►
From YouTube: LRPC | Historic & Cultural Resources and Forestry & Natural Resources Plan | September 6, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
Okay,
good,
not
hearing
anyone
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
orient
everyone
to
our
hybrid
environment
and
cover
a
few
specifics
about
outside
speeding
will
run
members
of
the
public
May
attend
the
meeting
here
in
person
or
electronically
by
using
the
Microsoft
teams
link
provided
on
the
lrpc
web
pages
on
the
County's
events
calendar
and
the
email
notifications
sent
to
the
lrpc
email
subscribers.
Additionally,
there
is
a
dial-in
phone
option,
for
those
of
you
should
use
it
for
our
planning
Commissioners
join
virtually
if
anyone
loses
productivity.
A
During
today's
meeting,
please
reconnect
with
us
by
phone.
Please
keep
your
phones
and
devices
muted
into
your
old
one
turn
off
sound
to
any
other
devices
around
you
to
minimize
interference
and
for
our
virtual
attendees
using
Microsoft
teams.
Please
turn
off
your
video
feed
I
will
address
when
it's
appropriate
to
turn
it
on.
In.
A
The
Microsoft
teams
meeting
chat
is
active
for
two
purposes:
for
participants
who
need
technical
assistance
and
for
other
attendees
to
post
brief,
clarifying
questions
to
the
larger
audience.
All
these
will
be
monitored.
They
will
not
be
formally
acknowledged.
The
staff
may
address
these
comments,
as
appropriate.
A
Teamschat
should
not
be
used
for
discussion
or
for
any
inappropriate
statements.
Those
who
are
planning
to
provide
public
comment
will
still
need
to
do
so
at
the
end,
as
the
chat
will
not
serve
that
opportunity,
there
will
be
two
periods
of
public
comment
for
this
meeting,
which
will
follow
after
the
lrpc
discussion
of
each
agenda
item.
All
public
comments
must
be
shared
verbally
for
the
record
during
the
assigned
public
testimony
periods.
A
I'd
also
like
to
remind
everyone
in
the
room
when
you're
here
in
the
room
to
speak
up
slowly
and
clearly,
because
we
have
microphones
at
the
ceiling
and
that's
where
your
voice
is
being
picked
up.
In
addition,
if
you'd
like
to
share
your
screen,
please
request
permission
from
the
lrpc
chair
prior
to
doing
so.
A
For
members
of
the
public,
who
would
like
to
provide
feedback
and
comment,
unlike
the
planning
commission's
regular
meetings,
the
lrpc
agenda
items
are
not
public
hearings.
Therefore,
public
comment
is
at
the
orpc
chairs
discretion.
After
the
committee
discussion
was
included,
I
am
exercising
the
discretion
to
have
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
of
these
items.
You
will
be
called
on
at
the
end
of
the
lrpc
discussion
to
speak
on
tonight's
agenda
items
speaking
time
a
lot
it
will
depend
on
the
number
of
speakers.
We
have
this
evening,
probably
be
two
minutes
per
person.
A
I
will
call
the
speakers
up
to
each
agenda.
Item
and
I
will
ask
staff
to.
Let
me
know
if
we
have
any
virtual
attendees
who'd
like
to
provide
comment,
step
or
acknowledge
speakers
on
the
team's
chat.
Please
indicate
in
the
chat
that
you'd
like
to
provide
comment
and
your
name
will
be
added
to
the
list
of
speakers.
A
Members
of
the
public
attending
virtually
will
speak
first
during
the
public
comment
period,
followed
by
the
in-person
attendees
and
when
virtual
attendees
are
all
about
to
speak,
you
must
unmute
Yourself
by
clicking
on
the
microphone
icon.
That's
located
on
your
meeting
command
bar
moderator
does
not
have
the
ability
to
unmute
you
and
you
will
be
muted,
though,
when
your
time
has
concluded
as
an
alternative
public
comment
is
available
and
may
be
provided
on.
The
public
comment
form
posted
on
the
lrpc
webpage.
A
Finally,
this
is
a
public
forum.
Nice
meeting
is
being
reported
and
will
be
posted
to
the
campus
website.
All
the
information
associated
with
today's
meeting
with
a
request
spoken
is
subject
to
the
Freedom
of
Information
technical
requirements
there.
That
all
said
we
can
help.
You
go
on
to
our
first
agenda
item,
which
is
the
start
and
cultural
resources
Plan
update,
and
we
have
a
stat
presentation.
First,
oh
actually,
why
do
we
do
that?
Thanks,
Leah
for
reminding
me
we'll
introduce
who
I'll
go
around
to
introduce
here?
So
actually,
when
we
start
with
basically.
C
F
A
C
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I'm,
good
good
evening.
Everyone
as
I
said,
I
am
Cindy.
Lucius,
Torres
and
I
lead
the
Communist
preservation
program.
I
see
some
familiar
faces
in
some
new
faces
back
in
may.
We
first
presented
our
historic
and
cultural
resources,
Plan
update
to
the
lrpc,
and
since
then,
we've
completed
a
really
robust
public
engagement
period
and
analyze,
both
the
feedback
we
received
internally
and
externally.
On
that
draft,
we've
made
some
revisions
to
the
draft
plan
and
an
updated
version
that
we
are
calling
the
recommended
drop
was
released
in
mid-august.
C
So
we
are
here
this
evening
to
provide
a
brief
overview
of
our
planning
process,
to
highlight
the
name
changes
that
we
made
to
the
draft
plan
and
just
as
a
reminder,
our
original
plan,
known
formerly
as
the
historic
preservation
master
plan,
is
an
element
of
the
County's
comprehensive
plan
and
it
was
last
approved
by
the
County
Board
in
December
of
2006..
So
this
update
that
we
are
doing
now
is
our
first
official
update
to
that
plan.
C
So
our
planning
process
has
been
going
on
for
quite
some
some
time
since
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
in
Spring
2020.
In
fact,
on
the
left
of
this
slide,
we've
outlined
some
of
the
major
Milestones
that
we've
completed
over
these
past
four
years,
including
a
range
of
our
public
engagement
efforts,
and
we
also
spend
a
considerable
amount
of
time
last
year
addressing
initial
input
from
interdepartmental
colleagues
as
well
as
County
leadership.
C
So
we
released
an
initial
draft
of
our
plan
for
public
review
and
comment
in
mid-april
of
this
year.
We
also
held
a
work
session
with
the
historical
Affairs
of
landmark
review
board,
along
with
our
consultant
in
April
and
concurrently
with
that,
we
led
a
public
engagement
period
to
seek
feedback
on
the
plan
from
April
until
June,
we
hosted
a
community
open
house,
as
well
as
a
series
of
15
pop-up
events
that
were
held
county-wide
and
also
had
an
online
feedback
form.
C
We
also
did
a
social
media
campaign
and
developed
a
digital
story
map
that
highlighted
the
main
goals
proposed
in
the
Plan
update.
Hopefully,
this
past
spring,
you
also
saw
some
of
our
yard
signs
that
we
had
around
the
county
of
promoting
the
plan
and
perhaps
you
even
caught
one
of
our
cultural
heritage,
videos.
C
So,
as
you
can
see
on
the
right
column,
we're
nearing
the
Finish
Line
after
all,
these
years
later
this
month
on
September
20th,
we
are
presenting
this
recommended
draft
to
the
hlrb
for
their
review
and
recommendations.
And
after
that
we
do
remain
on
track
to
bring
the
request
to
advertise
forward
to
both
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
County
Board
in
October,
followed
by
consideration
for
adoption
of
the
recommended
draft
and
a
separate
implementation
framework
is
also
in
progress,
and
we
are
finalizing
that
now,
with
County
leadership
both
leading
up
to
and
following
our
plan
adoption.
C
So
this
is
our
timeline
at
a
glance,
it's
a
little
hard
to
see
at
this
at
this
level,
but
basically
we
show
the
major
Milestones
that
we've
been
working
on
each
year
since
spring
of
2020
and
the
orange
colored
box.
That's
at
the
Far
Far
Right
indicates
how
far
we've
come
and
shows
the
upcoming
public
hearings
really
as
our
final
Point
here
in
our
planning
process.
C
C
We
are
proud
that
the
updated
plan
also
provides
recommendations
to
preserve
and
interpret
an
inclusive
collection
of
histories
and
resources
for
future
Generations.
We
also
develop
Equity
aspirations
for
each
goal
of
the
plan
to
describe
how
our
achievements
could
Advance
inclusion,
diversity,
equity
and
or
accessibility.
C
So
that
brings
us
to
well
what's
different
between
this
draft
and
the
one
that
you
saw
earlier
in
the
spring.
So,
as
I
mentioned
before,
between
April
and
June
of
this
year,
we
requested
Community
input
on
the
initial
draft
of
the
plan
and
we
spent
the
spring
and
summer
analyzing
that
feedback
and
making
minor
revisions
to
the
draft
accordingly,
and
just
so,
you
know,
for
the
online
feedback
form
that
we
had
in
the
spring,
we
had
163
responses,
which
is
the
highest
level
of
responses.
C
We've
gotten
as
part
of
our
engagement
to
date
and
participants
who
answered
this
question.
We
were
able
to
determine
that
more
than
36
different
Arlington
neighborhoods
were
represented
from
that
feedback,
so
the
changes
that
are
reflected
in
the
recommended
draft
that
were
released
in
mid-august
are
summarized
here.
So
we
added
vocations
of
historic
resources
and
neighborhood
reference
points
throughout
the
plan.
C
C
We
likewise
made
several
clarifications
throughout
the
plan,
these
included
providing
additional
context
to
certain
sections
of
our
statement
of
historical
and
cultural
significance.
We
recognize
County
transportation
projects
as
a
potential
partnership
opportunity.
For
us
we
explained
the
size
of
proposed
neighborhood
Heritage
districts
in
our
regulation
goal
and
we
updated
select
section
titles
within
the
plan,
so
they
could
be
more
specific
and
the
lmbc
gave
us
quite
a
few
suggestions
back
in
the
spring
and
I
wanted
to
address
a
few
of
those.
C
We
ended
up
adding
a
disclaimer
statement
in
that
section
stating
that
the
table
contains
the
raw
current
data
that
was
originally
approved
by
the
County
Board
in
2011..
We
did
not
change
any
of
the
street
names
nor
indicate
which
buildings
have
since
been
preserved
or
demolished
so
as
to
help
reinforce
the
need
for
why
an
HR,
HRI
update
is
so
crucial,
and
so
we
wanted
to
keep
the
data,
as
is
to
help
illustrate
that
the
lrpc
also
hope
to
see
more
maps
and
historic
content
in
our
draft.
C
But
we
felt
this
could
have
resulted
in
too
much
detailed
information
in
a
document
that
was
intended
to
be
Visionary
and
aspirational
for
us.
But
we
do
recognize
the
importance
of
having
more
maps
in
his
direct
content
available
for
the
public,
and
so
we
explained
some
of
these
efforts
and
our
goals
for
both
Community
engagement
and
our
technology
and
tools.
Chapters,
and,
as
we
mentioned
earlier,
we
added
more
references
to
the
locations
historic
places,
so
readers
could
learn
about
where
to
find
some
of
the
buildings
and
places
featured
in
the
plan.
C
And,
lastly,
it's
something
that
we're
very
excited
about.
We
updated
the
icon
that
is
used
in
our
historic
preservation,
wedge
of
the
County's
comprehensive
plan
color
wheel.
Previously
it
had
been
a
tablet
icon
that
resembled
either
a
historic
marker
or
a
gravestone.
Depending
on
your
on
your
perspective,
we
thought
that
was
a
little
confusing,
so
we
decided
to
change
it
to
something
different,
that
better
reflected
the
broader
breadth
of
what
we
do
as
a
program.
D
D
C
That's
a
great
question
and
I
think
the
short
answer
to
that
is:
yes,
it's
a
very
Visionary
plan
and
I
think
as
unfortunate
as
it
was
to
have
lost
some
very
recognizable
historic
resources.
The
fact
that
that
happened
during
this
planning
process
I
think
was
very
beneficial
because
it
allowed
us
to
assess
the
process
that
we
have
and
ways
that
we
can
improve
it
so
I
think,
particularly
in
the
regulation
chapter.
C
We
start
to
address
that
a
little
bit
commissioner
Bagley,
where
we're
talking
about
ways
that
we
can
improve,
how
we
do
the
local
designation
process
here
and
that's
a
crucial
First
Step.
So
this
is
not
changing
process
through
the
plan
as
it
is
now,
it's
allowing
us
to
explore
ways
that
we
can
make
that
process
better,
because.
D
It
occurs
to
me
in
just
watching
some
of
this
that
folks,
who
own
these
properties
may
not
have
the
same
appreciation
for
history
or
it
conflicts
with
the
monetary
side
of
things
and
that
the
process
for
them
to
even
take
advantage
of
historic
preservation,
credits
or
something
adds
time
to
a
process
which
then
impedes
the
money
portion
of
it.
So
hopefully
we've
done
something
to
or
can
in
the
future
do
something
to
address
that.
So
it
seems
a
little
faster
for
somebody
who's.
C
That
yeah,
that's
another
excellent
point
and
I
think
the
answer
to
that
is
really
twofold.
It's
dealing
with
our
Partnerships
and
our
education,
working
with
owners
explaining
tools
that
are
available,
explaining
different
types
of
processes
and
designation
and
benefits,
and
things
like
that
sort
of
that
education,
working
with
property
owners
to
help
them
understand
and
get
excited,
but
on
the
state.
On
the
other
hand,
it's
also
working
to
have
more
flexibility
and
preservation.
We
recently
started
a
new
historic
preservation
fund.
That's
something
we've
never
had
before.
D
So
that
would
be
more
tea
in
it.
Correct,
okay,
then.
My
last
question
is
as
we
in
sprc
processes
when
there
is
something
historic,
regardless
of
what
the
significance
is,
we
struggle
every
time
and
generally
we
lose
out
even
the
most
eloquent
speakers
on
behalf
of
history,
as
they're
talking,
you
know,
can't
get
the
Ripple
going
enough
to
save
things
or
it's
torn
down
or
there's
some
tiles
from
this
particular
place
that
are
there
or
it
just
comes
down
to
like
a
little
bit
historic
marker.
D
So
is
there
more
guidance
in
this
now
for
when
we
are
in
those
situations,
because
it's
really
tough
for
us?
Many
of
us
have
a
very
a
lot
of
sympathy
for
this,
but
you
know
we're
against
all
this.
You
know
and
then
it's
like
who
just
wants
to
Historic
Market.
If
there's
something
significant
there,
it's
sort.
C
We're
better
than
where
we
were
in
the
early
2000s
before
we
had
the
plan.
I,
don't
know
if
that
offers
any
reassurance
or
not,
but
being
able
to
and
the
way
we
describe
it
in
this
planned
draft
is
being
able
to
formalize
how
preservation
is
brought
into
conversations
and
so
being
sure
that
we
are
part
of
site
plans
that
affects
historic
resources.
Major.
A
A
C
Have
these
incentives,
if
you,
if
you
want
to
use
that
as
your
Redevelopment
tool,
there
were
certain
things
certain
buildings
that
had
to
be
preserved,
full
certain
prejudices
of
how
to
be
preserved.
Certain
facades,
and
so
those
are
all
outlined
very
clearly
in
that
planet
and
you're.
Correct
Mr,
chair
that
using
that
plan
has
resulted
in
many
of
our
most
well-known
preservation,
wins
because
we've
been
able
to
incorporate
either
full
preservation
or
South
preservation.
A
C
A
F
Just
a
quick
question
so-
and
this
may
be
our
school
but
I'm
just
curious:
how
does
the
county
go
about
making
the
decisions
so,
for
example,
if
we're
playing
Langston
Boulevard
there's
a
particular
envisioning,
that's
happening
perhaps
for
the
lease
Center
and
that
was
built
in
1926.
It
was
actually
one
of
the
first
public
schools
ever
created
in
Arlington,
and
so,
if
the
community
is
interested
in
preserving
that
and
that
history,
how
do
they
go
about
doing
this?
C
Yeah,
that's
that's
a
very
good
question.
So,
as
the
chairman
mentioned,
with
Clint
with
the
clarinet
sector
plan,
there
are
specific
buildings
that
have
been
identified,
a
similar
exercise.
We
went
through
for
the
plan
Langston
Boulevard
initiative,
where
we
worked
with
the
historic
preservation,
cultural
resources
consultant
to
do
a
lot
of
research
on
various
sites
all
throughout
the
corridor,
and
we've
worked
with
planning
and
housing
staff
to
develop
different
recommendations
for
preservation.
So
it's
not
it's
not
identical
to
how
it's
done
in
the
sector
plan,
but
that
provides
some
baseline
guidance.
B
C
Answer
your
question:
if,
if
a
property
owner
or
others
wanted
to
try
to
preserve
places,
that's
all
spelled
out
in
the
County
Museum
ordinance.
It's
section
11.3,
if
you're
0.4
I
believe
if
you're.
If
you
want
to
study
up
on
it,
but
it's
all
it's
all
spelled
out
and
if
it's
we've
had
a
few
contentious
designations
in
recent
years
and
those
primarily
have
been
because
the
people
requesting
the
designation
were
not
the
property
owners.
C
When
we
have
property
owners
who
are
willing
to
preserve
and
want
to
be
stores
of
their
property,
and
they
come
to
us
to
request.
The
process
tends
to
go
a
little
bit
more
smoothly
because
they
understand
what
they're
getting
into
and
it's
their
their
property.
So
so
long
and
short
of
it
is
there's.
The
process
is
all
spelled
out
with
the
presenting
coordinates,
but
there
are
certain
criteria
that
each
of
our
local
historic
districts
satisfied
in
order
to
be
considered
eligible
and
then
the
historical
Affairs
board.
C
Yes
and
there's
a
process
a
few
years
ago,
if
any
of
you
are
familiar
with
Dorothy
Hamm
Middle
School,
there
was
a
process
to
designate
that
school
as
one
of
our
local
historic
districts
and
so
there's
a
separate
process.
That
is
also
spelled
out
in
the
ordinance
for
those
properties
that
are
owned
by
Arlington
Public
Schools.
C
D
D
D
C
Yeah,
yes,
so
you
don't
like
I
said
you
don't
have
to
be
a
property
owner
too
designate
or
nominate
something,
I
should
say,
and
then,
if
there
is
a
multi-family
Properties
or
if
it's
more
than
one
building
there
is
a
new
stipulation
in
the
the
nomination
process
that
you
should.
You
need
to
have
a
minimum
amount
of
support.
Yeah.
C
D
C
C
Yes,
so
there's
a
few
properties
that
that
the
county
owns
that
are
protected
as
local
districts,
I'm,
not
going
to
remember
the
name,
because
it's
changed,
but
the
former
Arlington
Arts
Center
has
a
new
name,
I,
believe:
that's
that's
the
county-owned
property,
and
so
that
is
protected.
So
whenever
there's
changes
that
need
to
be
made,
whether
for
maintenance
or
other
ongoing
things,
we
work
with
our
cohorts
into
yes
to
make
sure
those
changes.
C
If
let
me
make
sure
I
understand
your
question,
so
if
a
property
is
not
protected,
now
could
neighbors
Lobby
for
it.
The
answer
to
that
is
yes.
They're
they're,
like
I,
said
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
denomination
process
is
spelled
out,
but
we
found
that
it's
more
successful.
If
concerned
Neighbors
come
to
our
staff
first
to
express
their
their
desires
and
their
their
motivations
of
what
they're
hoping
to
achieve.
C
It
raised
awareness
not
only
I,
think
within
the
community,
be,
but
also
for
us
as
staff
who
manage
this
designation
process,
and
it
really
allowed
us
to
think
well
what
works
well
and
what
didn't
work
so
well
here,
and
how
can
we
improve
that?
So
I
think
the
fact
that
that
happened
during
our
four-year
planning
study
that
we've
been
doing
was
was
the
positive
part
of
it,
because
it
allowed
us
to
go
through
that
and
think
about
ways
to
improve.
A
E
E
Time
we
met
with
you
all
back
in
October
of
2022.
We
had
just
released
the
preliminary
draft
that
we
had
just
included
our
first
round
of
public
engagement
on
document.
We
also
agreed
to
come
back
to
you
all
after
our
next
draft
went
out
for
engagement
to
provide
so
with
the
publication
of
that
updated
draft
this
summer.
E
E
E
Pause
and
provide
a
quick
reorientation
of
what
exactly
is
in
the
document.
So,
as
you
all
may
remember,
the
fnrp
updates
and
replaces
both
the
urban
Forest
master
plan
and
the
natural
resources
management
plan.
These
were
both
sub
elements
of
public
spaces
master
plan.
The
fnrp
is
a
combined
document
that
is
now
its
own
element
of
the
comprehensive.
D
E
This
is
the
first
time
we're
really
from
a
planning
perspective,
at
least
looking
at
all
of
our
natural
resources,
from
sort
of
an
ecosystem
level
perspective
and
interconnected
approach.
That
covers
not
only
the
natural
areas
in
the
county
and
the
sort
of
aspects
of
the
urban
Forest
public
right-of-way,
but
also
the
built
environment
on
private
property
as
well.
So.
H
E
Plan
was
kind
of
designed
to
reflect
this
and
highlight
those
interconnections
across
all
of
our
policy
areas
and
other
elements
of
the
confidence
other
County
plans,
so
right
here
on
the
slide,
we're
highlighting
the
Strategic
directions,
which
are
the
broad
policy
areas
that
form
the
framework
for
the
plant's
Guidance
the
structure
in
general
intent.
These
hasn't
changed
since
we
last
spoke,
but
they've
all
seen
several
refinements
that
we'll
get
into
as
kind
of
move
through
the
presentation
this
evening.
E
Each
of
those
strategic
directions
are
supported
by
action,
steps
which
are
the
smaller
kind
of
operational
planning
tasks
that
we
can
take
to
policy
goals
forward
and
in
the
current
draft,
there's
84
to
84
individual
recommendations
kind
of
within
this
framework,
and
so
those
strategic
directions
are
the
core
of
the
plan.
They're
introduced
by
the
executive
summary
introduction
and
planning
context,
sections
and
supported
by
an
implementation
framework
and
appendices.
H
E
And
this
most
recent
version
I
wanted
to
Briefly.
Summarize
the
highlights
of
all
the
comments
on
the
preliminary
draft
that
we
received
in
me
too.
So
shortly
before
we
met
with
you
all.
As
I
mentioned,
we
had
a
two-month
engagement
period
on
that
first
draft
of
the
fnrp
we're
able
to
report
out
on
some
of
the
statistics
and
high
level
findings.
What
we
met
with
you
all.
H
E
I
wanted
to
start
here
at
a
high
level.
Most
folks
were
eased
with
the
draft.
They
felt
that
the
actions
under
the
Strategic
directions
as
a
whole
supported
the
County's
Vision
or
his
Force
natural
resources,
and
that
the
vision
the
plan
articulated
was
the
right
one
that's
dead.
Then
we
also
got
a
lot
of
constructive
and
that
fell
into
the
teams
on
the
slide
here,
including
more
urgency
and
toning
content,
especially
around
climate
issues,
making
Equity
core
to
all
the
elements
of
the
plan:
measurable
goals,
metrics
and
implementation.
E
If
you
all
remember
that
first,
the
preliminary
draft
did
not
have
the
implementation
framework
in
it.
That
was
in
part,
delivered
to
trying
to
get
folks
input,
but
they
picked
up
on
that
which
was
great
and
a
deeper,
more
creative
thinking
about
land
use
as
possible
incentives
and
educational
efforts,
and,
lastly,
several
comments
around
setting
a
more
ambitious
goal
or
tree
canopy
that
40
county-wide.
E
So
with
those
things
in
mind
like
to
walk
through
some
of
the
changes
we
made
based
on
this
feedback
in
2022
and
early
2023,
those
changes
fell
into
these
three
buckets
that
I'll
Briefly.
Summarize
we
added
a
new
executive
summary
to
the
intro
and
made
edits
to
reflect
comments
on
urgency
tone
and
the
existing
conditions.
E
We
made
changes
to
some
of
our
existing
recommendations
and
introduced
several
new
ones
in
the
Strategic
directions
which
I'll
go
over
in
more
detail
and
then,
lastly,
there
were
some
significant
changes
in
structure
Department.
You
all
remember
that
preliminary
draft
that
was
out
right
before
we
met
with
you
all
was
essentially
a
Word
document.
It
was
the
text
of
the
plan.
E
It
was
some
initial
preliminary
maps
and
figures
really
wanted
to
get
a
gut
check
from
the
community
on
our
approach
and
the
general
policy
Direction
before
we
solidified
it
or
needed
something
a
little
bit
harder
to
change.
So
we
incorporated
Maps
Graphics
charts.
We
strengthened
the
action
verbs
across
references
and
the
recommendations,
both
within
the
plan
and
across
the
rest
of
the
comp
plan
elements
and,
most
importantly,
this
new
draft
included
an
implementation
plan
and
a
draft
of
our
priority
actions
so
kind
of
the
selection
10
of
the
highest
priority
recommendations
plan.
E
So
I've
been
addressing
those
comments.
We
were
really
striving
to
satisfy
some
of
our
respondents
desires
for
more
specific,
targeted,
operational
content,
with
the
fact
that,
as
an
element
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
a
articulated
so
well
earlier,
the
fnrp
needs
to
be
sort
of
a
high
level.
Flexible
document.
That's
fluid
enough
to
serve
as
a
guide
the
County's
Environmental
Policy
to
an
uncertain
future
as
unpleasant
as
that.
E
So
I'll
start
at
the
top
with
Steve
one,
and
this
is
the
part
where
you
all
can
feel
free
to
bring
me
along
if
we
go
too
deep
into
the
weeds.
But
as
I
mentioned,
some
of
our
comments
indicated
that
40
canopy
coverage
was
county-wide
was
not
ambitious
enough,
but
we
believe
that's
an
appropriate
county-wide
goal.
Based
on
our
analysis
of
plant
space
and
existing
condition,
we
did
add
a
specificity
calling
out
local
conditions
in
ecology.
E
The
historical
inequity
of
where
that
tree
canopy
is
distributed
across
the
county
and
created
closer
cross
references
to
our
tree
Equity
goals.
We
also
included
these
two
new
action
steps
on
the
slide,
1.1.2
and
1.1.3
that
further
refined
that
goal
and
hopefully
helps
guide
implementation.
So
in
Prior
versions
of
the
draft
and
the
preliminary
draft,
we
did
not
have
a
goal:
Forest
held
or
ecological
function
to
go
along
with
that
numerical
canopy
coverage
goal,
which
is
why
we
included
the
native
tree
canopy
recommendation.
E
We
also
didn't
have
strong
guidance
for
public
sites
and
how
they
could
contribute
to
that
overall
county-wide
goal.
So
we
included
that
in
one
one,
three,
both
for
APS
sites
and
or
County
Farms,
1.2.4
and
1.2.5
were
added
to
make
the
commitment
to
creating
more
space
for
trees
and
natural
resources.
More
specifically,
and
then
1.2.6
was
added
to
track
with
the
then
current
conversation
about
accounting,
speed,
ordinance
and
updating
conditional
property
section
of
the
County
ordinance.
E
Other
smaller
changes
included,
updated
updates
to
existing
recommendations
about
land
acquisition,
to
make
it
clear
that
even
small
acquisition
opportunities
for
natural
resources
purposes
like
the
recent
Des
micro
reforestation
process,
projects
are
worthwhile
goals
and
they'll
contribute
to
some
of
the
overall
policy
goals
in
the
fnrp
and
to
pursue
bringing
forested
APS
lands
into
County
management
for
more
consistency
or
stream
conservation
operations.
Kind
of
across
the
two
entities.
E
We
also
added
this
section
explaining
what
biophilic
design
is
to
sd1,
similar
to
the
casualty
space
guidance
in
the
public
spaces
master
plan,
if
you're
all
familiar
with
that,
we
essentially
got
a
lot
of
feedback
in
that
preliminary
draft,
particularly
from
commission
members
that
guidance
on
what
constitutes
biophilic
design,
what
the
county
means
when
we're
asking
for
it
would
be
really
helpful
with
sprcs
and
other
project
reviews.
So
we
added
this
supplement
to
sp1
where
most
of
our
development
related
recommendations
live.
E
It's
not
a
formal
design,
checklist
or
manual,
but
we
really
felt
that
the
fnrp's
role
could
be
to
better
illustrate
what
the
county
means.
When
we
talk
about
biophilic
design-
and
we
did
that
by
sharing
not
just
some
text
but
also,
hopefully,
some
more
interesting
photos
of
successful
projects
from
the
private
sector,
but
also
School
sectors,
Parts
Industries,.
E
Moving
to
strategic
Direction,
too
action
step
2.1.1,
which
is
our
primary
treat,
Woody
recommendation
with
enhanced,
with
some
preliminary
GIS
analysis
identifying
several
neighborhoods
that
are
currently
underserved
by
trees,
ingredient
infrastructure.
We
also
explicitly
made
this
recommendation
of
prioritization
measure
that
40
county-wide
treat
canopy
goal
and
cross-referenced
it
with
some
of
our
operational
recommendations
about
reporting
on
progress
towards
the
planned
schools
and
the
major
update
to
strategic
Direction.
E
Three
was
the
addition
of
recommendations
regarding
these
plans,
essentially
adopting
a
native
planned
requirement:
Republican
private
sites
to
kind
of
expand,
The
Logical
function
of
our
landscaping
and
make
space
for
you
know,
threatened
native
plants.
We
currently
follow
the
data
plan
preferred
policy
for
public
sites.
E
This
is
really
meant
to
take
that
make
the
requirement
modern
and
it
was
accompanied
by
an
appendix
kind
of
detailing
what
that
policy
may
look
like
once
we
get
to
the
adoption
phase
is
a
little
bit
of
a
Kickstart
and
see
implementation,
so
we
don't
have
to
start
from
zero
after
the
plan
is
adopted
and
then
strategic,
Direction
Four
was
streamlined
a
bit
but
remained
essentially
the
same.
The
only
one
that
we
really
wanted
to
focus
on
was
expanding
4.1.4
previously
in
the
preliminary
draft.
E
A
really
narrow
recommendation
about
reporting
on
tree
loss
annually
to
be
a
more
a
broader
recommendation
to
report
on
plan
implementation
progress
over
the
years
as
I
mentioned,
we,
we
also
included
the
application
plan.
This
follows
the
format
of
a
lot
of
our
plan
elements
and
sector
plans,
so,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
PSP-
and
they
got
City
sector
plan,
really
similar
format,
high-level
details
about
planning
level
cost
estimates
potential
Partners,
which
County
agencies
are
the
leads
potential
funding
sources
that
sort
of
thing
to
help
reign.
E
I
won't
read
through
all
of
these,
but
these
are
the
first
five
they're
in
the
draft
totally
they're
somewhat
familiar
at
this
point,
and
these
are
our
last
five
I
have
a
wide
selection
from
across
the
the
plan,
with
the
focus
on
ST1,
which
is
foundational,
creating
space
for
all
of
this
stuff
that
we
want
to
see
all
right.
So
that
brings
you
all
up
to
speed
on
how
we
arrived
at
the
draft
most
recent
draft
that
we
released
in
July
of
this
year.
E
Our
negation
period
on
this
draft
lasted
30
days
focused
really
on,
rather
than
a
sort
of
a
broad
call
for
priorities.
Blood
folks
want
to
see
in
their
environmental
policies-
and
you
know,
kind
of
that.
More
of
a
brainstorming
call
for
engagement
really
wanted
to
focus
in
on
folks
level
of
satisfaction
with
the
plan,
as
amended,
assessing
how
well
we
captured
their
feedback
on
the
last
version
and
really
trying
to
understand
in
particular,
and
how
members
of
the
public
wanted
to
be
involved
with
achieving
the
vision
of
ASL.
E
E
We
framed
the
fnrp
as
sort
of
a
community-wide
community
conservation
plan,
and
so
this
is
our
first
real
opportunity
to
check
in
with
the
public
and
understand
how
they
want
to
plug
into
that.
So
this
round
consisted
of
an
online
comment:
Forum,
as
well
as
an
in-person,
open
house
that
I
mentioned
earlier.
It
delivered
a
little
over
150
participants
and
415.
E
E
Pretty
enthusiastic
about
the
level
of
feedback
that
thoroughness
of
the
comments
and
the
general
level
of
Engagement
that
greeted
the
new
draft-
and
it
seems
like
the
respondents
were
too
so
again.
The
majority
of
folks
this
time
around
were
neutral
to
very
satisfied
with
the
current
draft
and
digging
into
the
open-ended
comments
that
accompanied
this
sort
of
numerical
feedback.
The
majority
of
the
folks
at
the
neutral
and
dissatisfied
bucket
of
responses
included
support
for
the
plants,
visions
and
goals
and
constructive
criticism
of
how
to
improve
it.
E
So
less
you
all
are
wrong
and
more.
We
like,
where
you're
going
going
further
in
terms
of
the
feedback
that
we
got
at
a
high
level
on
the
draft,
so
that
generally
shows
us
that
we're
on
the
right
track
and
that
maybe
we
have
some
work
to
do
to
strengthen
some
of
the
recommendations
that
we
saw.
Similar
results
regarding
the
implementation
framework,
with
some
suggestions
about
how
to
improve
that
aspect
of
the
plan.
E
For
example,
level
of
detail
regarding
partners
and
potential
funding
sources
really
folks
wanted
to
see
how
the
rubber
met
the
road,
but
was
generally
on
board.
With
the
approach
of
our
implementation
and
then
one
of
the
more
exciting
questions
this
round,
like
I
mentioned,
this
is
centered
on
sort
of
a
community-wide
approach,
the
conservation
so.
E
To
see
how
folks
want
to
look
into
that,
and
the
level
of
response
we
got
was
really
encouraging.
It
helps
us
kind
of
understand
how
post-option
we
can
hold
implementation
of
a
lot
of
the
fnrp's
recommendations,
particularly
around
private
property,
volunteer
organizations
and
education
and
outreaching
to
some
of
the
programming
that
DPR
and
Des.
So
that
was
that
was
kind
of
a
fun
one
for
us
to
see
how
folks
wanted
to
to
contribute.
I
E
Did
we
actually
hear
is
this
time
around
across
all
of
the
engagement
mechanisms
that
I
mentioned?
These
are
the
top
themes
that
we've
suffered
again
strong
support
for
the
vision
and
recommendations
in
the
draft
and
the
sort
of
the
majority
consensus
that
the
comments
were
adequately
reflected
in
the
new
version
of
the
draft.
E
E
So
that's
how
the
current
draft
was
received,
at
least
at
a
high
level.
We
will
be
doing
a
deeper
dive
into
the
education
feedback
at
the
natural
resources,
joint
advice,
regroup
meeting
on
Monday.
So
if
anybody
wants
to
get
more
into
the
Weeds
on
that,
please
feel
free
to
tune
in,
but
over
the
last
several
weeks
we've
been
working
on
draft
edits
to
respond
to
this
feedback
which
I'd
like
to
share
a
selection
that
kind
of
indicate
our
thinking
on
how
best
to
improve
the
draft
towards
the
RTA
we're
still
working.
E
So
these
aren't
final.
This
list
is
an
exhaust
item,
so
with
that,
preface
aside,
definitely
would
welcome
any
thoughts
you
all
have
this
evening
forward
as
we
move
towards
finalizing
this
next
iteration
draft,
so
for
the
intro
material
which
material
which
includes
the
executive,
summary
and
planning
context
we're
considering
kind
of
how
best
to
highlight
racial
equity
and
environmental
justice,
particularly
in
the
executive
summary.
So
it's
right
up
front.
E
E
The
discussion
of
buy
right
development
in
the
planning
context
to
better
frame
up
a
lot
of
the
recommendations
around
conservation
in
the
built
environment
in
strategic
Direction
one,
and
we
want
to
add
a
new
section
on
environmental
organizations
and
volunteer
groups
to
existing
conditions,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
not
just
to
address
the
comments,
but
also
because
making
it
through
over
the
last
three
years.
It's
a
much
better
foundation
for
a
lot
of
the
recommendations
we
have
later
in
the
plan.
E
Discussion
tree
canopy
Decline
and
adding
references
to
the
tree
canopy
fund
and
the
tree
canopy
Equity
program
to
existing
conditions
and
adding
detail
to
both
the
existing
conditions
and
the
discussion
of
trends
of
others.
Non-Tree
species
of
Flora
and
Fauna
really
to
create
more
parity
with
the
discussion
about
tree
canopy
and
strength
in
the
narrative
connections
between
different
aspects
of
the
ecosystem.
E
E
And
then
moving
into
the
actual
recommendations
themselves,
like
I
mentioned,
we
received
a
ton
of
comments
about
the
strength
of
the
plant's
language.
A
lot
of
that
is
most
likely.
The
results
of
the
fnrp
being
comp
plan
element,
rather
than
a
like
an
operational
document
like
a
department,
word
plan
or
a
resource
management
plan
for
a
particular
parcel
and
US
needing
to
be
kind
of
at
that
60
000
foot
level
and
maybe
a
little
bit
more
flexible.
E
But
we
are
going
through
the
draft
again
to
see
where
more
generic
action
groups
like
explore
can
be
pulled
out
in
favor
of
more
descriptive,
active
language
that
better
aligns
with
the
recommendations
themselves.
For
example,
research,
compare
evaluate
to
make
it
clear
that
the
County's
committed
to
action,
even
if
adopting
the
fnrb,
doesn't
automatically
change
anything
in
desoting
ordinance
or
other
regulations
or
policies
directly.
E
40
percent
free
canopy
based
on
our
existing
conditions,
analysis.
So
we're
also
working
on
specific
recommendations
to
include
tree
canopy
and
other
vegetative,
vegetated
cover
targets
and
sector
plans
and
similar
County
Planning
efforts
very
like
what
we
did
in
the
Pentagon
City
sector
plan,
for
example,
but
making
that
kind
of
table
Stakes
for
future
planning
processes.
E
Also
looking
at
incorporating
specific
recommendations
to
underground
utilities,
to
avoid
tree
impacts
in
response
to
public
concerns
that
we
were
here
this
summer.
Expanding
our
references
to
existing
Partnerships
and
volunteer
organizations
really
an
acknowledgment
that
our
my
Army
initial
approach
of,
focusing
only
what
to
do
on
only
on
what
to
do
moving
forward
to
kind
of
enhance
our
community
engagement
broadly
with
these
issues
left
a
lot
of
really
good
work
on
his
son
and
is
ultimately
a
weaker
foundation
for
the
plants.
E
Give
you
a
wide
approach
to
conservation
than
being
more
explicit
and
calling
out
our
existing
partners
and
adding
that
acknowledgment
piece
back
in
and
we'll
also
be
revisiting
the
language
in
2.1.1
to
make
it
clear
that
the
next
steps
are
Outreach
to
these
impacted
communities
to
understand
how
we
can
help
improve
things
on
the
ground,
rather
than
more
analysis
to
identify
where
those
communities
that
are
impacted
by
lack
of
tree
canopy
are
we've
done
that
analysis.
It's
represented
in
the
document.
E
E
Adding
relevant
information
from
the
ongoing
to
your
browse
impact
study
to
4.1.8,
to
replace
the
small
placeholder
that
we
had
in
the
draft
for
that
study
to
kind
of
progress
and
deliver
some
results,
so
we
can
incorporate
and
then
ensuring
our
volunteer
recommendations
in
action.
4.3
reflected
that
new
focus
on
our
existing
Partnerships
program.
So
recent
successes,
that's
a
selection
of
the
deeper
edits
that
we're
working
on
we're,
also
considering
other
smaller
ones
like
adding
more
detailed
application,
Matrix
and
particularly
around
potential
partners
for
some
of
these
implementation
items.
E
Increasing
cross
references
throughout
the
plan
to
other
County
Common
plan
elements.
And,
of
course,
if
you
all
read
this
even
remotely
closely
catching
all
of
the
typos
and
confusing
elements
of
layout
and
language.
That
folks
commented
on
as
we
brought
the
draft
board
this
past
summer.
So
there's
there's
a
humbling
that
nicoba
involved
in
some
of
these
edits.
That
has
nothing
to
do
with
policy
which
I'm
very
thankfulness.
E
I
said
earlier,
we're
ultimately
aiming
to
bring
the
draft
for
the
boards
this
winter.
Ideally
it
will
be
December,
we'll
see
how
in
October
goes,
but
that
is.
That
concludes
the
staff
presentation
happy
to
build
the
rest
of
the
time
back
to
you
all
in
for
a
discussion
and
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions.
D
So
I'm,
assuming
that
you're
aware
of
fnr's
and
prc's
letters,
yes,
okay!
So
when
you're
saying
that
you
are
continually
looking
at
updating
and
things
are
you
addressing
yet
some
of
the
things
both
seem
to
be
supportive
but
still
feel
that
there's
fine
tuning
that
needs
to
be
done
and
those
what
you've
just
gone
through
I
can
see
it's
not
exact
references,
but
so
you
are
sensitive
to
it
and
you
are
incorporating
still
their
concerns.
E
We
are
yeah
those
commission.
Letters
have
been
immensely
helpful
and
just
as
a
point
of
process
and
we've
built
when
we'll
offer
is
on
the
line
as
well,
so
feel
free
to
jump
in
if
I,
mischaracterize
film,
the
natural
resource,
joint,
Advisory
Group,
is
sort
of
our
oversight
or
this
plan
that
includes
representatives
from
fnrc
PRC
c22.
E
So
we
needed
them
regularly
and
have
been
discussing
not
just
the
formal
feedback
in
the
letter.
But
you
know
moving
forward
and
backwards
and
side
to
side
all
of
the
feedback.
Then
those
commissions
I've
been
discussing
I'm
sure
Phil
could
a
test
that
we're
probably
not
going
to
be
able
to
act
on
all
of
it,
but
that
has
been
a
significant
foreign
guide
to
those
edits
that
I
just
articulated.
Yes,.
D
E
E
More
or
less
annually
with
the
legislative
affairs
team
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
those
priorities
are
current
and
that
we're
tracking
any
potential
legislation
that
would
be
helpful
in
addressing
some
of
those.
So
we
do
have
in
the
document
that
the
full
text
of
it
is
seek
legislative
changes
at
the
state
level
that
provide
Arlington
County
with
the
a
broader
set
of
policy
tools
to
promote
the
conservation
and
management
of
its
natural
resources.
That
is
one
of
our
10
priority
actions
as
well.
H
E
H
E
G
So
it's
probably
useful
for
our
commission
to
have
that
list
as
well
as
other
plans
lists
for
when
we're
asked
what
you
know.
We
think
the
county
legislative
package
should
look
like
when
we're
joined
to
Richmond
to
lobby,
and
you
know
things
that
our
commissioned
things
are
also
important.
You
can
add
that.
A
B
B
I'm
saying
my
comments.
I
made
before
I
saw
your
presentation,
so
I'm
really
heartened
to
hear
a
lot
of
that.
I
think
we
do
need
more
policy
tools
to
guide
our
planning
and
development
and
to
let
us,
as
a
as
our
own
jurisdiction,
try
to
balance
our
natural
resources
with
the
demand
for
more
dense
development
and
I
feel
confident.
We
can
do
that.
I,
like
that.
The
vision
statement
acknowledges
the
importance
of
creating
resilience
in
the
face
of
climate
change.
B
I
feel
like
that
is
a
great
example
of
how
this
has
evolved
to
be
really
current
I.
Concur
that,
with
the
priority
actions
about
acquiring
the
open
space
and
public
space
and
I'm,
not
sure,
if
there's
already
a
corresponding
piece
in
there.
That
ties
this
to
set
aside
funding,
because
you
know
that's
been
something
that
we've
talked
about
since
I
was
on
park
and
rec
at
least
15
years
ago.
B
B
You
know
to
remove
invasives
and
engage
the
public
around
and
show
up
at
the
county,
fair
and
talk
about
removing
ivory
from
the
trees.
I
mean
somewhere
that
went
through
Armin,
some
of
it
through
Master
Gardeners
through
tree
stewards
and
then
and
then
my
last
question
was
I,
was
kind
of
curious
about
what
were
the
concerns
of
the
24.
Who
said
they
were
dissatisfied
with
the
plan.
So
thank
you
sure.
E
E
We're
currently
working
with
to
try
to
make
sure
that
they're
to
add
that
more
explicit
recognition
piece,
but
then
also
throughout
the
recommendations,
really
that's
more,
where
we
reference
volunteer
groups
or
Partnerships
or
mous
to
be
a
little
bit
more
explicit
about
what
we're
already
doing
and
who
we're
doing
that
with
and
using
that
as
kind
of
the
foundation
for
some
of
those
recommendations.
So
a
handful
of
text
changes
to
the
recommendations
but,
more
importantly,
I
think
that
new
section
and
the
introduction
about
existing
conditions
and
who's
contributing
to
this
work.
E
Moving
forward
yeah
and
then
to
your
second
question
and
I
mentioned
this:
a
little
bit
early,
we'll
be
diving
into
this
a
little
bit
more
deeply
on
Monday
evening,
but
I
think
the
majority
of
those
comments
about
folks
from
folks.
The
open-ended
comments.
Folks,
who
are
kind
of
dissatisfied
with
where
we
are
it,
was
tone,
slash
urgency.
E
It
was
to
be
more
explicit
and
specific,
with
implementation
strategies
or
metrics,
and
things
of
that
nature
that
unfortunately
kind
of
fall
outside
of
the
purview
of
a
comprehensive
plan
element
to
address
fully
and
then
some
Legacy
not
legacy
comments
but
consistent
comments
that
we've
been
getting
throughout
the
process
about
whether
or
not
40
tree
canopy
is
the
correct
goal.
If
it's
ambitious
enough
so
folks
wanting
to
see
a
higher
higher
Target
more
targets
and
more
specificity
than
we
would
typically
get
into
in
a
comprehensive
plan.
E
So
a
lot
of
those
are
really
constructive
and
helpful,
and
a
lot
of
them
would
be
if
this
was
a
more
operational
plan.
And
those
are
things
that
we
can
take
kind
of
into
our
administrative
record
and
think
through
as
we
go
through
sort
of
our
implementation
strategies
and
certainly
as
we
move
into
our
next
three
canopy
study.
But
they're
they're,
probably
not
things
that
we
can
address
directly
in
the
draft.
E
B
H
You
Mr,
chair,
yeah,
I,
think
I
will
Echo,
commissioner
Garrett's
comments
that
the
plan
is
really
great
I,
particularly
appreciated
that
you
approached
us
with
the
word
document.
You
know
that
was
very
refreshing
in
the
way
we
did
feel
like.
We
could
comment
and
I
appreciate
sort
of
the
process
being
very
welcoming
to
the
comments.
E
E
H
H
E
Project
sure
yeah
I
think
well.
I
should
put
it
this
way.
We
have
tried
to
do
that,
specifically
in
1.2.3,
where
we
talk
about,
particularly
under
especially
session
exception
development.
We
talk
about
building
density
and
height,
or
you
know,
in
sort
of
an
exchange
for
a
more
plant
space
or
conservation.
I.
E
Think
a
lot
of
that's
inspired
by
the
approach
we
took
independent
on
City
sector
plan,
looking
at
some
of
the
potential
conservation
areas
that
might
manifest
on
River
House,
should
it
come
forward
for
redevelopment,
so
that
was
sort
of
the
inspiration
there.
We've
tried
to
have
that
sort
of
we
try
to
have
the
fnrp,
particularly
action.
1.2
queue
up
a
lot
of
those
things
around
setbacks
around
building
hide
around.
E
E
H
E
E
I
For
giving
me
a
chance
to
talk
about
this
plan
to
you
all,
I'll
represent
the
fnrc
forestry
Natural,
Resource
Commission
fnrc's
views
on
these
things.
This
plan
is
something
that
I've
been
working
closely
with
Ryan
for
really
over
two
years,
and
one
thing
I
want
to
say
about
the
current
version
is
this
current
version
is
something
that
was
very
well
received
by
the
fnrc.
I
I
I,
don't
want
to
repeat
some
of
the
things
that
Eleanor
was
just
talking
about,
but
I
suspect
that
some
of
the
people
in
that
25
percent,
who
were
not
pleased
with
the
plan,
were
folks
who
thought
that
the
that
again
we're
looking
for
that
sense
of
urgency.
Arlington
values,
its
Parks,
trees
and
neighborhoods,
and
all
of
them
are
under
threat,
not
just
from
one
Peril
but
from
two
Relentless
forces,
climate
change
and
development,
and
these
changes.
A
H
I
I
If
it's
planned
for
from
the
beginning,
the
Commissioners
are
enthusiastic
in
support
of
this
plan
and
it
represents
a
a
holistic
recognition
of
the
value
of
our
space,
our
nature
and
our
future
sustainability,
and-
and
so
we
are
supportive
and
urge
that
this
plan
be
adopted.
When
it
comes
to
that
point,
so
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
for
me.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak.
A
E
Or
that
we've
been
working,
let
me
clarify
from
the
perspective
the
plan
we've
been
working
with
APS
to
include
recommendations
to
kind
of
bring
those
forested
Parcels
across
the
two
public
ownerships
into
or
coherent
and
management.
So
I
do
know.
My
colleague
Vincent
works
with
them
frequently
in
sort
of
a
more
of
a
Consulting
role.
E
The
plan
recommends
a
more
formal
relationship,
a
pursuing
either
a
transfer
of
management
responsibility
from
APS
to
us
in
the
case
of
certain
contiguous
Forest
Parcels,
but
also
working
with
them
to
set
minimum
tree
canopy
targets
or
new
school
sites.
So
that's
kind
of
the
context
that
we're
working
with
APS
on
okay.
A
Yeah
strongly
is
that
it's
not
absence
core
function
and
it's
yours,
so
it'd
be
a
big,
huge
amount
of
sense.
You
know
they
mention
also
the
second
plans.
This
would
be
useful
for
setting
this
one
forward.
Well,
the
last
sector
plan
this
County
will
ever
do
is
being
completed,
that
Alex
Boulevard
there'll
be
tweaks
to
all
the
sector
Plans
by
part
of
the
future.
A
But
this
is
like
the
last
time
we're
going
to
have
a
prop
scratch
document
be
creative,
so
this
is
going
to
regard
to
have
a
way
to
influence
the
existing
sector
plans
rather
than
new
ones,
which
is
going
to
happen
anymore
yeah.
Maybe
the
language
used
to
tweaked
to
say
that
into
account
so
that
we
can
make,
because
even
right
now
you
just
love
that
opportunity,
Boulevard
to
maybe
put
in
three
goals
that
sort
of
thing
that
is
one
of
the
moments
in
there.
That
I
think
needs
to
be
strengthened.
A
E
It's
now
a
much
we've
been
we've
updated
that
to
essentially
be
a
much
broader
annual
report,
whether
that's
through
the
enerjack
or
through
another
mechanism
on
plan
implementation
and
any
inventories
for
studies
or
assessments.
We're
doing
that
here,
there's
there's
a
whole
Suite
tree
and
other
natural
resource
inventories
on
sort
of
a
staggered,
multi-annual
basis
that
the
plan
recommends.
So
it
would
be
we're
essentially
recommending
that
we
report
out
on
whichever
one
is
current
that
year
at
the
annual
report.
E
So
it's
it's
a
broader
and
kind
of
more
flexible
recommendation
to
your
point,
the
difficulties
of
tracking
every
tree
that
comes
down
right.
You
know
we
may
be
able
to
get
there,
but
particularly
through,
like
the
I
treat
Eco
studies
and
some
of
the
public
science
efforts
that
we
have.
But
we
wanted
to
really
focus
on
the
bigger
picture.
A
And
Reporting
on
kind
of
the
broader
metrics
in
the
plan.
Right
so
certainly
there's
some
way
you
can
get
a
consistent
way
of
reporting
and
support,
always
Imperials
to
Apples
trees,
to
trees,
you're,
nothing
to
keep
changing
way
of
doing
it,
sometimes
to
satellite
image.
Sometimes
it's
going
out
and
accounting
doing
the
census.
You
know
it's,
you
have
to
be
able
to
be
consistent
and
able
to
tell
whether
you're,
making
progress
or
not
I.
Think.
That's
always.
E
A
We
have
so
much
land
here
that
is
Our
Land
to
be
included
in
our
percentage.
The
airport.
Do
we
include
the
grb
parkway?
Do
we
include
Wellington
Cemetery,
the
Tod
parking
lots,
you
know
all
those
included
were
not
included.
I
think
there
should
be
at
least
some
reference
in
there
about
how
we
deal
with
those
non
Arlington.
A
E
Have
in
the
existing
conditions,
a
small
table
that
tries
to
break
that
down,
but
I
will
take
that
feedback
back
to
our
urban
forestry
crew
and
see,
if
there's
any
other
detail
that
we
can
include
in
the
existing
conditions,
so
go
ahead
and
bring
that
up.
I
think
the
important
thing
and
the
plan
is
predicated
on
this
and
I
know.
You
all
know
this
so
I'd,
forgive
me
for
getting
on
my
soapbox,
but
because
of
the
various
methodologies
and
this
sort
of
apples
of
oranges
comparison
even
within
our
own.
E
You
know
we
have
our
formal
tree,
canopy
studies.
We
also
have
our
itree
Eco
reports,
which
incorporate,
for
example,
the
the
work
done
by
the
tree
stewards.
So
there
are
various
ways
to
measure.
This
is
your
point
like
which
of
the
federal
or
Regional
entities
in
the
case
of
Nova
Parks.
Do
we
count?
The
important
thing
is
that
the
data
points
generally
agree
that
the
trend
is
slightly
downward
and
So.
The
plan
is
predicated
on
that.
E
A
A
It
when
you
within
Des
there's
also
too
little
silence
and
what
I
hope
this
plan
does
is
help
those
silos
start
to
integrate,
because
we
have
the
parks
and
recs
we
have
streets.
We
have
strong
water
people
and
yet
there's
an
opponent
of
what
you
do
for
all
of
those
we
have
way
too
much
term.
That's
just
there,
because
we
can't
figure
out
what
else
to
do
with
it.
It's
easy
to
mow,
but
part
of
your
plan
should
be
getting
rid
of
terms
that
isn't
being
used
for
kids
running
around
building.
A
You
know
that
or
a
golf
course
or
something
there's.
No.
You
know
that
should
be
forested
or
retrieved
or
or
rain
Gardens
or
something
other
than
just
grass,
and
if
there's
some
way,
we
can
have
that
reflected
in
there
that
all
components
of
the
county
really
need
to
be
thinking
about.
Why
is
when
you
see
a
sea
grass?
Why
is
that
there?
Why
do
we
still
have
them
some
way
to
do
that
going
forward?
Because
walking
here
you
know
at
95
degree
heat.
The
island
is
real.
A
I
I
can't
remember
to
what
he
said.
If
all
we
do
discuss,
you
know,
in
fact,
other
than
trees
are
good
to
mitigate.
This
is
becoming
clearly
more
and
more
important
grass
doesn't
help
heat
island.
Much
at
all,
trees
really
really
do
as
do
other
types
of
foliage,
and
you
know
there
should
be
a
major
component.
Gotta
get
rid
of
not
just
get
more
trees,
get
rid
of
turf
where
it
is,
then
so
that
that
requires
all
within
Des
to
be
coordinated
with
each
other
rather
than
just
by
default.
A
H
E
Answer
is
yes.
The
current
version
has
a
recommendation
to
examine
that
portion
of
the
county
code,
which
is
we
call
it.
The
wheat
ordinance
believe
it's
actually
called
section.
10.2
condition
of
private
property
we'd
actually
just
went
to
RTA
for
the
update
that
would
address
that
in
July,
I
believe
and
Jennifer
periodic
is
on.
The
line
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
that
goes
to
the
board
in
October.
E
So
obviously
I
don't
have
a
crystal
ball,
but
my
My
Hope
Is
that
we'll
be
able
to
remove
that
recommendation
and
replace
it
with
a
sidebar
of
an
early
victory
in
the
next
edition
of
the
plan.
So
we
do
and
that's
something
that
fnrc
and
PRC
and
energetic
have
been
on
on
that
beat
for
quite
some
time
and
we're
sort
of
catching
up
to
some
of
the
regulatory
solutions
that
other
Northern
Virginia
jurisdictions
have
implemented.
So
that's
currently
represented
in
the
plan.
E
E
Recommendation
currently
to
examine
how
the
prevalence
turf
grass
on
public
and
private
property
impedes
achievement
of
the
fnrp's
goals
and
related
storm
water
management
goals.
It
does
not
explicitly
reference
Urban
heat
island
there,
but
because
so
much
of
strategic
direction
to
our
climate,
strategic
Direction
people
still
can't
say
those
is
sequence
quite
well
is
predicated
on
Urban
heat
island
is
its
intersection
with
obviously,
climate
change,
but
also
the
tree.
Equity
scores
this
component
of
that.
E
Down
to
like
imped
planners
working
within
us
on
on
a
lot
of
this
everywhere,
Adobe
intersection
storm
water
to
the
public
right-of-way
a
lot
of
degree,
Corridor
recommendations
in
three
points,
free
anymore,
adapted
with
their
help
kind
of
specifically
to
acknowledge
that
intersection
of
our
responsibility
and
policy
goals.
So
hopefully
that's
encouraging
I've
been
encouraged
by
it
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
E
A
Could
you
put
a
date
on
that
that
says,
information
on
volunteer
organizations
is
current
as
of
secondary
2024
whenever
the
war
votes
on
it's
one
thing
that
has
always
driven
me
crazy
about
comp
plan
component
is
the
report
they'll
actually
say
today.
We're
looking
at
this
and
land
is
in
place
for
five
years.
So
you
have
no
idea
what
what
today
means
you
know,
so
it
should
always
refer
to.
A
E
F
F
It
seems
like
a
lot
of
the
comments
you
receive
back
were
qualitative
in
nature
right,
which
could
sometimes
to
be
subjective.
What
is
urgency,
and
how
do
you
communicate
that
you
know
the
40
figure?
Obviously
that's
more
quantitative
and
that's
a
sort
of
easier
to
measure,
but
given
that
there's
been
some
satisfaction
and
that
there's
been
some
sort
of
you
know
unclear
which
method
you're
following
and
how
you're
evaluating
do
you
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
clear
outcome
indicators.
F
E
Yeah
I
do
think
so.
We've
tried
to
do
that
within
the
confines
of
this
sort
of
comp
planning
box
that
we're
in
so
we
have
these
several
numeric
targets
that
I
mentioned
one
than
40
goal,
which,
admittedly
folks
aren't
not.
Everybody
is
on
board
with
that
Target,
even
though
we
feel
that's
the
best
and
what
our
analysis
is
yielded.
E
Incorporated
in
this
last
round,
or
the
previous
round
of
that
is
the
70
give
tree
species
in
our
tree,
canopy,
which
is
another
sort
of
by
2035
again
like
long-term
planning
benchmarks,
but
I
think
helpful,
guide
posts
where
we
feel
the
rubber
meets.
The
road
in
this
regard
is
in
strategic
direction,
for
where
we
have
sort
of
explicit
recommendations
to
do
more
regular
inventory
of
more
things.
E
So
we
have
better
up-to-date
sort
of
snapshots
of
our
progress
towards
these
broad
goals
and
then
to
beef
up
that
sort
of
annual
reporting
aspect,
which
can
take
many
forms
and
written
the
reports
of
the
board
briefing
to
our
oversight
committee.
That
sort
of
thing
we've
also
talked
about
ways
that
we
can
be
more
proactive
about.
Sharing
that
information.
You
know
an
overhaul
of
an
aspect
of
David
County's
website
that
deals
with
some
of
the
stuff.
E
We
have
a
lot
of
these
things
out
there
in
different
places,
but
there
are
things
out
there,
yeah
and
so
looking
into
that.
So
I
think
we're
we're
in
sort
of
the
enviable
position
and
having
a
lot
of
good
data
having
an
understanding
of
where
we
need
better
data
and
already
having
some
of
the
communication
tools.
But
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
where
we
need
to
go
moving
forward.
H
H
You
know
we
were
doing
a
community
center
that
has
a
part
associated
with
it
and
they
asked
this
to
tear
down
like
12
to
15
mature
trees,
because
the
slope
of
the
park
needed
to
be
you
know,
mitigated
because
of
brown
eyes.
Unfortunately,
that
died
really
quickly,
but
I
think
this
idea
of
educating
you
know
your
peers
and
making
sure
that
they
understand
that
trees
are
more
valuable,
they're
still
water
runoffs
than
certain
artificial
constructs.
You.
B
F
Well,
the
community
I'm
involved
with
is
actually
having
the
opposite
problem,
where
they
want
to
really
retain
the
Green
Space
of
the
Lee
Center
and
really
want
to
make
sure
that
they
lobbied
to
the
county.
About
that.
How?
How
do
you
guys
approach
that
right?
My
community
members
actually
want
to
keep
some
part
of
public
and,
as
a
and
you
know,
there's
conversations
about
having
to
about
what
to
do
with
the
future
of
the
lease
Center
and
they
want
to
make
sure
that
the
current
program
doesn't
extend
beyond
and
encroaching
on
the
Green
Space.
E
Yeah
in
a
handful
of
ways,
and
that's
a
sort
of
a
particular
example
that
I
will
get
to,
but
on
sort
of
a
more
generic
level,
I
guess
through
the
park.
Master
planning
process
is
a
great
way
to
get
involved
in
terms
of
how
a
park
or
a
public
space
may
be
redeveloped
or
which
aspects
of
its
current
configuration
are
retained
through
that
process.
The
other
is
through
compiling
exercises
like
this,
where
we've
tried
to
send,
for
example,
a
40
tree
canopy
coverage
goal
or
through
public
parks
in
sd-1.
E
H
E
Of
you
know,
sector
or
area
plans
are
another
opportunity
to
kind
of
take
a
small
chunk
of
the
county
and
examine
the
policy
priorities,
whether
that's
free
space,
whether
that's
public
space
that
may
not
be
green,
whether
it's
portable,
an
housing
and
so
those
are
kind
of
free
of
the
tiers
to
get
involved.
The
other.
F
E
You
know
without
really
knowing
the
specifics
of
that
process
and
in
the
Lee
Center.
That's
kind
of
the
broad
guidance
I
would
give
as
kind
of
the
tears
of
involvement
from
sort
of
the
county-wide
to
the
regional
within
the
group.
The
Center,
plan
kind
of
regional
into
specific
public
spaces
and
specific
programs.
G
So
I
noticed
there's
a
focus
on
invasive
species
in
the
plan
which
makes
sense,
and
it
talked
a
lot
about
invasive
plant
species.
How
would
you
compare
the
prioritization
of
like
invasive
pests
like
the
slaughtered
Lantern
fly
and
like
how
this
plan
prioritizes
plants
versus
pests
and
attacking
both
of
these
yeah
things?.
E
That
are
going
to
hurt
our
trees.
I
I
think,
like
the
best
way
to
think
about
this
and
regretful
that
my
colleague
Jen,
who
is
sort
of
our
invasive
managers
here,
that
we
wouldn't
I,
think
we
prioritize
based
on
impact
and
urgency
rather
than
on
whether
it's
a
planned
or
an
insect
or
a
mammal,
or
things
like
that.
So
I
know
the
spot
is
going
to
enter
the
fly.
E
Animal
passion
for
all
of
these
things
are
front
of
Mind
as
as
well
as
Atlantis
that,
like
Prestige
them
and
all
the
plants
that
we're
dealing
with
kind
of
the
good
thing
and
I'm
getting
a
little
bit
out
of
my
Lane
in
the
operational
sense
here.
So
please,
you
know,
don't
take.
Take
all
of
this
with
the
grain
of
salt.
I
think
that
we
have
a
really
robust,
volunteer
program
that
helps
us
with
plants
and
they
don't
move
as
quickly
either.
E
So
we
have
a
little
bit
of
a
Tailwind
there,
but
the
way
the
plan
kind
of
Branch.
This
is,
we
know
this
is
going
to
become
sort
of
an
increasing
problem.
As
climate
change
progresses,
the
ranges
of
things
change
native
species
may
be
out-competed
by
a
shifting
Kleiner
because
James.
We
also
have
like
a
really
good
Tailwind
in
terms
of
our
volunteer
organizations
and
Regional
Partnerships
and
cooperation,
and
even
within
Arlington,
like
National
Park
Service
in
Idaho
Parks
great
Partners
there.
E
That's
our
intent
is
that,
like,
whichever
is
the
most
viral
and
more
impactful,
that's
probably
the
priority
of
that
Year's
cycle
of
invasives
removal
with
the
acknowledgment
that
we
don't
want
to
lose
ground
on
ones
that
we've
made
progress
towards
control
and
be
happy
if
there's
more
detailed
follow-up
questions
I'm
happy
to
follow
up
with
our
natural
resources.
Folks,
on
your
behalf
or
connect
you
all,
but
in
terms
of
the
plan,
we
try
to
train
invasives
as
sort
of
a
compounding
climate
related
problem,
and
that's
one
that
you
know
requires
community-wise
solution,
but.
A
A
I,
don't
know
how
many
times
understandings
have
you
talked
to
the
county
Forester
or
what
your
Landings
are
going
to
be.
I
really
want
to
make
clear
that
we
want
data
species.
We
want
a
variety
of
things.
We
want
to
be
able
to
have
pollinators
friendly.
This
comes
up.
It's
pretty
I,
I.
Think
every
single
sprcp
Landing
commission.
These
issues
have
come
up.
They've
been
emphasized
to
the
applicants,
so
you
know
this.
You
know
this
plan
is
a
certainly
very,
very
Timely,
and
it
is
something
that
we
are
always
referring
to
at
Planet.
A
For
these
issues.
Yeah
anybody
else
have
anything
else
and
slice
great.
If
anybody
does
have
comments
for
sure,
Brian
will
be
more
than
happy
to
answer.
It's
been
quite
busy
the
next
few
weeks
before
it
comes
for
the
Planning
Commission
besides
Planet
commissioner,
have
you
finished
your
rounds
with
forestry,
National,
Universe,
Mission
and
other
commissions.
E
A
For
this
anyway,
thank
you
we're
it's
only
quarter
to
nine.
You
don't
have
to
go
to
9,
30.,
congratulations,
but
I
think
we
really
did
cover
this,
so
I,
don't
think
we're
perpetually.
So
so,
thank
you
all
for
coming.
Thank
you
staff
for
making
this
work
so
smoothly
for
the
presentation.
Brian
I
really
appreciate
this.
A
That
was
an
amazing
amount
of
work
and,
like
I,
said
it's
it's
sorely
needed
and
make
sure
you
really
are
working
with
plant
likes
at
Boulevard
with
Natasha,
because
you
know
we're
coming
up
on
that
all
set
where
we've
got
Electro
again,
parallel,
Mutual,
RTA
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
what
you're
doing
is
reflected
in.
What's
that
plan
is
is
coming
up
with
is
there's
a
very
big
component
honestly
green
Main
Street
trees
is
a
big
thing
of
it
because
it's
way
on
you
have
anything
to
Northern.