
within
the
corridors.
Exactly
some
of
the
rationale
behind
then
setting
these
different
policy
thresholds
was
based.
C
It's
based
not
only
in
lower
demand
for
parking
or
vehicle
ownership
among
lower
income
households.
It's
also
based
on
the
direction
in
the
master
transportation
plan
and
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
to
simply
reduce
the
cost
of
producing,
affordable
housing,
and
so
knowing
how
much
a
parking
space
costs.
We
are
also
proposing
a
a
set
of
benchmarks
or
a
set
of
thresholds.
C
That
is
not
just
about
the
fact
that
households
with
fewer
with
less
income
own
fewer
vehicles
in
general,
but
also
that
we
are
trying
to
make
these
units
more
affordable
to
produce
housing
staff,
was
clear
that,
basically
anything
we
can
do
to
get
the
production
of
40%
of
ami
units
is
going
to
be
helpful
and
that
we
really
need
to
allow
down
to
zero
to
get
more
production
of
those
units
and
the
50%
of
AMI.
It
was
set.
You
know,
below
the
60%
in
order
to
simply
incentivize
further
the
creation
of
those
50%
targeted
units.
C
E
Mccourt
miles
it
looks
like
it's,
you
know
we're
kind
of
in
the
zone,
except
that
it
doesn't
drop
down
to
zero
for
what
would
be
to
40%
of
ami
and
then
and
then
the
the
green
bar
in
the
middle
is
a
little
higher
and
I
know
that
a
lot
of
this
is
aspirational,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
any
thoughts
as
to
how
long
you
you
you
envision,
that
it
could
take
to.
You
know
to
get
the
parking
demand
down
down
south,
so
to
speak
more
than
it
is
now.
C
Good
question
I:
what
I
would
what
I
would
say
is
really
key
for
looking
at
these
green
bars
is
that
this
is
basically
any
committed
of
100%
committed,
affordable
project
and
there
are
no
committed,
affordable
projects.
Nor
does
housing
staff
expect
that
there
would
be
any
all
40%
of
ami
projects.
So
these
green
bars
that
you
see
here
are
based
on
projects
that
have
a
mix
of
60%,
50%,
40%
and
any
project.
It's
not
that
all
units
go
to
the
least
common
denominator
of
0.
C
It's
simply:
okay,
we'll
stop
tabulate
your
number
of
50%
units
tabulate,
your
number
of
40%
units,
tabulate
your
number
of
60%
units,
and
then
your
minimum
is
just
multiplied
by
each
of
those.
So
I
think
that
part
of
what
you
see
here
is
the
blending
of
different
income
groups
within
any
particular
project,
which
is
what
you
would
also
see
going
forward.
E
I
H
So
miss
Garvey
we're
looking
at
the
slide
and
as
I'm
understanding
it
slide.
24
Thank
You
mr.
pizzette
70%
of
people
who
receive
Housing,
Choice
vouchers,
formerly
known
as
section
8,
don't
own
a
vehicle
but
37%
of
low-income
households,
roughly
not
an
exact
proxy,
but
roughly
that
demographic,
don't
own
vehicle.
So
people
who
are
on
who
received
the
vouchers
only
three
and
ten
have
a
car.
Where
is
for
those
households
of
that
general
income,
demographic
overall,
roughly
six
and
ten
do.
C
So
I
don't
have
a
good
answer
for
you
right
now,
because
those
do
come
from
two
different
data
sets.
So
the
lower
one
comes
from
our
most
I'm,
sorry,
that
is
actually
from
the
Census
Bureau,
the
numbers
that
you
see
there
in
the
bottom,
the
28%
and
a
37%.
So
I
don't
know
how
well
the
census
picks
up.
People
who
participate
in
the
Housing
Choice
Voucher
program,
but
I
can
certainly
follow
up
with
DHS
on
the
figure
that
they've
reported
to
us.
C
J
H
C
G
G
Mean
I
how,
as
we've
talked
about
right,
there
are
folks
who
live
in
committed,
affordable
units
who
do
not
participate
in
the
Housing
Choice
Voucher
program.
There
are
many
people
where
you
say
the
housing
for
sure
about
your
burger
man,
do
live
and
committed
affordable,
but
it's
there
they're,
not
interchangeable
right
and
that
could
be
they're.
H
A
B
Just
sorry,
I'm,
just
a
little
nervous
about
that
when
I
guess
I'd
like
to
see
a
little
more
data
and
a
little
more
convincing,
and
it
may
be
that
it
depends
on
where
people
live
and
it's
different
in
the
Boston
quarter
than
it
is
in
along
Columbia
Pike.
But
as
I
say,
there
are
a
number
of
people
that
are
in
service
jobs.
They've
got
to
be
driving
all
the
time.
A
C
Obviously,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
still
believe
that
the
affordable
housing
developer
partners
in
this
community
are
striving
to
create
housing.
That
is
a
benefit
to
the
people
that
they
are
seeking
to
house,
and
so,
if
they
see
a
need
for
providing
housing
for
people
who
do
not
work
near
metro
or
have
other
life
circumstances
that
require
to
them
cars,
we
generally
trust
and
hope
that
they
will
be
building
for
that,
not
just
the
minimum.
C
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
perhaps
one
unit
or
one
project
that
doesn't
have
enough
parking,
it
may
that
one
project
may
not
serve
the
needs
of
all
low-income
households,
but
we
think
that
it
is
helpful
to
foster
the
production
of
any
income
targeted
housing
in
this
community
as
it
becomes
less
affordable.
Thank.
B
E
So
if
we
could
go
to
slide,
15
I'd
like
to
get
a
little
more
understanding
of
how
you
calculated
the
the
visitor
parking
addition
which,
which
I
applaud
I,
think
it's
it's
sorely
needed.
The
and
related
to
that
I'm
wondering
you
met
you,
rattled
off
all
the
Commission's
and
so
forth
and
in
groups
that
you
spoke
with.
Did
you
speak
with
our
Economic
Development
Commission,
specifically,
let.
C
Me
answer
that
second
one
first,
because
that's
quicker
so
Economic
Development,
Commission
elected
to
have
an
information
item
presented
by
one
of
the
working
group
members
back
at
its
meeting
in
March.
They
asked
us
to
make
a
presentation
to
Economic
Development
Commission
when
we
were
ready
for
action,
so
I
have
not
made
a
presentation
or
has
other
staff
made
a
presentation
on
this?
However,
we
have
spoken
with
AED
and
there
was
I.
Yes,
one
of
the
one
of
the
members
on
the
working
group
was
from
Economic
Development
Commission,
okay,.
E
C
C
C
K
K
Both
of
the
our
Metro
corridors
are
built
on
a
sea
of
commercial
parking,
much
of
which
goes
unused
in
the
evenings
and
on
weekends,
and
if
you
look
at
the
County
Park
Arlington
website,
you'll
see
all
of
the
commercial
garages
with
occupancy.
That
is,
in
some
cases
very
low.
So
in
terms
of
augmenting
the
on
street
supply
I
would
really
look
first
to
that
commercial
parking
resource,
because
literally
it
is
thousands
and
thousands
of
contiguous
spaces
in
the
case
of
Crystal
City
in
these
residential
buildings.
K
You're
talking
about
very
small
increments
of
parking.
That
really
are,
in
this
case
intended
to
serve
people
going
to
that
building
people
visiting
households
in
that
building,
so
I
would
just
say
that,
in
terms
of
addressing
the
business
healthy
friendliness
of
our
Metro
corridors,
you
know
continuing
to
promote
the
availability
of
that
that
publicly
accessible
commercial
parking
would
be
very
important
along
with
managing
the
own
Street
spaces
and,
as
mr.
Krim
said,
having
more
foot
traffic
in
our
Metro
corridors
is
actually
very
good
for
business.
How.
K
E
G
Yeah
I
actually
wanted
to
ask
some
questions
about
the
visitor
parking
as
well,
and
it's
similar
one
of
inquiry.
So
first
I'm
really
delighted
to
see
the
the
revised
proposal
for
the
point:
O
5
spaces
per
visitor
I.
Think
given
this
hypothesis,
which
seems
relatively
sound,
that
it's
actually
visitors,
not
residents
driving
the
parking,
really
appreciate
the
attempt
to
address
what
actually
is
causing
the
challenges
or
at
least
tight,
some
intensive
demand
for
the
on
streets
parking
spaces
during
certain
hours.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
C
G
C
G
I'm
I
just
suggest
not
only
because
I
think
this
is
interesting
in
a
that's
actually
possible.
This
policy,
rather
than
exacerbating
the
demand
for
on
street
parking,
could
actually
start
to
reverse
the
trends
or
send
them
in
opposite
directions.
If,
in
fact,
our
hypothesis
proves
true
that
what's
spiking
the
demand
is
visitors
because
there
might
be
additional
supply
of
visitor
spaces
relative
to
current,
although
I
understand
it's
sort
of
hard
to
assess
that
you'd
have
to
do
it
garage
by
garage
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
ask
the
information
problem.
G
You
know
that
sort
of
undergirds
we
have
might
have
underutilized
supply
and
the
reason
it's
not
being
distributed
or
matching
demand
is
because
the
information
problem.
So
mr.
leach
you
mentioned
apps
I
know
you
know
one
of
the
other
things
that
that
we've
seen
is
a
kind
of
physical,
cues
or
environment,
or
things
that
sort
of
direct
people
in
real
time.
I
do
wonder
you
know
if
this
is
our
biggest
challenge,
and-
and
this
is
evocative
of
conversations
we've
had
recently
in
terms
of,
for
example,
the
Wilson
school
site
in
Rosslyn.
G
L
Can
I
just
suggest
and
I'm
not
going
to
opine
but
as
a
topic
to
be
thrown
on
the
table
at
this
point,
there's
also
an
economic
issue
which
is
it
typically
costs
more
to
park
in
a
garage
and
people
prefer
to
pay
at
a
meter
where
it's
a
lot
cheaper
or
find
a
free
space.
So
I
think
that
the
economics
of
it
are
a
big
barrier
to
people
seeking
the
the
very
readily
available
parking
in
garages.
So.
K
Say
that
it
is
a
fairly
labor
intensive
effort
to
partner
to
up
with
apps
providers
and
and
the
many
commercial
garage
owners
that
may
or
may
not
want
to
cooperate.
I
think
this
could
be
a
very
useful
role
of
our
bids.
Our
three
largest
commercial
office
districts
are
Rosalind,
Boston
and
Crystal,
City
and
they're
all
about
making
those
places
easier
to
travel
to
and
from,
and
so
they
could
provide
the
forum
for
for
some
more
focus
work
in
this
area.
It's.
A
Can
we
go
to
slide
down
I
want
to
walk
through
these
slides
I
guess
you
could
start
with
the
first
ten,
where
you
lay
out
these
these
charging
you
these
charts,
that
you
begin
to
layer
on
things.
So
I
get
the
first
one.
So
if
you
go
to
the
second
one,
this
is
approved
ratios
for
what,
for
residential
buildings
correct.
A
So
one
of
the
challenges
with
the
bars
like
this
or
one
of
the
things
that
might
be
helpful
to
refine
a
little
into
the
future
is
this
suggests
that
it
up
to
a
quarter
mile.
You
had
ranges
from
just
under
point
six
up
to
one
point:
two
five,
but
it
doesn't
tell
you
like.
Ninety
percent
were
at
one
point,
two,
five
and,
and
ten
percent
were
at
point.
Six
is
that
is
that
something
that
somehow
could
be
reflected
in
the
barque
is
the
bar
I?
C
Always
that
they're
ready
trying
to
be
so
anyway.
These
are
the
ratios
multifamily
site
plans
has
approved
between
2010
and
2016,
so
you
do
see
that
there
is
some
influence
of
outliers
there
in
2014
we
work
we
live
was
approved.
That
was
a
point.
Five
six
and
then
2015
Boston
Common
was
approved
two
point:
seven
it
for
the
most
part,
the
other
project
or
I'm.
Sorry,
aside
from
those
two
through
2016,
all
projects
have
been
at
point
eight
or
above.
A
A
C
A
I
got
my
my
point.
Is
it's
hard?
There
is
a
there's,
a
reaction
to
looking
at
these
bars
and
some
of
them
you
know,
leave
you
with
an
impression,
the
only
one,
for
example,
on
slide
12,
where
anything
comes
close
to
the
excess
threshold
that
you're
creating
is
in
the
last
bar,
and
we
don't
know
if
that's
just
one
project-
and
you
know
everything
else
is
lower
because
everything
else
is
below
so.
C
To
get
perhaps
a
little
more
technical
about
this,
so
the
bars
represent
all
values,
except
for,
like
the
mathematical
outlier.
So
if
you
were
to
look
at
like
a
histogram
which
is
like
a
you,
know,
a
box
and
then
some
lines
coming
off
of
it
to
show
the
distribution
box
and
whisker
plot.
Thank
you.
Yes,
this
represents
that
full
range,
but
it
does
not
include
outliers,
which
is
just
basically
a
function
of
how
far
away
they
are
from
the
mean.
C
A
C
So
there
are
two
data
sources
that
feed
into
those
bars.
One
is
the
results
of
our
multi,
our
residential
site
plan
performance
monitoring
studies,
which
are
carried
out
on
a
periodic
basis
per
site,
planned
condition
as
part
of
those
studies.
Team
goes
in
and
counts
the
number
of
cars
in
the
garage
and
then
counts
every
car
that
comes
in
and
out
with
some
recalibration
and
rechecking
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
a
few
times
the
property
owner.
C
Does
we
hire
consultants
that
do
that
the
development
pays
for
it,
but
is
then
money
paid
to
the
county
and
we
manage
the
other
source
of
data
is
Commissioner
of
Revenue
vehicle
registration
data.
Now,
because
registration
does
not
equal
vehicles
present
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
it
could
be
visitors,
it
could
be
people
trying
to
evade
taxation.
What
have
you
we
adjusted?
C
A
C
So
what
you
see
here
is
a
mix
of
those
two
data
sources
and
again
I'd
be
happy
to
provide
you
with
more
detailed
break
out.
But
so
that
means
that
say
at
the
1/8
of
a
mile
we
saw
a
building
with
as
little
as
0.7
cars,
parked
per
apartment
or
0.7
vehicles
registered
per
apartment.
With
that
margin
added
back
on
up
to
as
many
as
1.1
cars
parked
per
vehicle
when
we
were
monitoring
the
garages
or
1.1
of
the
adjusted
registration.
So.
A
C
In
order
to
be
able
to
show
you
this,
we
had
to
separate
out
the
buildings
in
our
data
set
that
were
100%
community
committed,
affordable
now
mixed
right,
so
a
few
projects
that
got
committed,
affordable
or
they
included,
committed,
affordable
units
on-site
those
are
in
there.
That's
I,
don't
in
mixed.
A
C
Condo
and
apartment
terms
of
lead
or
right
so
this
was
this-
was
a
topic
of
a
lot
of
discussion.
Yes,
people
in
condos
generally
owned
more
vehicles
than
those
who
live
in
rental
apartments.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
whether
or
not
to
separate
those
out
for
the
purpose
of
policy.
However,
of
course,
at
the
site
plan,
approval
process
or
site
plan
approval.
We
do
not
ask
for
just
you
know,
distinction
between
the
two.
C
So
for
that
reason,
because
the
policy
Direction
early
on
in
the
working
group
process
and
the
staff
processes
well
we're
not
going
to
create
separate
policy,
we
didn't
continue
to
show
them
separated
out.
Although
I
do
believe
that
we're
able
to
separate
I
do
believe
somewhere,
I
have
a
chart
produced,
such
as
the
apartment
and
applicant.
A
Is
coming
in
and
they
they
believe
they're
building
a
condo
building.
They
will
probably
take
that
into
account
as
well.
So,
okay
can
we
go
to
the
next
one,
then
just
as
I
work
through
these,
and
you
know.
Obviously,
if
you
look
at
this,
even
with
the
you
know,
imperfections
of
these
bars,
you
know
and
what
they
mean,
the
only
one
that
really
easily
hits
the
proposal
or
the
future
potential
minimum
is
the
affordable.
C
Correct
I
think
what
yeah
yes
I
mean
the
one
of
the
difficulties
in
talking
about
parking,
minimums
and
I.
Think
everybody
on
staff
is
also
guilty
of
this.
Sometimes.
Is
it
because
that's
the
number
that
you
see
printed,
it's
really
easy
to
anchor
your
thought
process
on
that,
so
to
look
at
it
another
way,
maybe
look
at
it
as
like.
What
we're
talking
about
you
know,
free
and
clear,
is
everything
above
these
with?
C
A
So
cut
it
in
half
almost.
Let
me
ask
one
one:
I'm
gonna
turn
to
my
colleagues
to
see
if
you
have
follow-up
questions,
but
I
have
one
now
for
Susan
Bell,
because
you
just
mentioned
something.
You
said
this
no
cost
until
you
get
to
the
dotted
line,
which
is
way
too
high.
In
my
view,
the
dotted
line
is
is
too
high,
but
Susan
was
here
when
we
went
through
the
commercial
parking
ratio
process.
A
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
value
to
the
property
owner
the
developer
of
reducing
the
number
of
spaces
they
needed
to
build
and
at
the
same
time
we
have
something
to
gain.
If,
in
fact,
we
accomplished
our
policy
goals,
but
there
was
a
different
contribution
made
and
a
system
put
in
place
for.
A
Compensation
or
contribution
to
the
TDM
program
and
the
other
aspects
of
transportation,
management
and
choices
that
were
seen
to
be
important
to
bolster.
If
fact,
we
were
going
to
allow
or
encourage
someone
to
reduce
their
cost
by
building
fewer
spaces,
that
the
only
benefit
wasn't
the
environment
etc.
So
has
that
been
discussed
in
this
context
is
how
do
you
place
a
dollar
value
on
the
savings
and
have
some
of
that
savings
recouped
to
ensure
or
reinforce
that
the
reduced
parking
will
work.
M
M
1
/
1800
for
the
new
buildings
in
Rosslyn.
That
would
have
managed
garages
and
the
group
felt
that
we
needed
to
come
up
with
ratios,
unique
to
those
different
geographies
and
the
different
underlying
policies
that
supported
those
different
kinds
of
ratios
in
actual
approvals,
and
we
did
rely
heavily
on
what
had
been
approved.
What
had
been
built
and
what
was
waiting
to
actually
start
construction.
The
developers
on
the
group,
as
well
as
the
citizen
members,
were
interested
in
contributing
to
other
sources
of
transportation
through
enhanced
TDM
or
through
dollar
amounts,
but
they
felt
very
strongly.
M
The
working
group
I
mean
that
it
was
not
appropriate
to
put
a
parking
maximum
on
the
overall
policy,
so
when
the
ratios
were
established
for
each
of
the
station
areas,
the
notion
was
that
it
was
better
to
put
money
in
a
fund
to
deal
with
the
mitigation
of
impacts
on
transit,
as
opposed
to
some
of
the
other
options
that
this
group
has
considered.
You
know
were
several
years
out
from
the
commercial
working
study,
I'm,
not
sure
that
everybody
would
say
that
the
approach
that
was
taken
with
commercial
parking
spent,
a
home
run
very
few
office.
M
M
A
huge
demand
factor
in
the
nature
of
the
trips
that
come
out
of
a
residential
property
are
very
different
than
those
that
come
out
of
an
office
property
and
the
inventory
of
office
parking
spaces
is
very,
very
much
understood
to
be
wide
open,
given
heavy
federal
use
of
transit,
even
today,
so
I
think
some
of
the
other
elements
that
have
been
added
to
this
proposal,
everything
from
the
exchange
of
parking
spaces
for
bike
share
or
for
some
other
kind
of
bike
bike
spaces.
Additional
car
share
spaces.
M
A
A
C
A
It
kind
of
contradicts
I
think
what
you
just
said,
because
it's
I
might
not
miss,
am
I
missing
it
because,
ultimately,
the
point
is
that
if
a
person
building
a
residential
high-rise
building
gets
to
build
less
parking,
those
are
really
expensive
spaces
right
and
we're
encouraging
that
and
we're
saying
if
that
is
a
six
million
dollar
savings
in
construction.
We'd
love
for
two
million
of
that
or
1.5
million
of
that
or
something
that's.
A
What
I
remember
happening
in
the
commercial
side
to
help
bolster
not
just
to
reduce
the
parking
more
but
to
help
bolster
the
TDM
program
to
ensure
that,
above
and
beyond
whether
it's
the
residents
having
Metro
passes
for
a
little
while
longer
or
how
you
in
fact,
incentivize
and
bolster
the
tedium
and
other
transportation
choices,
see
what
I'm
saying
it's
the
the
net
here.
The
net
is
a
savings
to
the
developer
period
without
some
portion
of
it
going
back
to
help
even
reinforce
and
make
sure
that
it
works.
A
F
Phys
ed
I'm
happy
to
kind
of
weigh
in
about
what
the
working
group
discuss
on
this.
As
mr.
Krim
noted,
we
did
have
a
robust
discussion
on
this
matter
where
the
working
group
got
to,
though,
was
kind
of
wanting
to
incentivize
hitting
these
aspirational
targets.
We
want
projects
to
come
that
provide
less
parking,
and
so
to
do
that,
we
want
to
penalize
the
overproduction
of
parking,
not
sort
of
penalize
the
under
production,
and
so
there
was
a
robust
discussion
about
okay.
Well,
how
do
you
still
provide
the
TDM
measures?
F
J
F
Staff
provided
some
good
backgrounds
on
the
difficulty
and
using
some
of
the
TDM
that
we
currently
have,
and
mr.
Krim
can
hardly
jump
in
here
and
talk
about
that
and
also
heard
from
some
from
the
development
community
that
they
don't
necessarily
feel.
And
this
is
anecdotal,
but
that
people
are
avoiding
trips
because
of
the
smart
trip
passes
and
so,
and
mr.
Crain
may
want
to
take
over
here.
But
that's
kind
of
what
we
discuss
and
kind
of.
Why.
We
got
to
this
point.
F
A
Guess
I
would
add
in
it
and
I
love.
Your
comments
on
this,
too,
is
I.
If
the
only
penalty
is
for
overproducing
I.
Don't
think
this
is
gonna.
Do
anything
for
overproducing
just
because
where
that
dotted
line
is,
is
so
high,
no
one
will
be
penalized.
In
other
words,
we
haven't
had
anything
I
think
we
heard
in
10
years
come
in
the
parking
ratio
above
that
dotted
line.
So
there
really
is
built
into
this,
at
least
at
the
moment,
no
penalty.
Sure.
F
A
comment
on
that
mr.
said,
if
I
might
is
the
working
group,
some
of
these
were
kind
of
negotiations,
as
you
would
expect,
and
some
folks
that
are
on
the
table
didn't
want
there
to
be
any
threshold
set
and
some
felt
that'll
kind
of
kind
of
fall.
In
your
point,
a
lower
one
should
be
set,
and
this
was
this
was
a
compromise
position
to
kind
of
get
some
consensus
around
the
table.
So.
A
L
So
you
get
things
in
that
range
and
if,
in
trying
to
capture
as
you
reduce,
if
you
reduce
below
the
zoning
requirement,
if
you
try
to
capture
that
value,
here's
why
there
you
should
be
removing
barriers
instead
of
instead
of
trying
to
create
trying
to
capture
that
value
is
because
what
mr.
Krim
was
just
describing
in
the
beginning.
L
L
And
so
that's
that's
I.
Think
I
can't
speak
for
the
conversation
that
the
working
group
had,
but
in
the
conversations
that
I've
had
with
staff.
That's
why
it's
good
and
that's
why
we
should
be
removing
barriers
to
lowering
the
amount
of
parking,
because
we
want
people
who
don't
have
cars,
who
are
more
likely
than
to
use
public
transportation,
and
these
alternative
forms
no.
H
H
It's
to
what
extent
is
this
a
latent
demand
versus
reduced
demand
issue
and
to
what
extent
does
this
create
spillover
and
consequences
in
other
areas
that
we're
not
really
measuring
well
or
we
don't
fully
have
a
handle
on
and
I
think
that's
really
kind
of
part
of
it,
but
if
I
could
get
to
the
next
question
before
we
kind
of
leave
this
whole
value
conversation
the
three
examples
of
what
would
further
allow
a
reduction
in
parking
yeah.
This
slide
I
think
part
of
what
I'm
wrestling
with
here
is
from
a
business
standpoint
this
this
would.
H
This
is
starting
to
get
into
the
realm
of
a
good
business
practice
for
any
new
multi-family
development
of
any
kind.
You're
gonna
probably
want
as
an
amenity,
to
put
a
Capital
Bikeshare
there.
You're
gonna
want
to
have
car
sharing
access.
You're
gonna
want
to
have
you
know
electric
charging
locations?
To
what
extent
are
we
providing
further
abilities
to
reduce
create
value
that
you're
not
sharing
for
things
that
are
really
part
of
what
a
proper
business
plan
ought
to
be?
H
I
mean
this
is
not
scaled
to
be
like
lead
and
bonus
density,
for
example,
that
has
constantly
evolved
and
updated
to
new
norms.
This
is
kind
of
a
static
point
in
time
that
I
think
over
time
will
become
very
normal
for
anybody
who
wants
to
build
anything-
and
you
know
we're
not
getting
any
benefit
from
that.
C
Well,
first,
that
I
would
I
would
argue
that
any
private
support
of
networks
that
we
want
to
see
I
mean,
because
you
know,
bike
share
and
car
share
are
networks
whether
or
not
there's
a
private
individual
using
them.
Obviously,
the
more
you
people
who
have
participating
the
better
cost
recovery
you
have
the
especially
on
the
bike
share
side.
So
there
is
a
benefit
to
the
community,
though
indirect
is
simply
encouraging
the
developers
to
provide
these
benefits.
C
The
only
other
thing
I'll
say
is
that
you
know
it
is
somewhat
alluded
to
by
mrs.
Bell
and
mr.
leach
TDM
in
residential
context
is
different
from
TDM
in
office
contexts
and
really,
at
the
end
of
the
day.
The
most
effective
form
of
TDM
in
a
residential
context
is
having
tenants
or
owners
or
community
members
who
simply
own
fewer
vehicles,
because
once
the
vehicle
is
already
there,
it's
already
more
likely
to
be
used
at
the
commercial
end.
C
There's
a
lot
that
can
be
done
by
employers
through
transit
benefits
or
buildings,
through
other
incentives
like
that,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
with
residential.
It's
about
attracting
that
kind
of
household
with
that
kind
of
lifestyle
in
the
first
place-
and
these
are
the
kinds
of
amenities
that
also
attract
those
households
to
a
given
project.
Specifically.
K
K
H
All
right
and
then
the
next
question
concerns
so
I
and
I
would
I
would
I
would
expect
that
the
bike
spaces
those
would
be
captured
for
the
life
of
the
site
plan.
Yet
for
the
other
two
they're
their
limited
terms
there,
and
can
you
just
give
us
a
sense
of
how
you
arrived
at
those
being
appropriate
terms
too?
C
Part
of
the
challenge
was
setting
any
of
these
time.
Horizons
is
setting
them
such
that
they're,
not
too
long
such
that
nobody
would
ever
take
advantage
of
them,
because
if
some
of
these
time
frames
are
decades
long,
then
you
just
I
mean
we
could
have
it
in
policy,
but
nobody
would
ever
actually
make
these
kinds
of
investments.
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
something
that
is
at
least
some
minimal
amount,
but
isn't
so
onerous
that
the
the
cost-benefit
analysis
doesn't
work
out.
C
H
C
A
C
So
the
additional
the
additional
element
here
beyond
the
space
is
that
there
has
to
be
the
guaranty
that
there
will
be
enterprise
or
Zipcar
actually
keeping
a
car
there.
Sometimes,
what
has
happened
in
the
past
is
that
a
car
share
space
will
be
provided,
but
the
operator
does
not
want
to
continue
servicing
that
location
because
they
aren't
getting
enough
users.
C
This
is
basically
a
revenue
guarantee
from
the
building
to
the
car
share
operator.
That
says,
you
will
continue
to
serve
my
building
and
will
agree
that
you
will
get
a
minimum
of
X
amount
of
dollars
every
year
in
order
for
you
to
stay
here
and
serve
my
residents
if
the
number
of
residents
using
it
meets
your
revenue
expectation
great,
we
pay
you
nothing
extra.
If
it
doesn't,
we
make
up
that
difference
now
in
terms
of
the
bike
share
expenses.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
have
that
right
behind
right
with
me.
C
I
M
C
That
that
would
be
the
annual
payment
and
there
is
a
built-in
maximum
for
our
tradition
for
our
existing
Capital
Bikeshare
sponsorship
agreements.
We
have
a
cap
of
five
percent
escalation
a
year,
so
there
would
be
you
know,
no
more
than
increasing
five
percent
each
year
for
the
operating
agreement
for
the
developer
would
propose
so.
H
We'll
assume
that
these
are
equivalents
just
say
roughly
generously
say
couple
hundred
thousand
dollars
all
in
in
terms
of
what
someone
would
pay
for
both
of
these
yet
and
as
few
as
six
or
as
many
as
few
as
three
in
as
many
as
six
years,
they
could
then
devote
those
spaces
to
revenue
generating
spaces
within
the
building.
It's.
C
Well,
the
car
share
would
likely
be
in
it
could
be
in
their
garage.
It
could
be
on
property
but
accessible.
It's
not
a
guarantee
that
we
wouldn't
set
out
where
the
car
share
space
would
need
to
be.
But
you
are
correct
that
for
Capital
Bikeshare,
it's
not
like
there's
space
in
the
garage
that
suddenly
becomes
free,
they're.
C
H
It's
parking
spaces
or
space
for
whatever
purpose
it's
gonna
be
space.
That's
gonna
become
available
to
be
repurposed
in
some
other
way.
It
may
not
necessarily
be
for
density,
but
it
could
be
for
who
knows
what
the
bench
you
know,
outdoor
patio
space
I,
don't
know
we
can
just
be
creative,
but
at
some
point,
they're
gonna
have
they're
gonna,
get
dominion
over
either
space
on
a
garage
or
somewhere
else
on
their
property
for
a
couple
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
then
you've
got
at
the
same
time
for
the
bike
scenario.
H
H
A
C
B
A
I
B
You
assuming
I
just
made
missus,
are
you
you're,
assuming
that
they're
gonna
be
using
one
of
the
current
car
sharing
company
or
you
are?
Are
you
what
building
that
they
themselves
will
have
a
car
there
that
they're
gonna
like
take
care
of
and
provide
for
the
for
sharing
in
their
building,
and
they
would
manage
it
I'm,
assuming
you're
planning,
while
other
companies
doing
it.
We.
C
B
G
Point
of
view
is
that
it's
actually,
this
is
not
about
the
exchange
of
something
on
the
part
of
the
developer
for
contributions
of
the
multimodal
network,
which
is
what
we've
done
historically,
with
density
on
site
plans,
but
more
about
an
assumption
and
I
and
I
want
to
test
this
with
you
all
that
debt
and
I
think
this
is
what
miss
min
was
getting
at
fewer
parking
spaces
in
the
corridor
is
a
community
benefit,
irrespective
of
any
additional
contributions
to
the
multimodal
network.
Is
that
the
assumption
here
I.
F
Mean
it,
it
certainly
is,
is
one
of
them,
and
our
working
group
set
out
principles
and
kind
of
one
of
them
was
getting
to
that
point
that
you
know
that
the
less
supply
of
vehicles
there's
fewer
burdens
on
a
road
network.
You
know
more
multimodal,
and
so
there's
certainly
an
assumption
there
that,
to
your
point,
ms
crystal,
that
absent
any
kind
of
financial
benefit
that
there's
that
you
see
in
the
policy
that
mr.
Graham
is
walking
through.
F
There's
something
it's
hard
to
capture
customer
of
an
externality
that
it's
a
it's
a
positive
externality
that
we
know
we're
not
going
to
have
to
pay
as
much
for
road
maintenance.
We
maintain
our
most
of
our
own
roads
here,
among
other
things,
if
there
are
fewer
cars
on
the
road.
Ok,
it's
also
a
more
inviting
place
to
walk
and
bike.
I
mean
there's
other
benefits
that
are
sort
of
hard
to
capture.
K
K
We
don't
operate
in
a
vacuum
in
this
region.
The
district
already
has
far
lower
parking
requirements
and,
as
a
result,
has
far
more
Carles
households
that
are
using
transit
and
walking
for
most
of
their
trips.
To
what
extent
do
we
want
to
provide
more
of
a
market
for
those
households
that
are
self
selecting,
so
we're
in
a
region
of
6
million
people,
people
have
choices
of
where
they
can
rent
or
buy
housing.
K
Do
we
as
a
community,
want
more
transit,
centric
housing
with
with
less
parking
provided?
Our
metro
Carters
are
more
like
the
downtown
core
than
they
are
suburban,
Virginia
and
so
we're
at
a
crossover
zone,
and
this
policy
is
intended
to
be
forward-looking,
not
kind
of
reflecting
where
we
we've
been
so
I
think
that
is.
That
is
a
fundamental
question
for
this
board.
That.
G
Is
really
interesting,
actually
I
wonder
if
maybe
later
to
do
that
is
we
never
think
of
this?
We
think
all
the
time
about
competing
with
the
district
for
commercial
or
for
business
or
office
tenants.
What
you're
saying
is
that
we
want
to
be
competitive
with
the
district
for
a
certain
type
of
resident.
G
So
the
only
other
thing
I
wanted
to
test
here
is
I
wrap.
My
head
around
this
new
understanding
is,
there
is
a
little
bit
of
an
assumption
here.
I
think
based
on
was
MIT
and
was
saying
about
when
people
maybe
move
into
a
building
with
fewer
parking
spaces,
they
are
more
likely
to
use
transit,
but
I
want
to
just
test
a
little
bit
because
I
think
what
we've
seen
in
Crystal
City
in
Pentagon,
City
and
I
know.
We've
talked
about
this
in
other
contexts,
particularly
in
there.
G
K
That
is
correct.
We
had
this
is
in
our
to
to
toast
to
study.
We
saw
a
cresting
of
of
Drive
alone
that
crested
much
earlier,
we
saw
a
cresting
of
our
metro
ridership
in
2010
and
2011,
and
that
has
been
in
decline.
I
think
that
part
telework
is
part
of
that
people
using
it
for
people
because
of
reliability,
issues
making
different
decisions
about
whether
to
travel
and
I,
think
our
office
vacancy
rate
and
the
Pentagon
City
Crystal
City
areas
in
particular.
If
it
really
hurt
our
our
transit
share,
I
mean.
G
I
guess
I
think
the
thing
that
I
worry
a
little
bit
about
making
that
assumption
that
the
there
as
mr.
darcy's
put
it
there
is
a
creation
of
value
when
fewer
parking
spaces
are
built,
and
if
our
assumption
is,
we
will
capture
the
community's
share
of
that
value
through
increased
ridership
on
transit,
which
then
helps
us.
You
know
not
have
to
make
up
gaps
Ramada
if
those
things
aren't
actually
substitute
goods
right
and
there
are
plenty
of
people
who
may
come
with
fewer
vehicles,
but
but
not
actually,
then
become
writers
of
our
transit
networks.
G
H
H
You
know
someone
with
who
never
uses
their
flexible
residential
permit
and
they've
got
a
nice
side
deal
where,
instead
of
paying
for
the
parking
in
his
building,
he
uses
it
to
park
on
the
street,
and
you
know
it's
one
example,
but
I
am
sure
he's
not
the
only
one
who's
doing
this
in
Arlington,
so
I
just
really
would
love
to
to
figure
out
to
what
extent.
We
really
know
that
this
is
a
matter
of
parking
minimums,
reducing
demand
versus
our
being
a
place.
H
C
One
piece
of
evidence
I
do
have
on
me
tonight
is
this
slide
that
comes
from
our
the
same
data
set
that
I
showed
you
earlier
with
the
number
of
vehicles
parked
observed
in
buildings.
The
second
half
of
those
studies
that
we
do
at
site
plan
buildings
is
a
survey
of
the
occupants.
So
what
you
see
on
the
y-axis
here
is
the
number
of
off
street
spaces
per
unit
in
all
of
the
residential
buildings
that
we've
surveyed
and
then
on
the
y-axis.
C
What
you
see
is
the
number
of
vehicles
per
unit
that
the
residents
report
they
have
so,
regardless
of
where
they
park
it
or
anything
else,
that's
like
the
number
that
they
say
they
own.
So
you
do
see
a
relationship
between
the
number
of
spaces
per
unit
provided
and
the
number
of
cars
per
household,
as
reported
by
the
residents.
A
C
A
C
I
think
that
is
one
piece
of
evidence
about
the
relationship
between
vehicle
ownership
at
herbs
right
that
the
self
selection
that
happens
in
buildings
in
terms
of
travel
patterns,
I
mean
I.
Think
our
again,
some
of
the
study
that
was
done
and
compiled
by
a
CCS
on
through
the
residential
parking
studies
is
helpful
in
looking
at
mode
split
looking,
especially
for
commute
behavior
looking
at
the
non
commute
trip
is
a
little
more
difficult,
but
yes,
the
site
plan
I'm.
C
C
This
is
one
image
right.
This
is
one
data
set.
However,
it
is
consistent
with
studies
that
have
been
repeated
in
the
district
within
the
past
few
years
that
the
district,
Department
transportation,
underwrote
studies
have
been
completed
in
other
parts
of
North,
America
and
Europe
around
the
relationship
between
the
provision
and
price
of
parking
and
the
extent
to
which
it's
used.
Now,
just
quick
side
note
about
your
otherwise
upstanding,
individual,
hypothetical
or
real.
C
We'll
call
him
something
we
strongly
believe
in
our
off-street
here.
I'm
sorry
are
on
I'm
doing
the
same
thing
you
did
are
on
street
parking
policy
and
the
need
to
make
sure
that
that
is
effective
in
managing
on
street
demand.
So
to
the
extent
that
there
is
fraud
or
abuse
going
on,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
taken
care
of
I'm.
H
H
E
Mr.
chairman,
so
Miss
crystal
and
mr.
leach
alluded
to
this
just
a
few
minutes
ago,
and
and
one
of
the
things
that's
casting
a
pall
over
this
discussion,
I
think
which
we
haven't
talked
about
a
whole
lot
and
that
is
Metro
ridership
and
the
challenge
that
Metro
has
ridership
has
dropped,
been
dropping
since
2010
it's
been
dropping
in
Arlington,
along
especially
along
the
blue
and
yellow
lines,
but
also
along
the
orange
line.
So
I
guess.
My
question
is
how
how
given
the
fact
that
that's
the
case
are
our
goals
and
aspirations.
E
Here
you
know
even
more
fantastical
than
some
would
like
to
think,
because
we've
got
a
and
granted
some
some
of
the
decline
in
ridership
is
because
of
telecommuting
and
and
co-working
and
and
certain
other
kind
of
changing
lifestyle
factors.
But
a
lot
of
it
is
because
people
have
lost
evidence
in
Metro
and
their
unfortunately
and
I'm,
a
daily
Metro
user,
but
they're
getting
they're
getting
to
work
in
other
fashions,
including
cars
and
carpooling.
So
so,
where
is
that
in
the
quotient
here
and
here
in
the
equation?
K
Would
say
that
this
is
a
policy
that
is
oriented
towards
the
Metro
car
doors.
The
Metro
car
doors
are
built
on
rail,
we
pay
for
it.
It
is
really
in
this
community's
best
interest
to
have
full
utilization
of
that
rail
system,
and
it's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
were
the
first
to
partner
with
Metro,
to
do
customer
analysis
to
figure
out
how
to
actually
get
customers
back
on
the
system.
K
We've
got
a
number
of
things
that
have
worked
against
us
in
terms
of
ridership
I,
think
there
were
liability
issues
and
then
the
impact
of
safetrac
is
in
a
big
part
of
the
story.
A
tremendous
loss
of
federal
jobs
and
federal
contractor
jobs
in
our
Metro
corridors
is
another
piece
of
that
story,
and
it's
going
to
be
really
tough
to
get
those
workers
back,
we
can
fill
seats
and
we
can
have
standing
room
with
residents.
K
Much
of
the
Crystal
City
loss
is
loss
of
people
that
are
no
longer
working
there
and
we
have
some
of
that
same
thing
playing
out
in
places
like
Boston
and
Rosslyn
as
well,
but
so
getting
actually
transit
oriented
households
into
this
community
that
build
a
lifestyle
that
make
a
choice,
build
a
lifestyle
around
our
rail
and
bus
system.
I
think
is
really
important
for
us.
Mr.
E
K
E
Right,
I'm
sure
that
what
I'm
saying
is
the
relative
loss,
in
other
words,
since
2010
with
our
ridership
down.
Are
we
able
to
say
that
that
you
know
that
that
folks,
within
a
certain
radius
of
the
metro
station,
have
done
a
better
job
of
retaining
their
loyalty
to
Metro
versus
dissipating
to
other
transit
modes?
But
mr.
H
Leach,
while
you're
formulating
that
I
just
want
to
bring
a
little
context
on
this,
because
we're
kind
of
talking
about
a
bunch
of
different
things
and
actually
the
story
with
metros
a
little
more
nuanced.
It's
it's
down
its
peak
hour
travel
so
those
commuters
that
we
talked
about.
It's
not
about
5%
system.
H
H
This
is
not
to
say
that
we
don't
we're
not
concerned
about
ridership,
but
it's
it's
often
been
conflated
that
metros
overall
ridership
numbers
are
a
result
of
people
fleeing
Metro,
who
would
otherwise
be
the
ones
that
we're
designing
this
transit
network
for
and
that's
not
really
the
case-
I
mean
in
the
peak
hour.
People
still
use
it
because
it's
for
most
people
it's
the
best
option.
It's
much
better
than
driving
and
they're,
certainly
not
going
to
Buber
lyft
or
sprint
to
work.
So
anyway,
now
I
know.
K
It
is
actually
the
resident
population
that
fills
up
those
trains
in
the
off-peak
and
the
weekends.
If
the
service
is
there
to
support
them
and
as
Steven
showed
you
in
this
slide,
Karlis
household
is
likely
a
transit
household
or
even
a
household.
That
I
was
only
one.
Car
is
much
more
likely
to
be
a
regular
transit
user.
Okay.
E
E
Okay,
so
can
we
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
that?
What
I'm
curious
about
is
who
is
going
to
be
making
the
judgment,
call
as
to
whether
a
particular
property
has
these
physical
constraints
and-
and
are
you
planning
on
doing
some
sort
of
you
know
adding
color
to
this
or
or
commentary
that
would
give
folks
additional
guidance
as
to
when
something
might
fall
in
those
various
categories
and
then
finally,
can
you
can
you
think
by
example,
of
any
buildings
if
this
policy
were
in
effect
today
would
would
fit
within
this
box
in.
C
Terms
of
the
level
of
detail,
the
context
for
this
is
that
we
came
to
the
conclusion
when
trying
to
come
up
with
data
for
the
working
group
that
it's
very
difficult
to
put
some
sort
of
numerical
value
on
what
is
essentially
supposed
to
be
the
wild
card
situation,
but
we're
we're
bounding
the
wild
cards
a
little
bit.
So
the
idea
here
is
that
these
would
be
findings
recommended
by
staff
for
the
board
regarding
site
conditions.
C
Part
of
how
we're
trying
to
make
this
more
predictable,
though,
is
by
again
saying
that
this
is
supposed
to
be.
The
last
thing
you
go
to
now
in
terms
of
further
guidance,
I
think
the
guiding
document
that
we
will
produce
for
staff
will
have
more
information
about
how
we
define
these
things.
So,
for
example,
I've
spoken
with
the
Historic
Preservation
team.
Here
they
did
give
me
some
resources
like
lists.
C
You
would
perhaps
consult
for
whether
or
not
something
qualifies
as
historic,
and
then
they
also
said
you
know
what,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
can
call
us,
and
we
can
give
the
opinion
that
this
should
qualify
as
a
historic
building.
So
yes,
there
is
some
additional
detail
that
we
can
add,
but
it
is
not
as
quantitative
or
cut-and-dry
as
the
other
parts
of
the
policy
proposal.
What.
E
C
J
G
This
is
the
slide
just
when
I
think
I
grasped
the
framework.
This
slide
is
what
pulls
the
rug
out
from
under
me,
because
if
the
idea
is
that
it's
a
benefit
to
this
community
to
have
fewer
parking
spaces
built,
why
not
just
allow
10%
below
our
parking
minimums
and
if
developers
aren't
going
to
get
to
the
parking
minimums
at
least
not
anytime,
in
the
near
future,
because
it's
there
in
their
interest
to
build
parking?
C
I'm
sorry
I
heard
somebody
person
their
lips
like
they
wanted
to
contribute
and
I
don't
want
to
foreclose
that
I
think
that
that
you
raise
some
good
questions,
and
this
is
why
it's
a
difficult
topic
to
deal
with.
It
is
an
uncertainty
situation,
but
we
wanted
to
at
least
put
out
more
guidance
than
is
currently
there
about
when
to
say:
okay,
because
something
about
the
site,
you
can
have
this
reduction
I.
J
A
E
E
F
F
Well,
when
you
do
that,
it's
really
expensive,
and
so,
if
we're
trying
to
as
Steven
noted,
didn't
want
to
kind
of
set
size
parameters,
because
it's
kind
of
like
a
lot
of
things,
you
know
when
you
see
it,
but
there's
other
ways
to
have
an
inefficient
garage,
and
that
was
only
one
of
the
characteristics
we
wanted
to
talk
about.
The
working
groups
started
with
that
conversation,
they're
recognized
because
this
is
Metro
Corridor.
A
lot
of
what
you're
looking
at
is
immovable
objects,
you're,
looking
at
Metro
tunnels,
you're
looking
at
other
elements
underground.
F
That
cannot
be
moved
that
are
making
a
garage,
a
different
shape
than
would
be
ideal,
and
so-
and
yes,
this
is
kind
of
the
last
thing
you
get
to
in
a
kind
of
a
workflow
wanting
there
to
be
community.
Some
community
benefit
wanting
there
to
be
the
bike
spaces
wanting
to
be
the
other
things
to
offset
the
parking
first.
Can
you
get
down
to
a
floor
floor
plan
for
your
parking
with
padding
those
first
two
reduce
the
parking
that
you
need
to
produce
going.
E
C
E
F
H
I
think
what
Katie
articulated
well-
and
this
is
where
we've
we
have
sort
of
undermine
the
whole
argument
before
the
whole
rationale,
for
this
is
that
we
can
come
to
a
minimum
where
it's
kind
of
like
if
you
were
charting
this,
the
you'd
have
the
perfect
nexus
between
reducing
demand
and
latent
demand.
You'd
be
fine
and
you
wouldn't
have
any
negative
externalities
in
terms
of
spillover
and
other
consequences,
and
then
we're
saying,
on
top
of
that,
if
you
go
even
look,
you
can
go
even
lower.
H
On
the
first
hand,
if
you
provide
TDM
so
actual
reduction
strategies
to
accompany
or
reduction,
but
here
this
is
all
relief
for
someone
and
we're
not
capturing
that
relief
at
all
and
we're
dealing
with
all
of
the
consequences,
because
we're
below
that
point
at
which
we've
dealt
with
the
externalities,
but
we're
providing
relief
on
top
of
that
and
getting
nothing
for
it.
The
points
that
you
raised
are
all
great
yeah.
H
M
I
interject
something
on
that:
I
think
the
difference
is
having
an
underutilized
site
and
having
a
site
that
redevelops
and
contributes
a
great
deal
more
to
the
tax
base
to
the
walkability
of
the
community
to
the
built
environment.
So
you
can
have
a
Wendy's
there
forever
or
you
could
have
the
Pizza
Hut
that
used
to
be
on
Wilson
Boulevard.
That's
now
assisted-living,
you
could
have
had
the
parking
lot
where
the
Strayer
building
is
today.
M
Virtually
every
project
that
runs
up
and
down
this
section
of
Wilson
Boulevard
had
to
do
seismic
monitoring
because
of
the
proximity
to
the
tunnel
and
it
forced
their
garages
to
be
designed
and
constructed
in
a
way
that
no
one
would
consider
efficient,
and
this
one
is
by
no
means
the
worst
of
them.
So
I
think
to
the
original
point
of
your
question.
I
think
we
felt
that
that
site
that
remains
it's
sort
of
the
bad
tooth,
where
the
infrastructure
at
the
street
hasn't
been
done.
M
M
G
H
I
mean
if
we
accept
where
we
were
before,
like
we're:
gonna
arrive
at
a
point
where
we're
gonna
do
we're.
Gonna
do
actual
parking
levels
based
on
where
we
think
that
sweet
spot
is
and
then
these
are.
These
are
reductions
above
and
beyond
that,
and
then
we
get
past
all
of
the
TDM
strategies
and
then
we
get
into
a
10%
top
of
that
or
just
we
have
no
mechanism
to
deal
with
that.
We're
accepting
increased
tax
revenue,
but
accepting
all
of
the
risks
of
dealing
with
the
mitigation
as
well.
It.
M
G
M
And
they
may
have
asked
entirely
relieved
as
they
did
for
Strayer
entirely
really
because
they
couldn't
provide
any
or
in
the
case
of
the
Sall
project,
where
the
Trader
Joe's,
all
of
the
parking
for
the
North
Building,
is
actually
under
the
Trader
Joe's
and
the
residential
office.
Building
on
the
north
on
the
South
block.
A
A
Right
so
I
mean
that's
a
bit
of
an
answer,
because
the
Strayer
building
right
out
here
with
the
Sun
Trust
Bank
and
the
CVS
does
have
zero
parking
under
it.
I
mean
I
I,
remember
that
been
a
while
ago,
so
we're
sort
of
talking
about
this
slide,
but
it
goes
well
beyond
that.
We
have
complete
flexibility
regardless.
This
is
just
some.
M
And
provides
some
guidance
for
when
these
kinds
of
situations
come
up.
We
have
a
townhouse
project
in
Lion
Park
on
7th
Street.
They
were
supposed
to
underground
utilities
and
simply
couldn't
because
a
line
to
the
Pentagon
ran
under
their
site.
Now,
that's
not
you
know
analogous
entirely
did
this,
but
there
are
things
that
are
discovered
in
doing
engineering
and
in
doing
analysis
for
projects
that
aren't
always
known
beforehand.
That
are
legitimate
constraints,
not
something
that
the
developer
chose
to
avoid.
So.
H
F
G
C
N
N
A
Folks,
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
we're
going
to
talk
about
next
steps
and
then
try
to
try
to
see
if
there's
any
additional
guidance
of
things
we'd
like
people,
the
staff
and
consultant
to
further
flesh
out,
but
the
timeline
is
that
you
want
to
bring
this
to
the
board
for
a
request
to
advertise
in
September.
It's
that
correct
with
a
have
it
on
the
agenda
and
then
a
full
public
hearing
in
October.
Is
that
correct
Sanna?
What
I
understand?
Yes?
Yes,
all
right,
I'm,
gonna,
comment
and
I
think
these
were
some
comments.
A
A
That's
the
one
point,
seven
I
honestly,
don't
think
if
we
haven't
had
a
site
plan
in
ten
years
that
has
come
in
at
that
level.
I
have
no
idea
why
we
wouldn't
lower
that
maximum
and
remember
you
can
come
in
above
that
it
just
means
you
pay
a
penalty
because
you
are
contradicting
the
policy
goals
and
the
objectives
of
the
community,
so
I
don't
know
where
it
goes,
but
I
just
think
that
that's
a
useless
dotted
line
unless
we
bring
it
down.
So
does
anyone
else
agree
with
me
or
no
I.
G
Do
appreciate
the
thinking
there
I
think
we
have
some
work
to
do
as
a
community
to
get
around
the
idea
of
fewer
parking
spaces
being
in
all
of
our
interests
and
benefits.
I
think
this
conversations
been
productive,
we'll
continue
to
have
them
I,
don't
think
we're
there
yet
and
I.
No,
that's
where
a
lot
of
kind
of
leading-edge
communities
are
on
parking,
maximums,
no.
A
G
A
G
G
Know
I
know,
but
I
I
think
my
point
is
until
we
as
a
community
become
you
know,
really
more
anchored
in
our
understanding
of
what
minimums
we
agree
on
I.
Think
it's
just
a
lot
to
expect
those
in
the
development
community
to
kind
of
nail
it
right
hit
it
hit
it
right
to
be
within
a
particular
threshold.
I
would
rather
see
us
revisit
that
question
to
keep
it
high
for
now
and
revisit
that
question
some
number
of
years
to
come
and.
H
I
would
say:
I
think
the
number
is
probably
a
bit
too
high,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
number
is,
and
you
know
the
question
then
becomes
at
what
point
do
you
punish
excess
and,
while
I
think
excess
is
probably
while
I
think
sufficiency,
is
probably
a
lot
lower?
I'm,
not
sure
I
want
to
punish
excess
at
a
point
below
this,
because
this
is
a
this
is
a
new.
This
is
a
sea
change.
This
is
a
paradigm
shift
well.
A
A
C
H
A
A
C
A
Okay,
whatever
whatever
no
interest
in
that,
the
second
thing
was
something
mr.
Dorsey
raised,
which
was
the
length
of
commitment
and
I
know.
We
had
a
long
conversation
about
this
bike
share
and
the
car
share
length
of
commitment.
I,
don't
fully
understand,
I,
don't
see
the
equity
in
value
and
I.
Don't
understand
why
there
wouldn't
be
a
much
longer
commitment.
A
I
mean
you
can
have
that
car
share,
reduce
five
spaces,
save
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
five
spaces
and
then
not
have
to
pay
anything,
because
the
car
sure
is
paying
for
itself
through
a
private
company
and
the
users,
so
I
I,
just
don't
see
an
equity
there
at
all.
So
is
anyone
else
have
interested
in
pursuing
that?
Further?
Yes,
okay,
the
third
one
for
me
is
every
time
I.
Look
at
that
slide.
That
has
the
bike
sharing
car
sure
at
the
14.
A
It
bothers
me
that
that
it
suggests
we're
not
gonna
get
these
things
until
we
get
down
to
these
minimums
and
then
go
deeper,
and
these
are
all
things
that
should
be
part
of
every
site
plan.
So
it
bothers
me
that
we're
sending
a
message
that,
of
course,
it's
bike
spaces
above
the
site
plan
requirement,
but
if
it
turns
out
we'd
begin
needing
more,
we
should
be
changing
the
site
plan
condition
a
car
share.
A
We
should
be
requiring
to
the
degree,
that's
part,
at
least,
if
we're,
if
we're
getting
it's
back
to
that
issue,
if
people
are
being
giving
some
incentive
or
opportunity
to
get
lower,
even
if
they're
not
down
to
these
aspirational
lows,
why
should
we
not
have
car
share
it?
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me,
and
maybe
I
I,
think
back
on
the
trying
to
pull
some
value
from
the
cost
savings
to
the
developer.
But
why
would
we
want
to
wait
until
we're
down
below
our
very
very
low
aspiration
to
get
car
sure
I?
G
A
A
G
A
H
I
would
just
say
to
another
point:
I
can't
even
imagine
a
scenario,
and
you
know
we're
processing
a
lot
at
this
point,
but
I
can't
even
imagine
a
scenario
where
you
would
gain
favor
to
get
to
that
aspirational
minimum
unless
you're
providing
robust
stuff
like
this
anyway.
So
I
can't
even
see
a
scenario
where
you'd
then
say:
okay
and
if
you
do
more
you're
gonna
do
more
car
share
we're
going
to
give
you
less.
A
N
A
A
Okay,
you
all
need
to
just
think
on
this,
some
more
because
you
know
we've
come
at
this
question
from
about
four
different
directions,
and
you
know
it's.
It's
got
to
settle
down
and
and
percolate
a
little
bit
and
let
you
all
think
about
it,
talk
to
James
and
Susan
and
the
manager
and
Carol
and
all
and
then
get
back
to
us
as
we
process
this,
because
this
is
not
a
resolved
issue.
A
Yet,
as
we
approach
the
the
advertisement
but
I,
don't
know
that
we're
gonna
make
a
lot
more
progress
on
it
right
now,
but
I
think
you're
getting
a
sense.
The
last
moments
have
helped
crystallize
it
a
little
bit
so
other
things
that
people
want
to
kind
of,
revisit
or
not
revisit
and
discuss,
but
to
surface
that
you
think
staff
needs
to
further
think
about
putting.
H
G
Agree
and
I
think
the
specific
question
there
is
if
this
idea
is,
if
the
idea
of
this
whole
reform
or
new
policy
is
to
create
predictability,
and
these
are
sort
of
inherent
unpredictable
elements-
is
the
right
way
to
handle
these
unpredictable
circumstances
and
site
constraints
through
the
kind
of
open-ended
board.
Flexibility
and
stuff
looks
ability
to
discuss
on
an
individual
side-by-side
basis.
Does
it
make
sense
to
codify
that
10%,
because.
E
We
have
a
couple
of
other
seniors
complexes
not
far
from
the
heart
of
the
RB
corridor,
in
the
blue
and
yellow
lines,
and
what
I'm
wondering
is?
Do
we
have
any
data
on
on-site
parking
utilization
at
those
predominantly
senior
complexes
and
how
that
may
weigh
yeah?
And
you
don't
have
to
answer
this
mr.
Krim
now,
but
how
that
has
informed
your
thoughts
and
discussion
and
then,
finally,
in
terms
of
outreach,
you,
you
indicated
that
the
Economic
Development
Commission
would
not
be
taking
this
up
until
closer
to
the
board.
Taking
action.
Is
that
right?
E
C
Did
reach
out
to
them?
There
was
some
back-and-forth
with
the
chair.
He
had
said
you
know
the
first
month
proposed.
We
couldn't
fit
on
the
agenda
and
I
believe
the
last
thing
is
I
had
emailed
him
like
well.
Do
you
want
some
follow-up
and
I
if
I
remember
correctly,
I
didn't
get
a
response
or
the
communication
simply
trailed
off?
Okay,.
E
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
gets
done
so
that
we're
we're
factoring
that
the
very
needs
of
our
seniors,
many
of
whom
don't
have
cars,
but
at
the
same
time
we
hear
from
many
seniors
that
they
feel
too
old
for
Metro
or
other
modes
of
transportation.
So
they
need
a
car
or
they
need
a
lift.
At
least
okay.
G
Remembering
that
one
of
our
goals
for
this
discussion
was
to
agree
on
a
schedule
for
Commission
and
board
actions,
they're
just
wondering
a
little
bit.
If
you
can
say
more
about,
are
you
intending,
for
example,
to
go
back
to
some
of
the
Commission's
you've
already
presented
too,
or
is
that
the
hearing
is
just
sort
of
the
standard?
Well,
it's
not
a
change
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
G
C
Always
take
input
on
what
it
ought
to
be,
but
I
suppose
the
what
we
had
been
thinking
thus
far
is
to
go
back
for
action
to
at
a
minimum
transportation,
planning,
Housing
and
Economic
Development
for
action
like
and
I
I'm,
not
probably
going
to
use
the
correct
term,
but
some
sort
of
endorsement
or
support
by
a
vote
of
the
Commission
prior
to
our
meeting,
at
which
we'd
asked
for
board
action.
Okay
and.
G
C
At
this
point,
I
mean
I
think
that
we
have
provided
multiple
opportunities
and
requests.
For
you
know
invitations
to
present.
We
will
be
blasting
out
the
recording
of
this
when
it
goes
live
through
the
listserv
that
we
maintain,
but
at
this
point
I
have
an
invitation
to
attend
the
Radner
Fort
Myer,
no
I'm.
Sorry,
not
that
one
there's
one
yes,
I'm
not
going
to
remember
properly
but
anyway,
at
an
upcoming
meeting
that
one
there's
one
more.
G
C
G
You
know
I
was
thinking
about
that
early
on.
In
our
conversation
there
there
are
a
lot
of
hypotheses
that
various
residents
in
our
community
are
happy
to
bring
up
about
the
the
sort
of
driving
habits
of
folks
who
live
in
a
committed,
affordable,
housing
and
I.
Think
it
would
behoove
all
of
us
to
maybe
hear
some
perspectives
of.
C
Well,
so,
whenever
there's
been
something
like,
the
working
group
report
was
posted
and
then
we
had
the
survey
put
up.
What
I've
done
is
we
have
a
listserv
maintained,
but
communication
staff
that
reaches
at
last
count
like
410
individuals
and
then
I've
sent
emails
to
the
civic
associations
in
the
two
corridor.
C
A
Would
suggest
that,
as
far
as
the
laying
out
of
the
process
from
here
sort
of
the
work
sessions
completed,
you'll
be
compiling
the
survey
etc
the
various
steps
advertisement
in
September
hearing
in
in
October?
You
certainly
want
to
get
that
information
out
and
you
probably
want
to
say
something
along
the
lines
of
any
Civic
Association
that
has
not
met
or
wants
an
update.
You
know
you're
available
to
do
that
only
to
a
certain
point,
because
at
some
point
in
the
process
it
will
be
too
late.
A
You
know
so
sometime,
maybe
through
September
you,
you
may
hear
from
the
other
half
a
dozen
or
so
civic
associations
that
have
not
yet
communicated
and
who
knows
some
of
them
could
have
been
so
long
ago.
They
feel
it's
changed,
I,
don't
know
the
only
other
suggestion
I
had
were
the
bids.
You
know
the
bids
and
it
was
referenced
even
earlier
that
you
know
for
certain
things.
They
may
be
part
of
the
solution.
A
B
A
B
And
I
would
just
add
it's
really
adding
a
little
bit.
I
think
Katie
and
John
were
both
getting
to
it.
If
it's
possible
to
get
more
sort
of
granular
demographic
data,
not
only
on
seniors,
you
know,
Millennials
families
I
mean
I,
think
we
all
have
a
some
shows
about
who
you
know,
uses,
transit
and
who
uses
cars,
but
if
we
could
get
some
good
data,
I
think
that
might
be
useful.
B
So
if
a
building
is
being
built,
it's
going
to
be
all
older
people
will
know
what
that
proportion
is,
which
would
be
very
different
from
a
building
was
going
in
and
they're
expecting
mostly
Millennials
and
then
also
I,
think
which
Katie
touched
on
and
I
did
earlier.
Any
there's
a
way
to
break
down
the
population
of
low-income
folks,
somehow,
because
I
think
they're
different
different
groups
and
it's
possible
to
sort
of
spit
them
out.
I
think
some
of
them
have.
B
Some
of
them
tend
to
have
cars,
and
some
of
them
do
not
and
if
there's
a
way
to
kind
of
identify
that
as
we
break
and
then
finally
also
on
loan
I'm
sure
like,
for
example,
people
with
disabilities,
don't
tend
to
have
cars,
so
there's
any
way
to
kind
of
break
out
demographic
data.
That
way,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
Sorry.
G
It's
just
to
be
clear:
I
was
suggesting
not
a
separate
disaggregation
of
the
data,
but
rather
a
focus
group
and
I
know
you
all
spoke
with
a
disability
Commission
and
got
some
excellent
feedback
that
was
reflected
here,
so
that
was
sort
of
the
intent
of
my
suggestion
of
a
focus
group
of
residents.
Yeah.