►
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
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
july
7
2022
meeting
of
the
arlington
county
planning
commission,
I
am
commission
chair
daniel
weir.
This
is
the
second
of
two
evenings
scheduled
for
our
public
hearings.
Tonight.
The
commission
will
hear
a
request
for
use
permit
for
below-grade
parking
structure
at
the
heights
school
as
well
as
a
corresponding
field.
Tonight,
the
commission
will
also
hear
a
briefing
on
updates
to
administrative
regulations
and
conduct
other
commission
business,
such
as
committee
reports
minutes
and
bylaws
issues.
A
Last
night
the
commission
heard
a
request
to
advertise
future
public
hearings
by
the
planning,
commission
and
county
board
to
consider
actions
pertaining
to
the
courthouse
west
special
general
land
use
plan
study.
If
you
are
here
tonight
for
that
item,
informationally,
you
can
catch
up
either
on
youtube
or
on
the
county
website,
and
your
next
opportunity
to
provide
feedback
will
be
at
the
county
board
meeting
on
july
16.
A
A
Before
we
begin
a
few
specifics
to
orient
everyone
to
our
virtual
environment.
Tonight's
meeting
is
available
as
a
broadcast
with
closed
captioning
on
comcast,
xfinity
channels,
25
and
1085,
verizon,
fios
channels,
39
and
40,
and
the
county
website
audio
of
tonight's
meeting
is
available
via
phone
and
if
commissioners,
presenters
or
speakers
lose
internet
connectivity
during
tonight's
meeting,
please
reconnect
with
us
by
phone.
A
I
understand
that
the
phone
number
is
provided
on
the
team's
invite
and
registered
speakers
have
received
ms
badger's
telephone
number
in
their
speaker,
registration,
confirmation
for
other
speakers
and
presenters
joining
us
through
microsoft
teams.
Please
keep
your
phones
and
devices
muted
until
you
are
called
upon.
Please
turn
off
sound
to
any
other
devices
around
you
to
minimize
interference
and
keep
your
cameras
off
until
the
clerk
calls
on
you
to
speak
when
called
upon
to
speak.
Please
unmute
yourself
by
clicking
on
the
microphone
icon.
That's
located
on
your
command
bar.
A
The
moderator
does
not
have
the
ability
to
unmute
you
once
you
have
spoken.
Please
turn
your
cameras
off
and
if
you're
dialing
in
by
phone
press
star
6
to
unmute
public
speakers,
you
will
be
called
upon
by
the
clerk
at
an
assigned
time.
Pre-Registration
to
speak
at
tonight's
hearing
was
required
and
we
are
not
able
to
accommodate
additional
speakers.
A
Public
comment
will
take
place
within
the
same
time
frames
as
we
would
provide
at
an
in-person
meeting.
Speakers
will
have
three
minutes
to
comment
as
individuals
and
five
minutes
to
speak.
If
representing
an
organization,
a
speaking
timer
will
be
displayed
on
screen
by
the
clerk.
If
you
are
dialing
in
by
phone
and
unavailable
to
see
the
screen,
we
will
provide
an
audible
warning
when
30
seconds
are
remaining
and
you
will
be
muted
when
your
time
is
concluded.
A
The
meeting
chat
is
active
for
presenters
or
commissioners
who
need
technical
assistance.
Only
please
do
not
use
the
meeting
chat
for
discussion.
Public
comment,
questions
about
agenda
items
or
requests
for
more
information.
All
public
comment
must
be
shared
verbally
for
the
record
during
the
assigned
public
testimony
period.
And
lastly,
this
is
a
public
forum.
Tonight's
meeting
will
be
recorded
and
posted
to
the
county
website.
All
information
associated
with
tonight's
meeting,
whether
written
or
spoken,
is
subject
to
virginia
freedom
of
information
act
requirements.
A
A
I
think
that
we
request,
I
think
that
we
can
dispose
of
the
commit
commission
business
quite
promptly
and
and-
and
actually
this
is
a
another
little
bit
of
an
audible,
the
the
main
commission
business
that
we're
to
start
with
is
the
is
actions
so
we'll
do
minutes,
and
we
will
do
amendments
to
our
bylaws.
That
will
enable
us
to
do
have
remote
participation,
and
that
will
you
know
so
I'll.
A
B
Yes,
the
first
item
is
the
pc
committed
committee
reports
in
other
business,
including
the
approval
of
the
june
8th
minutes.
A
Great,
thank
you
so
the
june
8th
minutes,
I
believe,
have
been
circulated.
I
recall
seeing
them.
I
hope,
I'm
not
making
that
up
a
question
for
my
colleagues
before
I
entertain
or
before
I
seek
unanimous
consent
for
adoption
of
the
june
8th
minutes.
Does
anyone
have
any
amendments
or
changes
or
corrections
to
the
draft
june
8th
minutes
as
they
were
circulated
last
week.
A
I
am
not
seeing
any
hands
and
so.
A
And
so
I
am
going
to
seek
unanimous
consent
to
deem
the
minutes
of
our
june
8th
meeting
adopted.
C
A
So,
and-
and
that
is
how
you
were
recorded
as
being
absent,
and
so
I
think
we're
fine,
I'm
hearing
no
objections.
The
minutes
are
adopted.
A
I
think
that
I
want
to
actually
we'll
move
to
this
next
item,
which
is
our
our
bylaws,
as,
as
you
all
know,
and
I'm
just
gonna
just
say
one
quick
thing
and
then
then
get
over
to
staff
to
to
sort
of
say
anything
that
I've
forgotten
or
neglected
to
or
that
needs
to
be
said
we
in
order
to.
We
are
not
under
the
under
the
legislation
that
enables
virtual
meetings
for
public
bodies.
We
are
not
able
to
meet
virtually
because
we
are
the
planning
commission.
A
We
are
explicitly
exempted
from
doing
so
accepted
from
doing
so.
Excuse
me
that
said
upon
adoption
of
of
of
appropriate
policy.
We
do
have
the
authority
to
meet
to
to
allow
for
hybrid
remote
participation
by
planning
commissioners.
There
are
some
limitations.
For
instance,
you
have
to
go
on
record
as
as
as
you're
as
to
your
reason
for
participating
virtually
or
participating
remotely.
A
There
has
to
be
there.
There
are
force
it
has
to.
Your
reason
has
to
fall
into
one
of
four
authorized
categories
and-
and
we
as
commissioners
are
only
able
to
participate
remotely
in
up
to
one
quarter
of
our
meetings
and
we
have
to
have
a
policy
that
enables
us
to
do
so.
What
staff
have
prepared
and
circulated
is
a
policy
that
would
a
an
amendment
to
our
bylaws
and
and
policy
that
would
allow
for
hybrid
participation
at
our
hearings.
A
So
this
is
our
regular
monthly
commission
hearings
that
we're
talking
about.
There
is
still
work
to
be
done
on
how
we
go
about
allowing
participation,
remote
participation
in
sprc
projects
in
lrpc
projects,
so-called
projects
etc.
A
And
so
if
you
are
asking
well
daniel,
we
meet
a
number
of
times
per
year
that
nobody
knows,
because
we
don't
know
in
january
how
many
sprc
meetings
you're
there
are
going
to
be.
That
is
a
very
good
question.
The
answer
to
that
is
that
the
relevant
denominator,
for
the
purposes
of
the
policies
that
we're
going
to
be
present
that
are
going
to
be
presented
to
us
and
will
be
adopted
tonight
is,
is
one
that
is
just
the
11
months.
A
Main
hearings
I
for
those
following
along:
if
there's
anything
I've
omitted
or
that
also
needs
to
be
said
or
or
for
context.
You
know
mr
fusreli,
mr
schreiber,
mr
pfeiffer,
as
badger
or
anyone
else.
I
would
would
welcome
you
to
to
step
in.
I
don't
know
if
you
were
planning
also
on
on
sharing
the
document
it's
been
circulated,
but
if
you
want
to
do
that
either
I
can
bring
it
up
or
you
can.
Mr
pfeiffer,
you
have
the
floor.
D
Thank
you.
Sharon
weir,
just
for
the
record,
I'm
matt
pfeiffer,
with
the
planning
division.
Joanne,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
promoting
me
to
present
her
briefly.
Yes,
thank
you
that
way.
I
can
share
my
screen.
D
So
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
add
to
what
you
said
chairman
weir,
is
just
that.
So
this
this
electronic
meeting
policy
is
required
by
the
new
state
law
for
all
planning
commissions
to
adopt.
This
is
essentially,
this
is
kind
of
a
a
boilerplate
policy
that
was
created,
kind
of
for
all
county
commissions,
but
tailored
to
the
planning
commission
specifically,
and
it
just
sort
of
mirrors.
D
What's
in
the
state
code
it
talks
about,
you
know
the
reasons
for
requesting
to
participate
remotely,
how
members
will
request
from
the
chair
to
participate
remotely
and
then
how
that
is
recorded
in
the
meeting
minutes,
and
then
it
talks
about
procedural
requirements.
Essentially,
the
upshot
here
is
that
you
know
permissions
should
only
be
granted
as
long
as
there
is
a
physical
quorum
of
the
planning
commission
in
the
room.
D
There
are
makes
arrangements
for
the
voice
of
the
member
who
is
participating
remotely,
which
means
that
you
know
as
long
as
you
participate
in
teams
we're
doing
what
we're
doing
now.
That
should
be
fine,
and
then
you
know
that
this
policy
shall
be
applied
to
all
members
equally,
so
that's
that's
sort
of
all
I
have,
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
just
sort
of
a
boilerplate
policy
that
was
created
for
all
county
commissions
but
tailored
for
the
planning
commission.
D
Specifically
in
this
case,
and
then,
as
the
chair
mentioned,
you
know
we'll
be
revisiting
in
september
the
committees
themselves.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
pfeiffer,
and
so
am
I
am
I
correct
in
recalling
that
the
idea
is
that
it
is
sufficient
to
adopt
this
policy
that
we
do
not
in
fact
need
to
further
to
go
so
far
as
to
amend
the
bylaws
to
either
incorporate
it
or
to
provide
some
kind
of
authority
for
having
it.
I've
got
the
bylaws
open
and
you
know,
there's
I
don't
see
anything
onto
the
under
the
meetings
article
that
would
you
know
that
specifically
requires
in
person.
A
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
that
the
understanding
is,
is
that
adopting
this
policy
isn't
a
would
be
within
our
authority
under
our
bylaws
as
they
as
they
exist
today,
and
it
would
take
effect
and
be
in
effect,
for
our
september
meeting,
that
does
that
sound,
correct
mr
viper.
D
It
does
yeah,
that's
my
understanding
from
our
you
know,
numerous
conversations
with
the
county
attorney's
office
on
this
subject.
A
Right
easier
is
always
better,
so
I
think,
mr
pfeiffer,
that
all
we
need
to
do
is
to
move
second
and
vote
to
adopt.
The
policy
is
that
is
that
correct?
A
That
would
be
correct
questions
or
concerns,
et
cetera
from
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
D
D
Up
sure,
my
apologies
here
you
go.
F
Okay,
I
move
that
the
arlington
county
planning
commission
adopt
the
policy
governing
electronic
participation
in
meetings.
The
draft
of
seven
one
twenty
twenty
two.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner,
tell
me
on
the
motion,
commissioner
gear
and
on
the
second,
is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
to
the
motion.
A
Then
I
will
call
the
role.
Give
me
one
moment.
A
Is
absent,
commissioner?
Kieran.
G
A
C
H
A
Excuse
me,
commissioner,
schroll
is
absent.
Commissioner
steinberger
is
also
absent.
I
vote
I
and
the
motion
carries
six
to
zero.
Thank
you
all.
Thank
you,
mr
pfeiffer.
A
A
We
aim
to
be
in
a
position
to
discuss
the
next
steps.
As
mr
pfeiffer
said
in
september,
there's
a
little
bit
of
work.
That's
with
commissioner
patel
and
me
there's
there's
there's
work,
that
is
with
staff,
and
we
will
have
more
on
this
after
the
recess.
B
Chair
chair:
did
you
want
to
do
committee
reports
now
or
hold
it
until
after
the
heights.
A
Let's
hold
committee
reports
and
and
staff
reports
on
until
after
the
heights.
I
think
okay.
B
A
Thank
you,
miss
suntec
and
just
assante,
and
I
believe
we
have
someone
from
aps
here
as
well,
a
reminder
that
we've
asked
both
the
staff
and
the
applicant
to
limit
their
presentations
to
10
minutes.
Absolutely
mistake.
The
floors
for
us.
I
All
right,
thank
you
appreciate
the
reminder.
We
will
keep
this
brief
so
good
evening.
My
name
is
olivia
sontag,
I'm
a
planner
in
the
cphd
planning
division.
I
So
you
all
have
seen
this
presentation
before,
but
I'll
quickly
go
over
the
location
again
on
the
site
is
located
on
the
corner
of
wilson
and
quinn
street.
Here's
the
7-eleven
building
for
reference
phase,
one
was
completed
in
2019,
which
is
the
main
school
building
here
and
then
phase
two
is
located
here
along
north
quinn
street
and
then
the
front
fronting
18th
street
north.
I
I
The
garage
also
provides
covered
and
secure
storage
for
bikes
a
covered
and
improved
entrance
to
the
shriver
program
and
a
synthetic
lighted
turf
field
above
in
accordance
with
the
moa
with
the
county
aps
also
proposes
a
tilt
to
the
field,
with
an
amp
with
amp
theater
seating
on
the
northwest
corner
to
accommodate
the
entrance
to
the
parking
garage
and
schreiber
program.
I
So
the
used
permanent
application
was
heard
by
the
planning
commission
in
may,
where
the
commission
recommended
deferral.
The
county
board
also
heard
the
item
in
may
and
also
recommended
deferral
to
a
date.
No
earlier
than
the
july
16
2022
accounting
board
meeting
asking
for
additional
time
to
assess
and
further
address
the
issues
identified
in
the
report.
I
So
these
issues
included
on
the
18th
street
north
width
and
parking
lane,
the
18th
street
north
streetscape
18th
street
operations
and
the
field
elevation
aps
has
agreed
to
incorporate
the
318th
street
revisions,
but
will
keep
the
field
at
an
elevation
of
180
feet.
Staff
supports
all
of
the
revisions
to
18th
street
and
the
aps
conclusion
that
the
field
needs
to
be
at
an
elevation
of
1
8
180
feet
so
that
the
field
and
floor
1
of
the
school
are
level
to
accommodate
the
needs
of
students
and
maximizes
the
playable
field
area.
I
So
I'll
briefly
cover
these
changes
that
have
been
made
to
the
proposal
to
address
these
issues.
Since
the
last
time
you
saw
the
proposal
and
then
aps
will
present
in
a
little
more
detail
on
some
of
these
changes.
I
I
The
light
poles
are
also
proposed
to
be
relocated
to
the
raised
planter
to
minimize
obstructions
to
the
10-foot
clear
path,
and
there
have
also
been
two
additional
street
trees
planted
on
the
corner
of
quinn
and
18th
and
then
on
the
opposite
corner
of
the
field.
Fronting
18th
just
to
offset
some
of
the
street
tree
requirements.
I
So
the
operations
staff
worked
with
aps
to
craft
a
condition
requiring
an
operations
plan
for
18th
street
during
the
daily
weekday
closures.
This
is
all
outlined
in
condition:
number
67.
I
I
And
then
some
of
the
additional
improvements
that
I
wanted
to
highlight
again
here
clouded
are
the
two
additional
street
trees
that
they've
added
as
part
of
the
design?
There
are
four
additional
trees
planted
over
here
on
the
transition
from
the
field
to
rosalind
highlands
park.
I
Again,
you
can
see
the
entrance
from
level
one
onto
the
field
they've.
Also
we
asked
them.
Staff
asked
them
to
consider
additional
screening
for
the
garage
or
decorative
panels
that
would
help
with
the
height
of
the
garage
along
18th
street
and
aps
has
proposed
shown
here.
These
banners
in
colors,
along
along
18th
street
they've,
also
widened
the
base
of
the
stair
on
18th
street,
leading
up
to
the
field.
I
So
the
staff
recommendation
currently
is
to
approve
the
use,
permit
amendment
for
the
garage
with
modifications
to
the
zoning
ordinance
requirements
for
parking
reduction
and
to
allow
parking
spaces
to
be
located
off-site,
which
are
in
the
aubry
parking
garage
and
then
subject
to
the
conditions
of
the
staff
report,
namely
the
new
condition
number
67.,
so
just
to
briefly
go
over
the
previous
community
engagement
process.
This
item
did
in
may
go
to
the
pfrc
and
the
parks
and
rec
commission.
I
The
chair
of
the
pfrc
did
not
think
that
these
changes
warranted
going
back
to
the
pfrc,
which
is
why
it
did
not
return
and
the
same.
The
same
was
said
for
the
parks
and
rec
commission.
I
Back
in
april,
the
transportation
commission
recommended
deferral,
planning,
commission
recommended
deferral
and
the
board
recommended
deferral.
This
item
did
go
to
the
transportation
commission
this
past
thursday,
where
they
recommended
approval,
and
then
here
we
are
tonight
and
the
county
board
meeting
is
scheduled
for
july
16th.
A
J
See
the
presentation-
yes,
okay,
some
of
the
information
that
we
have
is
consistent
with
with
what
the
staff
report
was
showing.
In
summary,
the
heights
phase
two
was
reviewed
by
various
arlington
county
commissions,
as
noted
previously
and
ultimately
deferred
by
the
county
board
action
in
may.
In
the
time
since
then,
we
have
been
completing
design
revisions
to
address
these
comments
and
working
with
staff,
as
we
we've
made.
These
changes,
particularly
around
the
streetscape
and
facade
treatment.
J
The
proposed
field
elevation
does
remain
unchanged
because
it's
essential
component
of
providing
acceptable
and
universal
access
from
the
building,
and
it
also
provides
better
security
for
the
students
during
the
school
day,
in
the
sense
that
students
don't
have
to
move
through
the
park
to
get
to
the
field,
and
we
have
increased
our
security
requirements
for
our
students
during
the
school
day,
and
that
was
part
of
the
the
reason
for
keeping
the
elevation
where
it
was
without
having
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
field.
J
J
Talking
about
the
little
bit
more
detail
on
the
revised
streetscape,
we
did
maintain
the
existing
street
width
and
parking
lane
adjacent
to
the
aps.
Frontage.
We
added
the
continuous
elevated
planting
strip
with
trees
and
other
plantings.
J
We
did
reduce
the
sidewalk
clear
width
to
10
feet
from
the
original
proposal
and
we
made
a
geometry
change
to
the
stair
at
the
18th
street
access
to
the
field,
and
we
provided
more
additional
detail
on
the
finishes
at
the
covered
entrance
on
level
g1,
as
well
as
talking
about
what
we're
planning
as
far
as
facade
treatments
along
18th
street
and
as
also
as
recommended,
we
added
the
planning
strip
at
north
quinn
street
adjacent
to
the
railing.
J
So
looking
at
the
sketch,
you
can
see
the
initial
design
on
the
bottom
and
the
revised
design
on
the
top,
and
you
can
see
the
changes
to
the
streetscape
as
well
as
the
curbline
and
including
the
parking
lane
along
the
side
of
the
street
and
on
the
upper
right
hand,
side
of
that
upper
design.
You
can
see
the
widened
staircase
to
18th
street
both
for
public
access
and
also
for
students
accessing
buses
coming
off
of
the
field
so
that
they
can
utilize
the
field
for
staging
waiting
for
buses,
especially
late
buses.
J
J
Looking
at
the
renderings,
you
can
see,
on
the
left
hand,
side
the
initial
design
with
without
the
parking
lane
on
the
right
hand,
side
you
can
see
the
parking
lane
and
the
banners
that
we're
looking
at
trying
to
soften
the
the
side
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
before
or
after,
and
you
can
see
that
the
planting
areas
have
been
modified
to
show
the
the
design
as
as
it's
intended
to
be.
J
I
think,
in
the
earlier
design
you
can
see
we
just
had
strip
planting
was
which
was
not
what
was
which
is
is
less
correct
than
what
we
have
in
the
in
the
rendering
on
the
right
hand,
side.
J
As
far
as
the
finish,
a
lot
of
discussion
was
talked
about
with
regard
to
the
entrance
to
the
shriver
program
and
again
it's
a
slope
sidewalk
that
goes
down
to
that
main
entrance
which
is
adjacent
to
the
schreiber
administrative
entrance.
All
of
our
buildings,
all
of
the
accesses
or
entrances,
are
for
all
students.
J
Anybody
can
go
in
to
any
of
the
entrances,
so
it's
not
necessarily
specifically
to
the
program,
it's
just
where
the
administrative
areas
are
for
those
programs,
but
we
are
looking
at
using
a
white
mineral
coating
applied
to
the
concrete
wall
and
soffit
above
the
covered
entrance.
There
would
be
up
down
lighting
that
would
reflect
off
of
the
white
surfaces
to
provide
a
bright
light
area
for
evening
access.
J
If
anybody
has
seen
the
refinish
the
refinished
educational
center,
which
is
bright
and
white,
that
is
a
similar
finish,
is
what
we're
planning
on
putting
in
that
entrance
way
to
to
brighten
the
entrance,
rather
than
being
typical,
concrete
the
rest
of
the
facade.
We
are
looking
at
at
concrete
of
the
similar
finish
and
color
of
rosalind
highland
park
to
keep
that
consistent,
and
that
was
part
of
the
intent
of
the
design.
J
As
far
as
the
banners
go,
we
were
thinking
that
this
could
be
something
that
could
have
input
from
the
students
who
could
actually
design
the
banners
or
be
involved
in
the
design
of
the
banners
just
for
representation.
We
just
have
showing
rectangle
banners
hanging
there,
but
they
could
be
changeable
with
time
that
could
be
showing
art
could
be
showing
different
references
that
could
be
modified
and
changed
over
time,
but
the
banners
would
would
intend
to
be
always
there
and
also
in
the
planting
strip.
J
J
Looking
down
from
above
quinn
street,
you
can
see
a
rendering
of
all
of
the
the
changes
that
are
made.
You
can
see
the
buses
in
the
parking
area
separated
the
buses
a
little
bit
more.
The
rendering
is
actually
showing
what
would
be
at
pickup
time
when
the
buses
are
are
generally
staged
in
the
parking
area.
The
intent
would
be
for
the
shriver
buses
to
be
closest
to
the
curb,
because
they
load
and
unload
from
the
side
of
the
bus
directly
onto
the
curb
the.
J
Then
looking
standing
at
the
quinn
street
again,
we
would
be
controlling
access
from
quinn
street
the
street
being
one
way
and
we
do
have
the
student
parking
or
bus
bike
parking,
also
along
the
entry
to
the
that
shriver
entrance,
so
that
the
students
have
some
covered
bike
parking,
as
well
as
the
uncovered
parking
at
certain
areas
on
the
site.
J
J
And
then,
looking
back
towards
the
other
direction,
we
do
have
additional
the
additional
exit
above
the
schreiber
entrance
off
of
the
field.
Working
with
isd,
we
did
have
to
add
more
egress
to
the
field
and
to
and
from
the
field,
mainly
from
the
field,
during
emergency
access
or
exiting
and
from
the
original
plan
five
years
ago,
and
I
believe
that's
the
conclusion
of
the
presentation
of
the
changes.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chambers.
Madam
clerk,
do
we
have
any
public
speakers
this
evening.
B
A
Thank
you
welcome
ms
romero.
K
Thank
you.
My
name
is
carmen
romero
and
I'm
here,
I'm
the
president,
ceo
at
appa,
the
arlington
partnership
for
affordable
housing,
and
we
are
the
developer
and
owner
of
queen's
court,
which
is
directly
across
the
street
from
the
site.
K
So
I
want
to
thank
you
and
the
commission
for
your
outreach
to
invite
me
here
tonight,
so
I
can
get
a
little
bit
more
context
into
the
changes
that
were
happening
across
the
street
because
I
do
think
this
is
a
a
very
important
area
in
the
county,
and
I
was
actually
a
proud
member
of
the
original
raps
study
group
that
worked
on
this
back
in.
I
don't
even
know
what
year
that
was,
but
with
many
of
you,
so
you
know
I'm
not
here
to
comment
on
the
changes.
K
I
know
these
have
been
a
really
based
on
my
read
of
the
staff
report,
important
negotiation
between
county
staff
and
school
staff
to
come
to
an
agreement
on
something
that
staff
supports.
So
I'm
really
not
here
to
comment
on
that,
but
it
was.
K
It
was
good
for
me
to
understand
the
changes,
but
really
to
focus
on
ensuring
that
the
residents
of
queens
court
are
part
of
kind
of
future
changes
and
conversations
around
the
design
of
anything
that's
happening
in
the
wraps
area
and
especially
a
site
as
critical
as
a
school
site
across
the
street
from
us.
And
how
do
we
do
that
and
memorialize,
potentially
in
conditions
and
site
plan
language
about
outreach
to
both
queens
court
and
our
residents?
K
We
cut
the
ribbon
on
queen's
court
a
year
ago
and
I
don't
often
get
to
come
back
to
the
planning
commission
and
tell
you
who
ended
up
moving
in
and
just
for
information
sharing.
There's
really
it's
an
incredibly
vibrant
community
filled
with
one
two
and
three
bedrooms:
it's
249
households
and
at
move
in.
We
had
a
chance
to
sit
down
with
175
of
those
families
to
learn
a
lot
more
about
them
and
just
to
share
some
of
that
data.
K
Back
with
with
the
commission
and-
and
I'm
glad
mr
chambers
is
here
from
aps,
because
they
even
you
know
they
include
at
least
one
family
who
have
gotten
to
know
whose
children
go
to
hb,
which
is
or
the
heights.
I'm
sorry.
So
out
of
those
775
families,
75
identifies
by
poc
residents.
K
50
ahead
of
households
are
women.
79
are
engaged
in
napa
programming
already.
You
know
that
can
be
everything.
We've
got
programs
and
meetings
and
events.
K
A
hundred
households
have
needed
some
help
during
the
pandemic
to
pay
rent
because
they've
been
negatively
impacted
in
their
by
either
the
pandemic
or
their
work,
and
we
really
have
a
vibrant
community
with
17
programs
that
we've
launched
since
opening
everything
from
girls
on
the
run
teams
to
senior
nights.
A
partnership
with
la
cocina
va
the
one
that's
located
in
gilliam
place,
project
p,
which
is
a
menstruation
education,
support
group
and
free
products
for
young
women.
Reading
rocks
summer
camps
holiday
magic.
K
It's
an
incredible
community
that
I
think,
would
be
an
asset
to
any
planning.
That's
going
to
be
going
on
in
the
greater
western
rosslyn
area
planning,
study
area,
and
this
is
a
work
in
process
for
all
of
us.
I
think
we
all
struggle
to
make
sure
that
we
get
renters
voices
into
public
planning
processes
and
I'm
guilty
of
it
myself.
K
We
certainly
don't
we're
doing
charettes
now
on
future
projects
with
current
residents,
we've
started
a
resident
council
where
we
opened
up
solicitation
to
the
entire
portfolio
of
2000
units
to
volunteer
their
time
one
saturday,
a
month
with
us
to
talk
about
things
that
are
important
to
the
resident
council
leadership.
K
K
A
Thank
you
very
much,
ms
romero.
Madam
clerk,
do
we
have
representatives
from
any
commissions
other
than
the
transportation
commission?
Certainly
tell
me
I'll
come
to
you
in
in
the
ordinary
course.
F
Okay,
yes,
this
was
heard
at
last
thursday
night's
transportation
commission
meeting.
As
you
mentioned
earlier,
when
this
originally
came
before
the
transportation
commission,
we
voted
to
defer
this
time.
We
instead
voted
in
favor
of
it
because
for
transportation
purposes
there
were
sufficient
changes
that
allowed
the
transportation
commission
to
say
that
you
know
we
we
vote
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
this
questions
that
were
raised.
Why
was
the?
F
F
We
did
nonetheless,
I
guess,
talk
about
our
disappointment
with
the
overall
design
and
that
it
could
not
be
lowered.
This
was
seen
as
something
that
should
have
been
forced
when
the
school
was
originally
being
designed
and
that
this
really
was
a
failure
of
of
thinking
all
the
way
through
all
the
aspects
of
the
site
when
it
was
originally
being
built.
We
spent
a
lot
of
money
and
we
hired
very,
very
comp,
very
good
architects,
which
came
up
with
a
stunning
school,
but
we
did
not
finish
the
job
of
planning
it.
F
So
we
end
up
with
what
we
have
here,
which
again
the
transportation
commission
was
not
thrilled
with
the
design,
but
again
did
feel
that
sufficient
changes
were
made
for
the
transportation
aspects
such
that
that
it
voted
in
favor
of
moving
forward
and
that's
the
report
of
transportation.
Commission.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
of
land
tommy.
I
will
just.
I
will
remind
my
colleagues
then
that
we
ordinarily
would
have
a
report
from
a
subcommittee
in
this
case.
This
did
not
come
to
us.
A
It
did
not
go
through
the
pfrc
process,
as
we've
discussed
prior
to
the
last
meeting
or
this
one
and
in
any
event
we
are
also
absent
independently.
We
are,
we
are
passing
commissioner
steinberger
and
commissioner
peterson,
so
there
is
not
a
pfrc
chair
report.
I
will
then
refer
my
colleagues
as
as
the
commission,
as
the
discussion
is
now
with
the
commission.
I
will
refer
my
colleagues
to
the
list
of
of
potential
topics
that
I
circulated
earlier.
A
They
are
there's
a
lot
of
words,
so
I
am
going
to
put
them
on
to
a
word
file
and
then
put
that
onto
the
screen.
Give
me
just
a
moment
to
do
so.
A
So
the
topics
that
I
think
that
we
should
begin
with
are
field
design,
size,
character
of
neighborhood
and
community
outreach,
garage,
design
and
justification.
A
The
relationship
of
the
proposal
to
several
to
two
area
to
to
the
west
roslin
area
plan
the
relationship,
the
proposal
to
the
rosland
sector
plan
particularly
recommendations
concerning
the
18th
street
corridor
between
oak
and
quinn,
the
relationship
to
the
master
transportation
plan.
I
meant
to
add
here,
relationship
to
the
glup.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
would
like
to
walk
through
what
the
experience
is
currently
like
for
students
who
are
exiting
a
bus
on
18th
and
going
into
the
school
versus
what
will
be
different
with
this
and
which
students
are
likely
to
use
the
changed
space.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
do
that
under
garage
design
or,
if
that's
more,
of
a
clarifying
question
to
cover
in
the
beginning.
Thank
you.
A
I
know
that
there
is
some
overlap
between
these,
so
I
apologize
for
that.
To
the
extent
are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
commissioners
with
respect
to
the
field,
design,
size
and
lighting,
and
I'm
actually
going
to
take
this
I'm
going
to
unshare
this
because
I'll
just
I'll
go
through
it.
As
I
get
to
it,
commissioner
hughes.
L
Thanks,
commissioner,
we're
a
question
for
staff:
either
aps
or
county
staff.
Does
the
rectangular
field
meet
any
size
standards
for
rectangular
fields
that
are
utilized
in
competitive
sports.
M
I
guess
jeremy
smith
with
dpr
the
the
field
currently
does
not
meet
any
standard.
It
was
always
intended
to
be
a
mainly
a
practice
field
for
ultimate
frisbee.
It's
not
long
enough
for
ultimate
frisbee.
It's
not
quite
wide
enough.
We
would
also
use
it
for
under
10
soccer
practices,
small
games
for
for
young
soccer
people
that
don't
need
huge
fields,
but
it
currently
wouldn't
fit
kind
of
with
any
garage
as
no
matter
how
big
we
made
it
on
the
property,
wouldn't
fit
an
ultimate
frisbee
regulation
field.
L
I'm
not
concerned
about
any
ultimate
but
you're
saying
it
doesn't
fit
soccer,
it
doesn't
fit.
Football
doesn't
fit
field
hockey.
I
mean
it's
fundamentally
a
green
open
space,
that's
usable,
as
you
say,
for
for
many
things
that
are
great
tenant
under
soccer's.
You
know
my
little
girl
soccer.
She
I
understand,
but
my
question
is:
it
is
not
a
regulation
of
anything.
M
Yeah,
I
think
it
could
be,
it
would
meet
a
regulation
under
10
soccer
field.
There
actually
is
a
defined
size.
M
L
That's
good,
and
but
now
to
that
question
jeremy,
so
will
will
the
size
difference
between
at
grade
above
grade
or
any
of
the
proposals
we
have
seen
in
any
of
the
iterations
from
the
original.
All
the
way
to
this
one
have
any
change
to
that
fact.
M
From
what
I
have
seen,
no
you
know
if
there
were
a
reduction
in
the
field
size
by
say,
10
feet
or
something
to
get
a
ramping
or
stairs
it
would
still
not
meet.
You
know,
regulation
ultimate
frisbee,
but
would
still
meet
attendant
under
soccer.
A
G
Hi,
I
think
this
is
probably
also
for
mr
pippen.
What's
the
and
first
jeremy
jeremy,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
work
that
you
did
on
jenny
dean
park
that
came
out
beautifully.
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
remember
the
specifics
of
where
we
left
the
field
lighting
issue,
but
how
does
this?
G
M
We
would
use
our
same
newer
technology
led
lights
that
have,
you
know
very
narrow
cutoffs,
so
they
have
a
lot
less
spill
into
neighborhood
than
a
lot
of
our
old
lights.
That
would
spill
off,
but
this
would
meet
where
we've
been
going
with
new
lighting
technology
and
we
have
a
lot
less
complaints.
Every
time
we
have
a
newer
field
so.
A
So
a
a
question
that
I
have
regarding
the
field:
design
or
commercial
garen.
Are
you
I'm
sorry?
Are
you
finished?
A
Okay,
a
question
that
I
have
respective
to
field
design
has
to
do
is:
is
oriented
in
the
open
space
element
of
the
west
rosslyn
area
plan,
one
of
the
principles
of
the
open
space
element
for
the
for
the
west
rosslyn
area
plan
being
to
ensure
that
park
and
school
facilities
provide
for
organized
active
recreation
as
well
as
unprogrammed
time
for
community
usage,
particularly
for
any
open
field
space,
and
so
my
I
do
not
know
to
whom
this
question
is
directed.
A
A
What
is
being
what
has
been
put
into
writing
in
the
use
permit
proposal
to
ensure
that
members
of
the
community
are
aware
of
the
existence
of
of
the
open
field
space
and
aware
that
it
is
available
for
unprogrammed
community
usage,
when
it
is
not
being
used
for
structured,
programmed
activities.
M
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
exactly
the
right
person
to
answer
this
olivia
might
have
more
in
the
use
permit.
But
we
do
have
a
memorandum
of
agreement
already
signed
between
the
county
and
aps
that
governs
sort
of
the
the
use
of
the
field
and
when
it
would
be
used
by
the
community
and
when
it
would
be
used
by
aps.
But
I
don't
know
if
that
exactly
answers
your
question
of
what
we
would
do
to
sort
of
advertise
it
other
than
the
county
would
have
the
opportunity
to
program
it
in
after
hours.
A
Right,
I
I
just
want
to
observe.
Thank
you,
mr
mr
smith.
A
I
just
want
to
observe
that
that
you
know
when,
when
you
are
walking
down
the
street,
this
is
maybe
more
for
the
benefit
of
my
colleagues,
but
when,
when
one
walking
down
the
street-
and
they
see
a
field
that
they
can
see
right,
the
existence
of
the
field
and
its
ability
to
be
used
advertises
itself
a
field
that
is
above
my
eye
level,
and
I
am
quite
tall-
is
not
a
field
that
any
member
of
the
community
can
be
reasonably
expected
to
know
exists
and
can
be
used
so
msanteg.
A
I
started
down
my
my
comment
before
your
camera
came
on,
so
my
apologies
for
cutting
you
off
I'll
field
the
floor
to
you.
I
Oh
no
worries
I
did
want
to
mention.
We
did
have
discussions
with
dpr
on
signage.
They
said
that's
something
that
they
would
usually
implement,
and
jeremy
might
have
a
little
more
information
on
this.
They
would
usually
implement
after
the
field
is
constructed
where
signage
seems
appropriate,
but
we
did
not
include
that
in
the
conditions
or
in
the
this
use
permit
amendment
at
this
time.
M
Yeah,
I
don't
think
we've
thought
about
that
a
lot,
but
we
could
certainly
put
sort
of
our
typical
park
sign.
You
know
advertising
it
advertising
rules
and
things
like
that
which
make
it
feel
more
like
a
public
park.
You
know
if
it
had
the
same
name
as
the
rest
of
the
park.
That
would
certainly
go
a
long
way
to
for
people,
seeing
the
sign
at
least,
to
understand
that
it
is
public.
A
Thank
you,
mr
smith,
and
ms
commissioner
hughes.
Your
hand
is
back
up.
I
M
M
That
will
be
our
main
entrance
for
getting
vehicles
in
to
do
maintenance
which
the
county
will
be
doing,
maintenance
on
this
field,
and
then
the
the
middle
entrance
is
will
have
stairs,
but
it
will
also
have
a
ramp
system,
so
the
two
will
be
accessible,
but
both
will
also
need
to
be
gated.
I
Thank
you
would
you
mind
adding
anything
about
when
the
gates
will
be
closed
or
locked.
J
Sure
I
can
add
that
information,
essentially
during
school
hours,
the
gates
would
be
secure,
but
at
all
other
times
the
gates
will
not
be
secure
until
probably
night
time,
they'll
probably
be
an
automatic
lock
system
to
lock
those
gates.
But
you
know
you
can
always
get
off
the
field,
but
the
field
is
very
visible
from
rosalind
highland
park
as
per
the
one
rendering
that
that
we
did
show
from
the
the
basketball
court.
So
I
mean
we,
we
do
again
it's
back
to
the
issue
of
security
and
keeping
it
secure.
J
The
other
thing
is
at
one
point
in
time
we
talked
about
not
having
fence
on
the
rosalind
highland
park
side,
but
for
security
reasons.
We
need
it
and
also
it's
there
for
for
balls
to
keep
balls
from
from
coming
out
of
the
field
into
the
rosalind
highland
park.
E
J
I
I
I
don't
believe
we
we
typically
lock
most
of
our
our
fields
in
our
gates.
One
of
the
the
concerns
that
we
have
here
is
is
vagrancy
at
night
time.
That
is
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
have
it
there.
The
other
thing
is
is
we
do
have
problems
at
some
of
our
other
schools
where
residents
come
into
the
field,
while
students
are
are
doing,
physical,
education
and
and
those
kinds
of
things
which
we
want
to
discourage.
A
A
L
We
are
attempting
now
to
reverse
our
elevated
park
and
private
public
open
space
in
crystal
city
and
to
an
extent
in
rosalind,
in
both
of
our
adopted
plans,
in
lowering
the
public
spaces
down
to
the
street
level
for
activation
utilization,
because
across
all
of
crystal
city,
we
have
tons
of
parks
that
were
originally
created
through
private
easements
in
the
developments
that
completely
are
underutilized
because
they're
completely
unknown
they're
sent
away
from
the
public
realm.
So
I
want
to
just
further
amplify
what
you
said
career
for
my
colleagues
say
and
for
the
purposes
of
the
record.
A
I
sorry
I
want
to
share
something
as
well,
commissioner
hughes
on
this
point,
that
I
I
you
know
I
I
guess
actually
I'm
gonna
phrase
this
as
a
question
because
th
this
is
from
this
is
also
from
the
west
rosslyn
area
plan
that
calls
for
just
to
remind
people.
A
Roslyn
highlands
park
is
a
park
that
exists
in
two
places.
It
has
a
playground
that
is
on
the
queens
court
site,
that
is,
that
is
publicly
accessible
when
it
is
not
being
programmed
for
queen's
court
and
that
playground
is
part
of
rosalind
highlands
park.
As
a
fundamentally
important
component
of
the
west
roslin
area
plan
would
be
that
the
field
would
not
break,
would
actually
interact
and
integrate
between
the
two
halves
of
rosalind
highlands
park,
and
so
I
I
wanna
I
wanna
press
on
something,
mr
chambers.
A
I
think
that
you
said,
which
was
that
there
would
be
signage
from
the
basketball
field
or
basketball
court
part
of
rosalind
highlands
park,
but
I
I
wanna
know
what
is
being
done.
What
is
in
writing
in
the
proposed
use,
permit
or
other
applicable
controlling
documents
to
make
sure
that
that
the
visual
connectivity
between
the
two
components
of
rosalind
highlands
park
is
somehow
that
the
loss
of
the
visual
connectivity
between
the
two
components
of
roslin
highlands
park
is
not
is
mitigated
and
that
the
field
is
also
signed
from
the
direction
of
the
playground.
J
A
L
Yeah,
what
what
what's
the
height
of
the
perspective
of
the
rendering
a
standing
height?
A
Right
but
I
do
not
see
the
playground
here,
I
don't
see
the
playground
and-
and
I
and
I,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
the
answers.
One
of
the
questions,
the
other
question
was
from
the
playground.
How
do
I
see
the
other
part
of
of
rosalind
highlands
park
and
what?
What
is
being
done
to
advertise?
The
usability
of
the
of
the
180
foot,
elevated
field.
J
L
A
A
J
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
make
with
regard
to
the
field
the
field
is,
is
is
sized
to
be
used
for
physical
education
for
the
pe
programs
for
the
school
they
would
be
using
the
rectangle
field
for
for
multiple
phys,
ed,
whether
it
be
soccer
or
what
other
other
uses
that
they
would
have
for
outdoor
outdoor
space,
but
it
is
sized
and
appropriate
for
that
and
they
we
used
to
have
in
the
original
plan.
That
was
a
sloped
grass
corner.
J
That
was
the
turn
up
and
we
have
modified
that
to
be
steps
that
can
be
utilized.
You
know
for
people
to
sit
the
watch
for
instruction
of
students
and
they
could
also
utilize
those
those
flat
areas
as
part
of
their
physical
education
program.
A
That's
this
corner
that
we're
looking
at
right
here
that
was
sloped
and
is
now
steps.
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you,
then,
we'll
move
on
to
extension,
character
of
neighborhood
and
community
outreach,
including
lighting
effect
of
field
on
effective
field
height
on
the
park
effective
field
height
on
18th
street
residents,
a
question
that
I
have-
and
I
I
apologize
again.
I
don't
know
who
this
is
properly
directed
to
the
staff
report
said
that
outreach
was
made
to
the
civic
associations
and
the
outreach
was
made
to
the
condominiums.
A
What
the
staff
report
did
not
say-
and
please
accept
accept
my
apologies-
if
I'm
incorrect
in
my
reading,
but
it
did
not
say
that
any
outreach
was
made
to
queen's
court
is
that
was
that
in
fact,
an
omission
in
outreach
and
and
and
how?
If
so,
what
what
happened.
E
A
And
your
response,
okay,
so
miss
sondik
that
you
may
have
just
answered
my
next
question,
which
is
that
the
outreach
is
you're
you're,
sending
emails
to
the
contacts
on
file.
That's
that's
that's
I
mean
that's.
That's
the
normal
proto!
That's
the
normal
procedure.
Right
like
am
I
correct
on
both
is.
Am
I
right
about
both
of
those
things.
I
A
Okay,
well
that
that's
helpful.
I
appreciate
that-
and
I
note
that
other.
I
know
that
you
know
that
I
I
know
that
other
organizations
that
I
would
have
expected
to
respond
also
didn't
respond
like
like
rafam.
You
can
always
count
on
refund
to
get
a
response.
So
thank
you
for
for
helping
helping
me
understand
that
I
was
also
curious.
I
was
curious
both
with
respect
to
queen's
court
and
respect
to
just
a
reminder
or
a
refresher
of
what
the
ordinary
protocol
is.
A
A
So,
moving
on
to
what
I've
described
as
garage
design,
let's
do
garage
justification.
Let's,
let's
do
this
garage
justification
and
and
broader
questions
about
need
for
students
in
school
operation.
Commissioner
gearing.
G
My
question
is:
is
a
little
bit
different
on
chairwear,
but
it
is
understanding
the
difference
with
the
access
now
is
the
switchback.
Still
at
the
end
of
the
field
is
one
question
I
have
and
I'd
like
to
just
sort
of
be
walked
through
what
it
looks
like
to
use
the
new
entrance.
If
you
don't
mind,
it
seems
like
this
is
where
it
fits,
even
though
it's
a
little
bit
different
from
what
you
just
identified.
A
G
No
worries,
so
I
guess
the
first
question
is:
is
the
switchback
still
there
and
then
the
second
is,
if
there's
a
way
to
like
walk
through
what
that
looks
like
for
someone
who
would
use
the
new
entrance.
J
E
G
Excellent
and
then
can
someone
walk
me
through
what
it
would
look
like,
because
if
I
understand
this
right,
one
of
the
big
reasons
we're
considering
this
is
to
provide
some
additional
access
for
students
with
disabilities
or
mobility
issues,
and
they
would
be
using
this
underground
entrance.
So
what
does
that
look
like
for
someone
who
would
be
using
it.
G
Yeah,
because,
right
now,
all
we're
seeing
is
what
it
looks
like
from
the
outside.
But
if
this
is
the
daily
experience
of
a
student,
I
want
a
sense
of
what
that
looks
like
I'm
particularly
concerned
that
the
students
and
the
shriver
program
are,
you
know,
have
the
same
options
as
everyone
else,
and
that
this
isn't
sort
of
a
back
entrance.
J
So
from
the
buses,
the
students
would
go
down
the
sidewalk
and
down
another
sidewalk
into
the
building,
and
that's
what
we
were
talking
about
with
this
bright
wide
open
entrance.
It's
actually
just
a
sloped
sidewalk,
it's
not
a
handicap
ramp.
It
is
just
a
sidewalk
that
slopes
to
the
building,
it's
about
five
to
six
feet
above
the
entrance,
the
entrance
door
themselves
that
that
students
can
can
walk
in
and
out
directly
of
the
building,
there's
no
obstructions
or
whatnot.
It's
free
air.
It's
it's
actually
an
exit
from
the
building.
G
This
is
helpful
and
permit
me
chairwear,
if
you
don't
mind,
because
I'm
just
I
feel
like
this-
is
the
big
part
of
this
discussion
so
right
now
the
students
would
be
using
the
switchback
or
the
stairs
on
the
other
end.
Is
that
correct.
J
Yeah
students
would
actually
come
right
out
of
the
the
main
level
of
the
building
could
come
directly
onto
the
field
straight
off
out
of
the
building.
The
the
schreiber
program
is
actually
on
this
floor
and
the
floor
below
is
where
their
main
classrooms
are.
J
Right
now,
for
them,
they
they
go
in.
We
have
actually
a
temporary
walkway
if,
if
you've
been
to
the
building
between
rosalind
highland
park
and
then
the
current
grass
field,
there's
a
covered
construction
type
walkway,
where
they
go,
get
unloaded
off
of
the
buses
and
then
they
walk
up
here
they
come
up
the
sidewalk
and
they
go
into
this
entrance
door
and
then
they
have
to
go
down
to
these
classrooms
or
they
go
down
an
elevator.
That's
at
this
location,
that's
specific
for
the
the
schreiber
program.
G
Okay
and
just
I
appreciate
your
patience,
mr
chambers,
if
this
design
did
not
get
approved,
is
there
any
other
way
to
make
this
bright,
sunny
airy
access
into
the
building
on
on
the
side
that
we're
looking
at
and
I've
just
I'm
a
little
disoriented
on
the
streets?
I
know
that
this
is
queen's
court
down
to
the
lower
left
of
the
of
the
screen,
but
just
you
is
there
is
there?
Another
way
to
do
I
mean
we'd
lose.
Is
the
issue
that
we'd
lose
some
space
on
the
field?
J
Yeah
we
would,
we
would
basically
have
to
what
was
the
original
design
was
actually
stairs
only
to
the
field
at
the
end
of
the
current
walkway,
which
they
actually
are
there
right
now
on
the
on
the
existing
condition
and
they
have
the
students
do
not
have
direct
access
to
the
grass
field.
At
this
point
in
time,
the
students
have
to
come
up
the
switchback
ramp
from
the
ground
level,
rather
than
the
main
level
of
the
building.
J
J
The
original
design
that
was
done
with
the
five
years
ago,
with
the
the
plan
that
was
presented
at
the
use
permit,
was
for
students
to
come
out
of
the
building
and
if
you're
ambulatory,
you
could
go
down
steps
and
be
directly
on
the
field,
and
if
you
were
not
ambulatory,
you
would
go
down
this
sidewalk
the
whole
way
into
rosland
island
park.
J
You
would
come
through
the
park
itself
and
then
you
have
to
come
back
into
the
field
that
way,
which
would
be
basically
discriminating
against
some
of
our
students,
because
they
would
have
to
take
a
circuitous
route
to
get
there,
which
does
not
work
with
the
americans
with
disability
act
and
also
aps
is,
is
very
concerned
in
working
with
universal
design
for
all
of
our
students,
and
we
don't
want
to
knowingly
discriminate
against
any
of
our
students
every
if
a
student
one
student
can
do
it,
all
students
should
be
able
to
do
it
and
that's
the
way
we
try
to
look
at
all
of
our
facilities.
J
G
I
I
really
appreciate
that-
and
I
do
remember
these
discussions
from
when
we
considered
this
several
years
ago.
I
was
on
that
pfrc
and
I
remember
these
issues
came
up.
Then
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
suitable
access
for
all
the
students
who
would
be
dropped
off,
including
the
students
who
might
have
a
mobility
and
parent
or
if
they
needed
a
parent
to
walk
them
in.
J
A
Mr
mr
chambers,
commissioner,
hughes,
I'm
going
to
jump
in
because
this
is
a
directly
a
follow-up
on
to
some
of
commissioner
against
questions.
Mr
chambers,
do
you
off
the
top
of
your
head?
Do
you
know
the
square
footage
of
the
this?
Isn't
I
mean
it's
technically
I'm
leading
to
a
point,
but
it's
I.
I
don't
think
it's
a
leading
question
in
the
pejorative
sense.
Do
you
know
the
square
footage
of
of
the
field
in
its
current
form,
roughly
even.
A
Because
I
guess
the
the
I
was
trying
to
get
a
denominator
right,
my
what
I'm,
what
I'm
getting
at,
is
what
I'm,
what
I'm
asking
about.
What
I'm
curious
about
is
is
that
the?
A
If
I
remember
right,
it's
it's
a
one
inch
two
to
one
foot
incline.
If
you're
going
to
do
a
ramp
right
and
so
we've
got
a
if
from
at
175
feet,
we
would
be
talking
about
a
60
foot,
long
incline
assuming
it's.
A
You
know
12
feet
wide,
that's
750
square
feet
right,
which
I'm
guessing
is
at
most
one
to
two
percent
of
the
size
of
the
field,
and
given
that
the
field
is
presently
not
able
is
presently
not
sized
for
going
back
to
commissioner
hughes's
earlier
questions,
given
that
it's
presently
not
of
sufficient
size
for
any
regulation
sport,
I
guess
what
I.
What
I
want
to
understand
is
why
the
policy
decision
to
to.
A
To
raise
the
field
and
asking
the
community
to
abandon
many
of
the
principles
articulated
in
the
various
planning
documents,
for
something
that
doesn't
actually
materially
remove
that
for
something
that
would
not
bring
us
from
a
field
that
is
regulation
size
for
anything
to
not
being
regulation
size.
I
I
hope
the
question
is
clear:
I'm
sorry!
If
it's
not.
J
No,
I
I
we
did
look
at
it,
we
studied
it.
We
looked
at
options
and
how
we
would
do
that,
and
essentially
we
would
eliminate
the
stairs
and
we
would
put
in
a
ramp
the
width,
the
10
foot
width
that
we
have
for
the
current
sidewalk,
which
goes
towards
rosalind
highland
park,
would
have
to
remain
because
there
are
three
major
exits
off
of
this
building
and
with
regard
to
egress,
you
have
to
be
able
to
go
directly
to
a
public
way,
so
they
would
have
to
you
can't
just
go
out
into
the
field.
J
You
would
actually
have
that
and
then
you
would
add
a
ramp
to
the
side
of
that.
We
would
probably
make
it
a
10
foot
wide
ramp
and
you're
correct
on
the
slope
portion,
but
you
can
only
do
32
inches
and
then
you
have
to
provide
a
landing.
So
it's
it's,
it's
significantly
larger
and
then
you
end
up
having
the
issues
of
the
alternative
means
of
egress.
J
That
isd
is
requiring
us
to
put
into
the
field
and
they
have
to
be
remote
and
we
would
be
too
low
for
the
entrances
where
the
stairs
are
onto
quinn
street.
They
don't
work
there.
We
would
probably
end
up
creating
a
ramp
or
steps
that
would
go
to
18th
street
at
the
foot
of
the
the
sloped
area
there
and
we
would
lose
additional
space
for
that,
so
the
field
really
becomes
significantly
smaller
and
it
would
be
infringing
on
the
size
that's
required
for
the
multiple
pe
classes.
A
L
It's
great
I'm
glad
to
know
that
the
size
of
this
field,
which
is
bigger
than
the
one
provided
for
three
times
the
number
of
students
at
career
center
is,
is
insufficient
for
the
pe
education.
I'll.
Remember
that
one
here's
the
question
I
have,
mr
chambers,
you
said
that
the
school
and
your
questions
with
commissioner
gearing
that
the
school
field
is
at
the
level
one
correct.
L
I
think
it's
my
headset,
mr
chamber.
Sorry,
sir
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
mr
chambers,
the
striver
program
classrooms,
are
they
on
level
one.
J
Some
of
the
classrooms
are
on
level
one
and
some
of
the
classrooms
are
on
g1,
which
is
the
level
below,
and
they
actually
pretty
much
directly.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
the
arrow
that
that
I
have
up
here,
but
if
directly
in
this
corridor
is
an
elevator
that
goes
up
and
down
between
the
main
classrooms
of
the
schreiber
program
that
was
installed
for
the
the
schreiber
program
to
move
vertically
up
to
level
one
level.
One
is
also
where
the
cafeteria
entrance
is.
L
L
All
right
and
g1
is
the
new
entrance
we're
trying
to
create,
with
the
perpendicular
ramp,
to
18th
street,
correct,
correct
and
the
area,
mr
chambers,
if
you
have
that
cursor
out
the
area
above
that
line,
if
you
don't
mind
where
the
wall
is
so
you
have
a
wall,
you
have
a
covered
parapet
and
then
you
have
a
walkway.
That's
covered
that
entire
area
above
it
that
feel
that's
a
sloping
portion
of
it
correct
that
is
correct
and
that's
the
area
you've
inserted
steps
now
for
instructional
purposes,
not
for
the
field
correct.
L
J
I
I
what
you're
saying
is:
if
the
field
was
lowered
five
feet,
would
we
have
an
issue?
Would
we
have?
We
basically
would
have
to
build
a
separate
covered
walkway,
but.
L
Okay,
that
is
the
extent
of
oh
and
just
a
reminder,
so
the
entrance
to
the
shriver
program,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
terrible
with
the
names
on
them
and
they
change
too
much.
It
is
on
this
ramp
and
that
takes
us
down
to
g1
level
and
the
at
grade
entrance.
If
I'm
correct
is
the
level
one
entrance
and
there's
a
elevator
that
connects
the
two.
Is
that
correct.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chambers.
I
appreciate
it
oh
and
I
would
love
to
know
the
required
standards
for
outdoor
activity
space
for
pe
classes,
given
future
projects
coming
down
the
line.
J
It's
generally
site
specific
for
special
programs,
such
as
as
as
the
career
center.
As
for
this
program,
and
the
field
was
sized
with
regard
to
the
outdoor
pe
classes
that
they
would
be
doing
at
the
career
center
that
we're
looking
at
as
well
as
this.
This
facility.
H
Thank
you,
chair
weir,
I'm
going
back
to
that
ramp
conversation
and
I
noticed
that
on
the
drawing
set
on.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
look
up
the
sheet
g
g
as
in
you
know,
what's
the
word
for
g
0
112,
so
the
proposed
site
plan
phase
two,
it
seems
like
the
ramp
goes
from
175
to
179.34
and
then
you
sort
of
meander
up
to
180
through
the
field
and
the
ramp.
There
looks
to
be
like
a
single
landing.
H
You
know,
probably
I'm
guessing.
It's
probably
like
eight
feet
wide
or
so
it
seems
really
doable
and
really
simple,
and
you
can
you
know
I
can
imagine
a
fairly
you
know,
accommodating
design
along
the
side
of
the
building
per
the
original
design
that
would
accommodate
that
ram.
H
H
J
Again,
we
we
studied
it
multiple
ways.
The
adjacent
to
the
building
is
actually
a
sidewalk,
it's
not
a
ramp,
it
doesn't
have
handrails
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
require
them,
because
it's
it's
not
one
in
12,
it's
actually
a
less
it's
one
in
20,
I
believe.
So
it's
just
a
sidewalk.
H
I'm
sorry,
but
next
to
the
building,
are
you
talking
about
I'm
referring
to
the
ramp,
that
is
between
the
the
highlands
park
and
the
the
field
where
and
with
the
main
stairs
which
I'm
guessing?
That's
where
all
the
students
come
in
once
they
get
off
the
bus.
That's
the
main
entrance
to
the
school
essentially.
H
H
J
Ben
I
see
ben's
here,
do
you
do
you?
Do
you
understand
the
question
ben.
N
Yes,
I
believe
so
so
just
a
point
of
clarification,
this
rendering
is
actually
a
good,
a
good
one
to
illustrate
the
point
so
the
statement,
I
believe
what
I
heard
is-
is
that
or
you're
asking,
how
does
students
approach
and
get
into
the
facility
so,
and
we
we
have
most
of
the
students,
for
example,
for
the
hp
woodlawn
program
would
be
coming
along
through
roslin
highlands
park
in
between
the
bass,
the
multi-use
court
in
our
in
our
elevated
field
and
then
going
up
to
the
corner
of
the
building
where
it's
it's
an
at-grade
entrance
there.
N
So
the
there's
a
slope
from
18th
street.
It
goes
up
as
you
go
south,
so
our
student
population
does
not
take
the
switchback
ramp
or
the
stairs
go
onto
the
field
and
then
into
to
the
facility.
N
Instead,
they
they
travel
through
rosin
highlands
park
to
get
up
to
to
the
building
itself,
where
there
are
several
at
great
entrances
that
they
could
could
pick
from
at
that.
At
that
point,.
H
Understood
and-
and
yes
I'm
aware
of
that,
but
I
think
I'm
addressing
what
commissioner
weir
was
mentioning
earlier
on
in
relationship
to
the
field
accessing
you
know
the
park
or
leaving
the
field
and
entering
the
field
and
then
the
connection
to
the
field
from
the
field
to
the
building
which
would
be
at
the
rear.
And
you
know
what
I'm
saying
is
this
ramp.
H
It
doesn't
seem
to
impose
a
large
square
footage
tax
if
you
will
on
the
field-
and
you
know,
even
with
the
slope
sidewalk
approach
of
1
and
20,
which
I
you
know,
would
urge
us
to
look
at
that
as
an
option.
You
could
transition
from
the
building
to
the
field
in
an
elegant
way.
That
is
inclusive,
in
other
words,
that
you're
not
segregating.
H
You
could
even
get
rid
of
the
stairs
right,
which
I'm
always
sort
of
advocating,
and
I
I
commend
aps
for
following
that
agenda,
but
essentially
near
the
building
if
the
field
we're
at
the
lower
elevation-
and
my
point
is
that
you
have
to
transition
that
vertical
ground,
no
matter
what
right,
whether
it's
here
on
the
side
or
next
to
the
building
or
wherever
else
and-
and
so
I
think
it's
it's
a
little
bit
sort
of
you
know,
choose
your
choose
your
poison
as
it
were,
but
we're
going
to
have
to
do
that
ramp
and
the
stairs
no
matter.
J
The
original
design
grade
level
entrance
to
the
field
was
right
here
in
the
center
okay:
students
exiting
the
building
to
get
to
the
field.
The
way
it
was
designed
was
there
were
steps
over
here
that
went
down
to
the
field
here.
This
has
to
be
level
because
this
is
an
egress.
This
is
an
egress.
This
is
an
egress,
so
this
remains
flat.
The
slope
can't
start
till
here
and
then
you
slope
down,
and
then
we
used
rosalind
highland
park
as
as
part
of
the
slope
to
get
down
to
the
field
level.
J
So
if
you
would
leave
this,
if
you
lower
the
field,
we
end
up
having
to
build
another
ramp
here
which
reduces
the
width
of
the
field,
because
we
would
we
we
don't
want
the
students
to
be
going
outside
of
this.
The
school
is
responsible
for
the
students
once
they're
in
their
care,
and
they
have
to
maintain
that
that
that
care
of
those
students
and
keeping
them
safe
yeah
and
it's
it
it's
it's
more
more
in
tune
today
than
it
than
it's
ever
been.
J
With
regard
to
that,
and-
and
you
know
our
our
security
folks,
you
know
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we
are
responsible
for
the
kids.
Yes,
the
the
schreiber,
the
hp
students
can
leave
campus
and
go
to
lunch
and
come
back,
but
they
come
in
and
out
of
secure
entrances.
H
Sure-
and
I
I
totally
agree
with
that-
and
I'm
I
just
I-
I
adamantly
believe
that
there
is
a
design
solution.
Should
the
field
stay
at
the
175
level.
That
would
accommodate
all
the
concerns
that
you
just
stated.
Plus
you
know
do
something
that's
elegant
and
you
know-
and
I
said
the
original
design,
but
you're
right.
You
know
we
probably
need
to
revisit
that
a
little
bit
more
detail.
I
think
that's
it
for
me.
Thank
you.
A
I'm
going
to
thank
thank
you,
commissioner,
sally
going
to
commissioner
gear
and
commissioner
hughes.
I
see
you
still
have
your
hand
up.
I
don't
know
if
that's
just
this
digital
or
not,
but
I
okay
going
to
commissioner
you're
in.
G
Thank
you
chairwear,
so
I
I
guess
I'm
kind
of
confused
about
this.
How
did
the
students
access
the
field
right
now.
N
Yeah,
I
can
start
to
address
that.
So
currently
you
know
things
at
the
site
are
very
much
a
temporary
condition
there.
There
is
no
accessible
entrance
to
the
field.
Now
there
there's
there's
steps
to
traverse
it
down
to
get
to
get
onto
the
field.
If
you're
a
non-ambulatory
person,
you
would
have
to
exit
the
facility,
make
your
way
through
roslin
highlands
park
and
then
enter
the
field
from
from
18th
street.
N
No,
she,
the
the
view
right
here,
is
from
ros
on
highlands
park
and
and
there's
an
opening
in
the
benches
that
will
eventually
permit
access
onto
the
field.
But
currently
you
see
the
temporary
construction
scaffolding
that
mr
chambers
mentioned
earlier,
providing
a
covered
a
temporary
covered
entrance
into
our
facility,
so
that
really
you
you
cannot
enter
the
field
from
this
location.
There's
there's
a
barrier
of
the
scaffolding
itself,
so
you
would
have
to
continue
your
way
north
down
to
18th
street.
A
Mr
mr
bergen,
I
think
that
our
I
think
that
our
line
of
inquiry
is
that
you
are
showing
us
you
are.
You
have
just
shown
us
how
you
could
access
the
field
excessively
at
this
level,
right
like
the
space
between
that
temporary
covered
walkway
and
the
entrance
to
virginia
highlands
park
like
you're,
making
the
point
that
commissioner
sally
made
that
you
already
have
to
negotiate
that,
and
you
could
even
do
that
behind
the
existing
benches
and
what
we
don't
understand
is
if
this
is
the
justification
for
180
feet.
A
N
Yeah
part
of
part
of
our
struggle
is
a
is
a
communication
one.
The
conversation
early,
certainly
there's
a
design
solution
to
put
the
field
at
175
and
we've
reviewed
those
design
solutions
with
our
with
our
senior
leadership
and
our
in
our
board,
and
they
did
not
agree
that
that
was
adequate
as
far
as
getting
universal
the
universable,
you
know
sorry
universal
and
adequate
access
for
our
students
to
the
field,
and
so
they
they've
asked
us
to
proceed
with
the
the
elevation
that's
proposed
and
that's
what
what
our
staff?
That's?
N
What
we're
doing
here
this
evening.
G
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
understand
what
you
were
saying
about
being
responsible
for
the
students,
albeit
hb,
students
are
allowed
off
campus,
and
I
would
assume
that
the
fencing
around
the
elevated
field
would
provide
some
of
that
security,
but
I'm
still
really
puzzled
by
this
as
a
solution,
so
you
know
to
clarify
our
roles
here
on
planning.
Commission.
Our
job
is
to
look
at
what
is
best
for
the
community
as
a
whole.
This
seems
like
a
very
expensive
solution.
G
G
Now
we
have
to
raise
it
to
a
level
to
make
it
accessible,
and
if
that's
the
case,
you
know
I
really
I'd
wanted
to
know
more
about
the
issues
commissioner
charlie
raised
about
the
access
points
through
the
through
the
park
on
the
east
side.
You
know
that's
not
going
to
be
universal,
designed
to
have
stairs
and
a
ramp,
so
some
students
will
still
be
using
the
ramp
while
others
are
using
the
stairs.
It
won't
feel
equal
to
those.
A
Thanks
you,
commissioner
guerin
kushner
hughes.
I
I
I
would
like
if.
L
Yeah,
I
just
I
just
want
to
do
mr
burgin
just
mentioned
in
his
comments,
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
it
appears
that
there
was
studies
done
to
produce
demonstrations
of
how
the
field
condition
at
street
level
or
an
improved
version
of
what
miss
sontag
has
in
front
of
us,
which
seems
rather
pleasant
to
me,
if
not
cleaned
up
after
a
construction
match,
we're
prepared
is
either
mr
chambers
or
mr
bergen
willing
to
share
those
with
us
this
evening,
any
visuals,
even
though
they
were
not
included
in
our
reports.
N
I
guess
I'll
start
the
you
know
one
one
point
of
clarification
I
want
to
make
from
the
image
that
was
just
on
the
screen.
The
field
currently
is
sloped.
It
is
not
a
flat
field,
it
kind
of
it.
There's
a
very
you
know
steep
hill
at
the
building,
and
then
it
gently
slopes
all
the
way
down
to
18th
street.
So
the
the
view
wouldn't
necessarily
capture.
N
N
All
right
just
for
the
for
the
benefit
of
the
other
commissioners,
then,
commissioner,
use
I
I
don't
have
the
material
available
at
this
time
for
the
for
the
for
the
visuals,
it
was
a
mr
chambers
described
it.
What
we
had
had
proposed
is
to
is
to
insert
a
a
sloped
walk
way,
reducing
the
north-south
dimension
of
the
field
and
and
making
that
elevation
change
within
the
existing
space
of
the
proposed
field
itself.
J
And
I
think
the
other
issue
was:
is
the
additional
egress
required
by
isd
that
wasn't
envisioned
in
the
original
plan
five
years
ago,
as
you
notice,
there's
multiple
exits
and
entrances
to
this
field.
J
The
way
it
was
designed
by
the
last
professionals
did
not
take
into
account
that
egress
that
requirement
that
isd
is
requiring
us
to
provide,
and
it
has
to
be
remote,
as,
as
you
note
there,
there
is
a
an
exit
and
see.
If
I
can
do
this
again,
there
is
an
exit
from
the
field
at
this
location.
If
we
lower
the
field
five
feet,
we
we
cannot
go
out
this
direction.
J
We
have
to
come
out
this
direction
and
we
would
have
to
put
in
a
sloped
ramp,
indoor
and
or
stairs
at
this
location,
which
would
reduce
the
east
west,
but
but
mr
chaim,
mr.
A
J
L
No,
it's
fine,
commissioner,
and
I
I
do
still
struggle
with
exactly
what
you
just
were
asking,
and
I
will
simply
state
that
an
act-grade
field
that
is
not
created
into
a
jail
cell.
It
will
meet
many
of
isd's
standards
very
quickly
for
egress
and
emergencies.
So
thank.
A
You,
commissioner
hughes,
I
I
want
at
this
point
to
move
on
to
the
overall
relationship
of
the
proposal
with
the
west
rosslyn
area
plan.
Commissioner,
let
me
start
with
specifically
with
questions
because
there's
a
note
that
I
want
to
to
take.
But
let's
start
with
questions.
A
A
Who-
and
I
I
have
circulated
that
with
the
commission
and
with
with
applicable
staff,
urging
the
commission
to
not
approve
the
use
permit
I'll,
just
refer
colleagues
to
it.
But
he
raised
a
number
of
issues
with
the
with
whether
the
structure
is
needed.
The
parking
structure
is
needed
with
whether
the
athletic
field
should
be
elevated
to
180
feet
with
balancing
the
benefits,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
members
of
the
commission
are
aware
of
that.
G
Yeah,
okay.
Thank
you.
One
of
the
points
that
was
made
was
with
regard
to
compliance
with
raps
and
it's
reference
to
improvements
to
street
network
to
enhance
circulation
and
mitigate
impacts
of
new
development.
I
just
I
didn't
understand
how
this
proposal
does
that.
So,
if
someone
could
explain
that
to
me,
I'd
appreciate
it
thanks.
I
Hi,
commissioner,
karen
can
you
cite
which
page
which
element
you're
talking
about.
G
Hi
miss
sontag.
No.
I
took
these
notes
when
I
was
going
through
this
a
couple
days
ago.
If
you'd
like
I
can
go
back
to
it,
but
that
was
one
of
the
the
pieces
and
it
talked
about
the
way
that
it
would
it
complied
with
wraps,
and
so
I
just
I
wasn't
seeing
that
here,
because
my
understanding
is
that
it's
just
adding
this
entrance
on
the
side
on
quinn
but
18
still
stays.
G
It
gets
closed
twice
a
day
for
student
pick
up
and
drop
off
with
the
buses.
So
I
just
I
you
know
I'm
not
a
transportation
planner.
I
read
this
and
thought
I
think
I'm
missing
something
here.
O
Yeah
hi
everybody,
robert
gibson,
with
orleans
county
bes
transportation.
O
So
I
think
that
when
we,
when
we
were
citing
that
we
were
looking
at
phase
one
and
two
in
combination
as
as
meeting
those
goals,
so
phase
two
does
not
per
say
meet
that
goal
independently,
but
the
overall
campus
design
the
addition
of
the
improved
18th
street,
particularly
and
then
the
the
pedestrian
cut
through
along
with
and
I'm
gonna
include,
the
the
penzance
project
to
the
to
the
east.
All
of
those
elements
with
the
addition
of
the
new
peer
street.
O
All
of
those
elements
together
support
that
goal
of
the
the
raps
plan.
A
Mr
mr
gibson,
if
I
may
so
I
I'll
I'll,
I'm
gonna
cite
a
couple
of
different
parts
to
the
wraps
plan
and
then
taken
in
juxtaposition.
I
think
raise
a
question.
The
transportation
plan
map
3.6
on
2028
of
the
rap
plan
notes
the
entirety
of
18th
street
as
a
major
pedestrian
connection
right.
A
The
open
space
plan,
as
I've
mentioned
before
talks
about
the
importance
of
integrating
the
the
different
parts
of
rosalind
highland
park
across
18th
street,
and
then
you
know
under
public
realm
and
street
state
streetscape
and
architecture
under
urban
design.
A
Right
there
are
there's,
there's
language
about
the
location
of
parks
and
about
the
experience
of
people
on
the
street
to
be
able
to
interact
with
and
assume
that
things
both
visually
and
physically
interact
with
the
open
space
and
and
like
given
the
interaction
between
at
least
these
three
elements
right.
A
A
That
that
this
sort
of
set
of
bowling
pins-
that
are
these
three-
that
are
these
different
elements-
are
completely
knocked
over
by
going
from
175
to
180
feet.
I
guess
I
guess
my
question
is
just
please
say
a
little
bit
more
about
your
thinking
with
respect
to
that.
O
I
I
think
that
my
my
thinking
is
is
irrespective
of
the
the
175
178
question
to
a
large
extent.
I
I
think
that
you
are
you're
you're,
very
fair
to
point
out.
The
pedestrian
feel
and
connection
that
is
is
changed
by
raising
the
field.
O
That
said,
I
don't
know
at
least,
and
I'm
only
going
to
speak
from
the
transportation
perspective,
the
the
core
elements
of
the
provision
of
sidewalks
on
both
sides
of
the
street
network,
our
goal
to
continue
to
widen
the
street
as
was
or
or
widen
the
street
compared
to
what
was
really
a
cart
path.
Previously
to
what
you
see
in
this
diagram
when,
when
aps
made
the
revisions
to
the
plan,
many
of
the
things
were
brought
back
into
alignment
from
a
transportation
perspective
from
what
you
heard
last
month.
O
A
Thank
you,
mr
gibson,
entirely
fair
point
to
I.
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
your
responses.
There.
I'm
gonna
go
commissioner
hughes.
I'm
going
to
defer
to
commissioner
tell
me
just
as
a
matter
of
clock
time
and
then
come
back
to
you.
F
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
weir.
My
question
is,
for
staff
is
probably
cphd
pretty
much.
Our
sector
plans
our
comprehensive
plan,
something
that
I've
known
since
joining
the
commission
is
that
we
more
than
actively
discourage
parking
that
is
visible
from
at
grade
from
the
sidewalk.
It
has
to
be
ideally
below
grade
in
certain
circumstances.
We
make
the
exception
and
allow
it
to
be,
above
once
at
least
one
story
up,
but
never
at
grade.
F
I
Sorry
I
was
having
trouble
getting
my
camera
on
there,
so
I'll
start
us
off
and
then
I'll,
let
probably
aaron
schreiber
jump
in
in
just
a
minute.
He
has
a
little
bit
more
longevity
experience
with
the
rosalind
area,
but
aps
you
know
continued
to
express
and
and
underline
the
the
need
for
the
field
to
be
at
a
level
180
feet
and
for
the
garage
to
remain
on
site.
I
So,
given
those
constraints,
staff
pursued
different,
you
know
mitigation
measures
with
aps
to
improve
the
design
experience
with
the
garage
partially
above
grade
aaron.
Would
you
mind
jumping
in
on
past
projects.
P
Sure
so,
just
for
the
record
good
evening,
I'm
erin
driber
with
the
planning
division,
and
I
do
have
some
extensive
background
on
the
site,
and
I
would
say
to
mr
lam
tell
me
question.
It
is
correct
that,
generally,
our
adopted
plans
do
discourage
above
grade
parking
unless
there
are
active
building
uses
there.
P
The
wraps
plan
itself
also
has
that
similar
type
of
language.
However,
it
also
recognizes
that
there
may
be
the
need
for
semi-exposed
parking
garages
due
to
topographic
constraints
of
certain
sites,
this
being
one
of
them,
and
so
it
does
provide
additional
guidance
in
terms
of
how
to
try
and
activate
any
of
those
exposed.
Portions
of
garages
by
having
active
walls
landscaping
things
of
that
nature,
and
I
think
that's
why
you
know.
P
After
hearing
the
insistence
from
aps
in
terms
of
you
know
some
of
the
access
and
security
issues,
you
know
we
work
with
them
to
try
and
improve
some
of
the
facade
features
that
you
see
here
that
weren't
present
in
the
proposal
back
in
may,
and
that
includes
some
of
the
different
fencing,
some
of
the
facade
treatments,
the
additional
plantings
and
street
streetscape
width
in
order
to
help
activate
that
space.
But
it
does
recognize
that
that
could
be
there.
But
I
do
think
that
it
is
important
to
recognize.
P
There
are
the
topographic
changes
here
and,
and
so
there
is
going
to
be
the
need
at
some
point
to
get
from
this
lower
elevation
along
18th
street
up
to
that
level
one.
But
I
do
believe
the
plan
contemplated
that
or
at
least
anticipated
that
that
could
be
a
possibility,
and
I
would
also
say
that
back
in
2017,
when
this
went
through
the
pfrc
review
and
and
the
use
permit
was
ultimately
approved
by
the
board.
P
There
was
a
garage
structure,
albeit
it
was
at
a
different
elevation,
but
there
was
always
going
to
be
some
portion
of
an
exposed
garage.
Whether
they've
went
forward
with
the
phase
two
or
not,
and
I
think
that's
what
we're
looking
at
it
just
seems
to
be
at
a
different
elevation
than
where
was
in
2017.
P
F
I
pretty
much
felt
that
back
in
2017,
when
this
is
being
looked
at,
a
little
bit
of
the
garage
was
exposed,
but
it
was
activated
because
you
could
see
straight
into
the
the
field.
The
most
active
thing
that
you
have
there.
That's
where
the
visual
interest
is,
you
have
security,
you
have
eyes
on
the
sidewalk,
you
have
you,
can
trans
see
both
in
and
out,
so
it
was
a
very
active
sidewalk.
Even
though
there
was
a
small
amount
of
the
garage
that
was
contemplated
to
be
exposed.
F
This
totally
does
away
with
that.
There
is
no,
you
know
some
flags
up,
there
are
nice,
but
that's
not
activity.
I
have
concerns
about
having
the
trees
in
the
landscaping,
because
landscaping
is
not
aps
a
strong
point
and
it's
not
supposed
to
be.
I
mean
their.
Their
money
is
mainly
going
to
to
pedagogy
and
to
running
a
school
system.
F
F
I
don't
feel
this
is
in
contemplation
with
the
sector
plan
and
with
the
wraps
plan
in
what
was
contemplated
in
2017
did
meet
that
this
does
not,
and
I
even
thought
with
roslyn
often
when
the
reason
for
allowing
going
above
grade
was
mainly
because
of
underground
conditions,
because
the
rock
was
there
and
it
just
didn't,
make
any
economic
sense
to
be
able
to
have
to
do
blasting
in
order
to
go
down
further,
so
not
to
mention
the
metro
tunnels.
F
So
I'm
not
convinced
that
this
was
what
was
contemplated
as
the
sort
of
exception
by
raps.
That's
my
editorial
comment.
Thank
you.
A
Commissioner
hughes,
I'm
going
to
go
to
you
and
I
may
mr
gibson,
I
may
have
a
follow-up
question
to
your
most
recent
answer.
Depending
on
what
christian
hughes
asks
thanks.
L
Commissioner
and
commissioner,
mr
mr
schreiber,
my
recollection
of
2017
and
the
raps
process
is
much
more
in
line
with
what
jim
just
stated
than
the
thing.
So
I
do
have
two
questions
then,
based
on
it,
the
specific
language
and
the
wraps
that
does
preclude
these
sort
of
behaviors
and
conditions
are
on
page
33,
which
you
allude
to
mr
schreiber,
and
you
are
correct.
It
is
about
topography,
which
is
the
construction
of
the
ground
plane,
not
the
building.
L
O
O
L
More
like
one
and
a
half
stories,
it's
a
steep
drop
there
on
the
just
one
little
building,
which
is
the
reason
why
commissioner
cole
and
others
were
even
worried.
As
commissioner
lantoni
said
at
the
time
when
we
had
a
knee
wall
that
we
were
upset
about,
that
was
being
proposed
in
the
original
garage
design.
That
was
then
chosen
to
be
deferred
because
instead,
the
county
moved
instead
of
allowing
the
garage,
it
chose
to
add
parking
to
the
commercial
buildings
being
constructed
adjacent
to
the
property
and
physically
connected
by
the
foundation.
A
So,
thank
you,
commissioner
hughes.
My
question
is:
actually
I'm
going
to
wait
until
the
master
transportation
plans,
part
of
our
discussion,
but
I
do
have
a
factual
question.
I
believe
for
the
applicant.
What
is
how
far
at
a
field
elevation
of
180
feet?
How
many
feet
below
the
18th
street
sidewalk
is
the
floor
of
the
parking
deck.
A
There's
been
there,
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversation
about
how
to
interpret
the
many
planning
documents
that
we
have
that
are
implicated
by
the
field
elevation
and
a
lot
of
it
turns
around
whether
or
not
the
use
permit
request
before
the
commission
looks
more
like
below-grade
parking
or
looks
more
like
at-grade
parking.
I
think
this
is
partly
what
commissioner
land
tell
me
was
getting
at
right,
and
so
you
know
it
has
been
discussed
by
by
you,
the
applicant
and
by
county
staff
as
partially
below
grade.
A
My
question
is:
if
the
you
know,
what
is
what
is
the
difference
between
the
elevation
of
the
18th
street
sidewalk
and
the
elevation
of
where
the
tires
that
are
parked
in
the
garage
will
touch
the
concrete?
I'm
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
mean
to
sound
cuter
like
a
jerk,
I'm
just
I
don't
know
the
specific
terms.
So
that's.
N
That
clarification
helps
so
the
site
the
site
is
is
varies
in
elevation,
so
at
the
corner
of
18th
street
and
quinn
is
169
foot
elevation
and
jeff
you.
Thank
you,
ms
suntec.
This
is
great.
We.
We
actually
illustrate
this
on
our
on
our
sides:
jeff
on
slides,
48
and
52.
N
N
So
that's
a
few
feet
less.
A
N
It's
it's
four
and
a
half
feet
below
the
ground
at
that
corner.
Okay,
so
18th
street
slopes
up
as
you
go
east.
So
as
you
get
to
the
other
end
of
the
garage
18th
street
is
approximately
172
feet.
So
there's
about
a
three
foot
change
across
aps,
frontage
from
quinn-
and
it
goes
up
as
you
get
to
rosslyn
highlands
park
and.
N
O
So,
just
to
clarify
that
and
ben,
please
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
I
think
that
there's
a
four
to
seven
foot
delta
between
the
sidewalk
along
18th
and
the
typical
elevation
of
the
garage
parking
level.
A
P
N
A
That's
helpful
to
me,
I
I
needed
to
to
be
able
to
think
about
that.
In
those
terms,
commissioner
sarly,
I'm
gonna
go
to
you.
E
O
To
add
one
thing:
there
was
a
discussion
earlier
about
the
the
above
grade
parking
or
the
the
at-grade
parking
issue
within
our
comprehensive
plans.
A
I
I
think
that
it
was
with
re.
Commissioner,
tell
me
raised
it
within
respect
with
respect
to
rap
and
the
roslyn
sector
plan.
I
was
going
to
ask
you
about
it
with
respect
to
the
parking
element
and
that's
the
question
that
I
said
that
I
would
come
back
to
in
a
little
bit.
But
if
you
want,
I
mean,
if
you
want
to
answer
it
now,
I'm
have
I'm
I'm
happy
to
check
a
box.
O
I
would
say
that,
from
a
des
perspective,
the
idea
of
getting
rid
of
surface
parking
is
has
has
a
lot
of
other
things
to
it,
not
just
how
to
how
to
transition
form
from
the
streetscape
to
a
building
face
and
and
the
urban
elements
of
that
there's
also
the
environmental
impacts
of
it
surface
parking
has,
you
know,
pretty
terrible
environmental
impacts,
and
in
this
case
I
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
features
of
at
least
this
combination
of
a
partially
above
grade
profit
below
grade
parking
with
the
field
above
it
is
that
you
are
you're,
you're,
doing
double
duty
in
in
a
large
respect,
from
impervious
area
and
or
or
semi-pervious
area
with
these
fields,
and
so
there
is,
I
I
would
I
would
suggest,
and-
and
staff
has
looked
at
this
as
it's
important-
to
see
this
space
as
serving
more
than
one
use.
O
You
can,
and
I
will
leave
it
to
the
to
the
the
planning
commission
and
the
members
to
to
weigh
that
in
their
thinking.
But
it
is
important
to
keep
that
in
mind.
A
A
I
am
happy
to
get
into
a
back
and
forth
with
other
commissioners
about
it,
so
I'll
hold
off
on
that
point,
but
I
I
very
much
appreciate
that
and
you've
also
checked
the
box
off
of
when
it
comes
to
the
when
we
get
to
the
master
transportation
part.
Commissioner
sally
I
you
have
been
incredible
incredibly
indulgent,
so
I'm
going
to
go
to
you.
H
Thank
you,
chair
weir.
I
just
want
to
point
out
again
quickly
that
the
the
field
itself
has
a
significant
slope.
You
know
even
on
the
surface
and
you
know
think
of
rockefeller
center
and
how
that
has
a
significant
slope,
but
you
don't
really
notice
it
as
this
field
does
it
goes
from
180.3
to
178.5
across
the
short
side.
So
I
you
know
you
can
easily
imagine
that
and
that's
just
to
drain.
H
I
imagine
you
know
draining
or
sloping
this
field
such
that
it
follows
the
contours
or
you
know,
is
more
conducive
to
the
different
grade.
Changes
is
not
again
too
far
of
a
reach.
The
other
comment-
and
this
is
a
little
bit
of
an
editorial-
I'm
I'm
I'm
quoting
mr
lentelme
here
on
the
renderings.
When
you
put
sort
of
public
art
or
art,
you
know,
there's
sort
of
a
two-sided.
That's
two
sides
of
a
coin.
H
There,
one
you're
attracting
attention
to
the
issue
that
you're
trying
to
sort
of
not
attract
attention
to,
and
then
the
other
thing
is.
You
know,
that's
really
not
relevant
to
the
conversation
a
little
bit
here.
So
I,
if,
if
it
was
an
integral
piece
of
art
that
was
sort
of
articulating
the
edge
of
the
slab
in
such
a
way
that
it
made
it
really
exciting
it
incorporated
the
urban
design
aspects
that
we're
trying
to
deal
with.
H
I
would
commend
that,
but
by
simply
placing
these
sort
of
banners,
you
know
and
again
it's
a
good
idea.
I'm
not
arguing
the
idea,
but
to
sort
of
you're
trying
to
deflect
the
problem,
and
I
find
that
a
little
bit
difficult
to
sort
of
you
know
talk
about,
because
the
band-aid
is
not
solving
the
problem.
The
fundamental
problem
is
the
urban
design
principle
of
no
parking
at
grade
doesn't
matter
how
nice
the
banners
are.
A
And
and
commissioners
early,
I
think
the
urban
design
principle
of
how
people
interact
with
the
things
next
to
the
sidewalk
right
like
it's,
do
we
do
we
build
sidewalks
that
transition
to
walls
that
transition
to
fields
that
are
above
anyone's
heads
right
I
mean,
I
think
commissioner
hughes
was
talking
about
how
we
in
2017
there
was
objection
to
the
concept
of
a
knee
wall
right
and
now
we've
taken
it.
You
know,
I'm
sorry,
I
is
there
anything
left
on.
I
don't
mean
to
thank
you,
commissioner,
sally
for
your
for
your
comment.
A
A
But
the
reason
I
include
this
is
because
the
rosalind
sector
plan
is
where
we
get
the
idea
of
the
18th
street
corridor
and
the
rosalind
sector
plan
itself
specifically
defines
the
18th
street
corridor
as
going
from
queen
street
to
the
presidio
right,
and
so
I
do
believe
that
it
is
relevant
to
discuss
the
relationship
to
the
rosalind
sector
plan
on
those
terms.
So
I
I
welcome
any
comments
or
or
questions
on
that
topic.
A
I
I'll
just
note
that
I
I
have
tremendous
concerns
that
that
the
18th
street
corridor
is
is
something
that
can
be
accomplished
out
to
quinn
street
under
the
given
the
proposal
that
it
basically
moves
the
the
the
western
end
of
the
18th
street
corridor
to
to
oak
at
the
at
the
westernmost,
moving
to
relationship
of
the
proposal
to
the
master
transportation
plan.
I
I
had
two
specific
areas
around
this,
but
I
had
a
question.
I
still
have
one
or
two
questions.
A
I
guess
I'll
note,
or
maybe,
mr
gibson.
This
is
a
question
to
you.
You
know.
One
of
the
another
aspect
of
the
parking
element
is
a
preference
against
building
excessive
parking.
That
is
in
the
parking
element,
and
I
I
think
that
we,
our
understanding
a
commissioner's
understanding,
is
that
that
it
remains
the
case
that
the
dedicated
parking
for
the
heights
is
not
being
utilized,
and
so
I,
I
guess.
A
To
justify
that,
we
are
not
working
against
the
parking
element
by
allowing
how
is
this
not
literally
excessive
parking,
given
what
we
currently
know
about
utilization
misante,
I
see
you've
got
the
slides
up,
I
go
to
you
or
mr
gibson
or
the
applicant.
Anyone
who
wants
to
field
that
one.
O
Excessive
parking,
I
think,
is
definitely
one
of
those
excessive
is
is
a
metric
term
and
it's
I
I'm
gonna,
leave
it
to
the
commission
to
to
set
that
bar
when
staff
looked
at
this
aps
provided
data
that
indicated
that
the
parking
demand
for
the
programs
at
the
heights
buildings
was
was
probably
upwards
of
about
130
spaces,
with
with
the
with
the
utilization
of
30
spaces
off-site
that
are
not
inside
of
the
adjacent
barrage.
O
That
said,
aps
has
definitely
identified
that
there
is
capacity
potentially
in
the
adjacent
garage
to
utilize
that
would
have
to
be
acquired
and
the
the
big
difference
here
is,
I
think,
not
just
an
excessive
number,
but
staff
has
recognized
two
different
mtp
elements
that
in
this
case,
do
you
have
to
be
weighed
in
in
a
conflicting
manner
and,
and
the
commission
has
to
resolve
that,
and
the
board
has
to
resolve
that.
O
There's
the
excessive
parking
question
which
I
think
that,
with
this
garage
and
the
hundred
spaces
that
are
utilized,
they
probably
have
you
know
somewhere
between
20
and
30
spaces
of
additional
parking
to
support
programs
and
and
aps
has
not
has
shown
that
as
being
additional
visitor
parking,
additional
support
vehicle
parking,
additional
ada
parking.
O
The
other
issue
really
is
about
a
quality
of
service
issue
for
the
ada
parking
in
this
building
and
the
specific
demands
of
the
shriver
program
for
as
a
heavy
ada
use,
and
I
I
think
that
we've
recognized
that
apa
aps
has
decided
that
providing
a
very
high
quality
of
parking
access
and
service
in
this
building
is
a
priority
for
them.
That
is
largely
dire
driving
the
construction
of
this
garage
specifically,
and
we
we
are.
O
We
are
deferring
to
aps
on
on
that
values,
judgment,
and
so
the
commission
can
can
discuss
that
and
and
provide
input
to
the
board
accordingly.
A
Thank
you,
mr
gibson,
a
follow-up
question.
I
guess,
though,
to
staff
to
the
applicant.
A
Mr
chambers,
I
hope
you
can
put
me
at
ease
with
respect
to
something
I
heard
you
say
student
parking
earlier
in
our
conversation
this
evening.
Are
you
in
a
position
to
to
confirm
one
way
or
the
other?
Whether
or
not
anything
in
writing
or
policy
exists
as
respect
whether
student
parking
is
going
to
be
allowed
or
disallowed
at
this
facility
in
the
future,
or
was
I
or
was
that
just
the
slip
of
the
tongue.
J
I
don't
recall
saying
that,
but
no,
we
are
not
providing
student
parking
in
in
at
this
location
that
was
never
intended
and
is
not
in
our
calculation
and
and
what
we
believe
we
need
in.
As
far
as
the
spaces
go.
A
Okay,
I've
made
more
slips
of
the
tongue
than
one
this
evening,
so
I
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
Are
there
other
questions
from
commissioners
on
master
transportation,
related
elements.
A
Are
there
other
questions
from
the
commission
on
other
items
related
to
field
height?
I
had
noted,
potentially
including
whether
it
the
the
field
height
effectively
removes
the
field
as
a
tool
for
realizing
goals
and
wrap.
A
Does
it
create
a
facade
that
requires
independent
evaluation
as
a
facade
adjacent
to
rosalind
highlands
park
under
the
rap
urban
design
element
and
does
the
effect
of
the
proposed
field
on
relationship
between
the
the
that's
I,
the
integrated
recreation
area?
I
already
covered
that
so,
commissioner
sarly.
H
Thank
you,
commissioner.
We're
mr
gibson
mentioned
that
the
the
let
me
see
I
wrote
it
down
here.
The
aps.
Garage
parking
on
site
is
a
value
judgment,
so
I
now
want
to
ask
aps
what
is
that
value
judgment?
I
think
mr
gibson
sort
of
left
it
open,
and
I
sort
of
wanted
to
hear
that,
and
then
part
of
that
question
is
what
is
the
garage
with
the
elevator
right
in
front
of
the
main
entrance
to
the
building?
H
What
is
that
what's
wrong
with
that
setup
like
what
is
it
not
addressing
that
this
new
garage
would
address?
Just
do
a
compare
and
contrast
for
me
and
explain
to
me
why
we
simply
must
build
this
garage,
even
though
we
have
excess
capacity
next
door
as
the
original
design.
Thanks.
J
Sure,
with
regard
to
to
the
parking
I
mean,
we
appreciate
the
the
spaces
in
the
aubry
and
and
they
are
fully
utilized,
but
the
way
it
the
operation
of
that
these
spaces
are
essentially
for
staff.
We
don't
really
have
access
for
event,
parking
and
those
kinds
of
things
in
in
the
aubry,
because
it's
all
by
passcode.
Now
we
do,
we
have
100
spaces
and
10
of
those
spaces.
J
We
are
currently
using
as
visitor
spaces,
so
family
and
staff
come
in
and
they
have
to
get
a
ticket
and
there
are
some
spaces
that
are
designated
for
visitors
and
they
have
to
be
validated
which
we,
you
know,
don't
pay
for,
because
they're
part
of
the
hundred
spaces
that
are
being
provided.
So
we
do
appreciate
that
right
now
we
are
leasing,
30
spaces
off-site
full-time
and
for
itinerants.
We
we
provide
park
a
day
parking.
J
J
We
also
believe
that
the
the
coverage
structure
will
allow
ambulance
access
to
pick
up
students,
which
is
multiple
times
a
week,
that
they
would
be
covered
rather
than
out
in
the
street,
and
it's
very
difficult
generally
in
that
block
to
even
get
a
parking
space,
and
we
added
the
handicapped
parking
spaces
on
quinn
street
to
make
that
universally
accessible.
J
So
we
had
a
lot
of
people
in
our
community
that
expressed
you
know,
frustration.
They
were
willing
to
live
with
it
because
of
the
you
know,
accommodation
it
was
made
for
the
fire
station
in
the
area
at
that
time,
and-
and
at
this
point
they
believe
that
they
need
that.
That's
those
spaces
that
were
promised
to
them.
When
the
when
the
schreiber
program
was
moved
to
this
location.
J
With
this
garage,
we
we
basically
are
able
to
not
manage
or
have
to
manage,
leased
parking.
We
would
not
be
leasing
parking
anymore.
We
would
be
utilizing
it
for
itinerant
staff
and
for
the
additional
spaces
that
we
do
not
have
available.
We
would
also
provide
visitor
parking
in
there
as
well
to
make
the
school
function.
It's
a
basically
a
an
issue,
a
function
of
how
that
how
the
school
functions
and
the
other
issue
that
we've
had
is
with
maintenance,
has
no
place
generally
to
stop
at
this
building
the
loading
dock.
J
J
This
building
the
way
they
should
be
servicing
this
building,
so
they
would
basically
have
access
to
park
in
this
structure
as
well,
so
they
could
come
in
and
spend
the
time
currently
they
send
two
two
maintenance
people
to
the
facility
and
one
drives
around
the
block,
while
the
other
runs
into
to
take
care
of
whatever
needs
to
be
taken
care
of
and
if
they
can
find
a
space,
they'll
go
in
and
help,
but
otherwise
they're
they're
moving
the
vehicle
to
to
keep
the
things
moving.
So
it's
an
operational
issue.
J
You
know,
and
managing
parking
is
not
something
that
aps
does
leasing
parking
working
with
colonial
parking
and
and
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
have
those
spaces
that
are
available.
It
is
a
management
issue
that
that
we
do
have
difficulty
with
the
other
thing
is:
is
we
really
can't
give
up
the
spaces
when
we
don't
have
school,
because
we
are
not
going
to
be
assured
of
getting
them
back
and
we
actually
have
had
spaces
reduced
and
we've
had
to
move
move
students,
their
move
parking
spaces?
J
So
I
mean
we've
worked
with
it.
We
managed
with
it,
but
I
think
that
we
quite
honestly
aps
doesn't
want
to
build
something
we
don't
need.
We
believe
that
we
need
it
and
the
board
believes
that
we
need
it
and
that's
why
it's
included
in
the
project,
because
you
know
sure,
could
we
could
we
build
fewer?
J
Yes,
we
could,
but
then
you
have
the
issue
of
building
half
of
a
field
on
on
on
grade
and
half
of
the
field
on
on
structure
and,
quite
honestly,
the
savings
is
not
that
significant,
because
you
still
have
to
provide
foundations
and
footings,
and
you
know
all
of
that
kind
of
stuff,
so
it
we
did
actually
look
at
that
study
at
one
point
in
time.
I
believe
it's
actually
in
the
presentation
on
one
of
the
slides,
the
four
options
the
board
looked
at
before
they
directed
us
to
go
with
this
direction.
H
So
follow-up
question-
and
this
is
again
hypothetical,
but
we
don't
need
quite
as
many
parking
spots
as
they're
being
built
right,
and
I
appreciate
the
you
know
grade
versus
built
space.
I
understand
that
so
could
you
potentially
accommodate?
H
Let's
say
the
ada,
the
pickup
and
drop-offs
the
delivery,
but
omit
the
sort
of
staff
parking,
I'm
assuming
they're
fairly
happy
with
the
current
situation
and
they're
not
particularly
put
off
by
having
to
ride
the
elevator
and
and
and
get
to
the
building
that
way,
and
then
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
and
I'm
getting
a
little
bit
off
topic
here.
Mr
chair,
I
apologize,
but
this
building
would
have
a
really
difficult
time
growing
if
we
ever
need
to
grow
and
one
of
the
possibilities
is
to
have
sort
of
pedagogical
space
under
here.
H
Things
like
you
know,
music
studios
or
I
don't
know
ceramic
kilns
or
whatnot
right
or
even
a
secondary
gym,
and
have
we
looked
at
that
possibility
instead
of
doing
parking
and
I'm
sure
you
can
get
the
gist
of
my
conversation.
I
just
hate
parking
and
then
one
of
the
things
there
was.
It
would
be
much
more
palatable
to
have
the
feel
at
that
height
if
there
were
windows
into
like-
let's
say,
music
studios
along
18th
street
versus.
H
You
know
this
great
looking
into
the
back
of
parked
cars
and
oil
stains
when
the
cars
aren't
there.
So
I'm
putting
this
out
there
a
little
bit.
You
don't
have
to
respond
right
now,
but
you
know
I
think
it
would
be
much
more
palatable
if
that
space
provided
some
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
provide,
including
aps's
need,
but
not
the
things
that
we
don't
need,
which
is
excess
parking
right.
So
I
think
you
know
the
delivery,
the
covered
ambulance
access,
all
that
that
is
very
legitimate.
I
don't
argue
with
that.
H
I
just
have
not
seen
a
good
reason
for
the
extra
parking
spots
for
staff.
You
know
and-
and
I
don't
understand
why
this
would
be
significantly
better
like
okay,
it's
a
few
feet
less
to
walk,
but
I
don't
I
even
then
I'm
not
sure
you
know
so
I'll.
Just
leave
it
at
that,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
response.
J
Yeah,
I
I
I
just
want
to
say
those
that
park
at
the
aubry
are
very
appreciative
of
those
spaces
and
and
going
up
the
elevator.
Those
that
are
are
walking
a
block
block
and
a
half
are
not
as
happy,
especially
when
they're
bringing
loads
of
stuff
in
for
for
school.
That
day,
whether
it's
groceries
for
a
spanish
club
or
or
whatever
teachers
are
not
like
business.
J
You
know
office
workers,
they
bring
a
lot
of
stuff
to
school,
they
take
a
lot
of
stuff
and
there's
really
no
place
for
them
to
stop
and
drop
it
off
and
or
pick
it
up
so
yeah.
Some
of
our
staff
is
extremely
happy
with
with
the
aubrey
parking
the
others
are
not
so
happy.
As
far
as
the
the
way
this
is
being
designed,
we
can't
expand
the
school.
There
is
no
way
we
can
can
add
to
this.
J
We
can't
put
relocatables
at
this
location
etc,
and
we
are
designing
the
garage
structure
itself
that
it
could
be
a
future
educational
space
if
we
did
not
need
the
the
the
parking
space,
so
we
are
doing
it
as
a
flat
floor.
It
does
have
access
to
the
building
and
you
know
we
do
have
that
as
a
possibility
down
the
road
it
can
be
done
and
we're
designing
it.
With
that
in
mind,
if
we
put
only
built
half
the
garage
and
put
it
on
dirt,
we
could
never
do
that.
H
G
Thank
you,
chairwear.
I
wanted
to
follow
up
a
little
bit
on
this
discussion
about
the
parking.
Can
we
confirm?
Is
this
parking
for
staff
currently
free
or
subsidized
by
aps?
L
G
Yes,
great,
I
understand
that
I
am
also
a
teacher
and
I
do
understand
sometimes
there's
a
lot
of
heavy
things
that
need
to
be
carried.
G
J
The
rent
lease
spaces
come
out
of
the
operating
funds.
I
I
don't
know
that
we
haven't
done
a
full
comparison
with
regard
to
to
the
the
cost
benefit.
It
is
about
six
thousand
to
ten
thousand
a
month
for
the
parking
that
we're
paying
so
that
that's
essentially
what
we're
we're
paying.
The
savings,
too.
G
G
Yeah,
I
asked
this
question
at
the
meeting
last
last
month
as
well.
What
is
the
cost
per
space
of
the
proposed
parking.
J
G
N
N
The
difficulty
with
we
run
into
this
with
these
types
of
questions
with
karen
the
the
difficulty
in
comparing
costs
when
we
try
to
compare
costs
of
our
projects
versus
other
jurisdictions
projects
and
such
is
it's
just
what
to
how
to
how
to
break
it
down,
because
our
our
structure,
our
structure,
includes
the
the
field.
G
Mr
bergen,
let
me
finish:
I'm
not
comparing
it
with
other
jurisdictions.
I
just
want
to
know
how
much
this
costs
and
where
the
funds
are
coming
from.
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
other
demands
for
schools
in
the
county,
and
I
know
that
the
public's
willingness
to
support
bond
after
bond
is
not
infinite.
I
wanted
to
know
what
the
cost
was
so
we'd
have
a
sense
of
what
the
cost
is
versus
what
the
cost
is,
what
we're
paying
for
now
with
the
parking.
I'm
troubled
that
you
don't
seem
concerned
about
that.
G
But
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
asking
is
I'm
trying
to
find
a
solution
here
that
will
be
palatable
at
the
last
time
we
discussed
this.
It
feels
like
there's
two
two
issues
here:
one
is
providing
more
parking
and
the
other
is
this
access
for
ambulances,
children
with
disabilities-
and
that
does
seem
like
something
we
need
to
fix,
but
if
we
can
parse
that
we
might
be
able
to
find
some
common
ground
in
a
way
to
move
forward,
is
there
another
way
to
do
this?
G
For
example,
could
you
use
more
spaces
in
the
aubry
or
use
some
of
those
spaces
for
drop
off
or
for
your
maintenance
vehicles
and
then
back
fill
those
loft
spaces
with
your
validated
parking,
since
that
seems
to
be
variable,
I'm
trying
to
find
a
solution
to
move
forward
on
this.
I'm
not
not
trying
to
be
difficult,
but
I
do
feel
like
I
ask
you
the
same
questions
over
and
over.
N
The
difficulty
with
with
calculating
cost
per
space
is
just
because
of
the
other
elements
of
the
project
that
are
included
with
the
field
and
and
the
streetscape
improvements
and
and
such
so
certainly,
we
could
go
through
a
calculation
and
strip
everything
away
and
kind
of
formulate
a
response
to
that.
The
the
other
piece
of
your
question
is:
where
does
the
funding
come
from?
So
I
just
wanted
to
address
that
before.
Since
you
you
raised
it
a
couple
times.
N
The
this
project
is
was
first
included
in
the
cip,
adopted
by
our
board
last
year
and
was
just
reaffirmed
in
in
the
the
board's
motion
to
approve
the
the
the
school's
cip
on
june
23rd,
and
so
the
the
total
project
cost
is
is
listed
at
14.2
million
dollars
and
there's
several
funding
sources.
Part
of
its
our
reserve
funds,
part
of
his
capital,
bonds
and
and
some
of
it
is-
is
funded
by
by
arlington
county
itself,
and
that
that
information
is
all
on
the
on
the
website.
N
And
you
know
it's
it's
represented
there
for
for
all
to
see
kind
of
what,
how
much
the
project
costs
and
where
the
where
the
sources
are.
G
J
J
We
also
looked
at
as
you
had
asked
about.
Can
we
just
make
a
covered
walkway?
We
can
this.
This
particular
covered.
Walkway,
that's
shown
in
option
d1,
is,
is
essentially
covering
this.
J
The
steps
and
everything
that
is
there,
which
you
know
we
can
do
that
as
well,
but
it
did
not
serve
and
solve
the
issues
that
we
had
option
c
and
and
option
a
which
we
are
pursuing
solve
the
issues
that
that
you
know
for
the
accessibility
and
the
board
elected
to
go
with
the
option,
a
versus
option
c,
because
it
solved
a
lot
more
problems
as
well,
and
it
provided
future
expansion,
space,
etc.
H
H
J
N
I,
if
I
understand
the
question
properly
you're,
there
was
some
information
we
shared
at
our
presentation
when
we
came
before
the
commission
earlier
this
year.
That
explained
some
of
the
impacts
of
lowering
the
field,
and
one
of
them
was
the
you
know,
additional
excavation
and
such
to
to
subsequently
reduce
the
the
elevation
of
the
garage
itself
was
that
the
information
that
you
were
inquiring
about.
H
Right
but
I'm
following
up
on
commissioner
garren's
sort
of
line
of
inquiry
to
figure
out
that
digging
the
extra
five
feet
cost
a
delta
that
wasn't
acceptable
for
the
project
there.
There
must
be
a
spreadsheet
somewhere
that
talks
about
budget
and
and
why
that
option
was
eliminated
and
so
again
it's
just
it's.
H
It
seems,
like
you
guys,
are
fairly
lazy,
fair
about
the
number
you
know,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that's
sort
of
a
big
deal
and-
and
I
feel
like
we
need
a
little
bit
more
information
so
that
we
can-
and
I
reflect
you
know,
commissioner
garan's
comments,
we're
trying
to
work
with
you
to
see
if
we
can
find
a
solution.
N
So
I
I
guess
in
in
response
to
that
we
did
not
do
a
full,
in-depth
cost
estimate
of
of
what
the
impact
would
be
for
the
additional
excavation
and
such
because
our
our
guiding
principle
is
to
have
level
access
from
the
building
to
the
field,
and
so
it
made
some
of
those
other
accessory
considerations
somewhat
irrelevant
from
us,
because
we
were
satisfying
that
that
cr.
What
we
feel
is
a
critical
and
essential
element
of
the
project.
H
N
N
So
our
our
our
principal
reason
for
changing
the
elevation
of
the
field
was
was
to
address
access
from
the
building
to
the
field
and
that
it
coincidentally
had
benefits
of
cost
avoidances
that
were
able
to
be
realized,
but
that
decision
was
not
made
purely
on
the
basis
of
that
cost
avoidance.
It
was
to
meet
a
design
element
that
we
feel
is
essential
for
the
project.
A
L
I
will
try
to
be
brief,
commissioner,
where
and-
and
mr
chambers,
mr
berg-
and
I
know
you
guys-
you
know
you
guys-
are
probably
sick
of
us
at
this
point
and
I
apologize
and
I
did
see
on
7
page
7
of
31,
the
the
cip
does
have
the
the
listing
at
14.24
million
for
the
project,
and
while
we
are
all
in
agreement
about
the
better
access
you
know
it
is
the
parking
that
we
are
trying
to
tease
out,
which
seems
to
be
nearly
impossible,
and
you
know
the
the
120
000
a
year
for
lease
spaces.
L
You
know
is
118
years
at
that
price
and
you
know,
of
course
that's
present
value
issues
of
money,
so
I
won't
go
there.
But,
mr
berg,
I
want
to
follow
up
on
some
line
of
inquiry.
That's
been
interesting
and
sort
of
not
spoken
about
in
any
of
your
presentations,
but
almost
as
alluded
to
you're
stating-
and
I
understand
now-
that
the
the
leveling
of
the
garage
as
a
level
floor
and
the
height
of
its
ceilings
is
currently
being
designed
for
I'll
call
it
conversion.
L
L
In
the
past,
my
understanding
and
I'm
thinking
of
wakefield
as
the
most
recent
example,
the
planning
around
possible
future
extensions
and
plans
that
are
laid
out
by
one
architect
and
engineering
firm,
end
up
being
rendered
almost
mute
and
useless
by
the
next
architect
and
rendering
firm
for
doing
such
conversions.
So
my
question
is
kind
of
specific.
Do
you
guys
have
a
schematic,
a
buildable
architectural
schematic
plan,
and
I
understand
it's
not
going
to
be
a
full
drawing
sheet?
J
We
haven't
done,
I
mean,
essentially,
it
was
not
a
driving
force,
it
was
a
driving
force
in
in
how
we
did
it,
because
you
could
have
had
a
sloped
floor
in
there.
F
J
And
we
actually
in
in
one
of
the
schemes,
well
the
scheme
that
was
done
as
one
of
the
studies
for
the
the
cip.
When
we
looked
at
it
lowering
the
floor
of
the
the
garage,
we
don't
have
enough
room
for
the
drive
ramp
to
get
into
it.
So
we
actually
had
a
double
level
garage
in
there
that
you
actually
sloped
down
again
and
it
actually
was
below
the
existing
footing,
which
would
have
added
cost.
J
But
that's
that's
more
detail
than
we
need
to
get
into
tonight,
but
when
we
were
able
to
when
we
looked
at
the
the
direction
of
providing
universal
accessibility
to
the
field
and
providing
universal
accessibility
to
the
schreiber
program,
because
the
elevation
of
the
garage
floor
at
this
point
in
time,
we
don't
have
any
ramps
and
stairs
to
get
to
the
shriver
program
from
the
pickup
and
drop-off
of
those
disabled
students,
the
previous
plan
and
lowering
the
floor.
We
have
to
provide
ramps
and
stairs
to
get
to
the
to
the
doorway.
J
But
you
know
we
talked
about.
You
know
different
configurations
of
of
how
we
did
that
garage.
We
decided
it
would
be
a
flat
floor.
It
would
provide
us
that
future
expansion
space-
it
would
also
provided
space
that
could
be
used
by
the
community.
For
for
events,
you
know
for
flea
markets
or
or
markets
or
something
could
actually
be
covered,
and
in
that
space
it
would
be
a
positive
thing
and
and
invigorate
the
community.
J
J
It
was
a
result
of
the
the
fact
of
the
universe,
universal
accessibility
and
the
change
in
philosophy
on
security
of
aps,
schools
that
that
we're
evolving
into
right
now
with
security
entrances,
and
how
do
we
secure
our
fields
during
the
school
day
etc,
which
is
our
safety
security
group
ssrem
is
looking
at
those
types
of
things
and
we're
trying
to
incorporate
that
into
the
new
projects
that
we
do,
but
our
philosophy
on
security
and
universal
accessibility
has
has
evolved
greatly
over
the
past
five
years.
L
Mr
chambers,
I
appreciate
it
and-
and
you
know
I
I'm
still
prepared
to
make
all
my
my
major
motions,
but
for
my
recommendation
to
aps
staff
is
that
I
would
encourage
you
that
before
you
decide
to
finally
build
this,
if
you
do
build
it,
which
I
don't
particularly
think
is
a
good
idea.
L
If
you
do
proceed
with
this
building,
because
too
often,
we've
heard
these
things
about
different
buildings,
how
they
were
designed,
what
we
can
do-
and
it
ends
up
being
somehow
rendered
mute
by
the
next
engineer
and
the
next
architect.
And
so
while
you
have
that
in
the
concept,
I
encourage
you
to
get
the
drawings.
If
you
do
do
that,
commissioner
weir,
thank
you
for
the
time
and
mr
chambers.
Thank
you
again
the
response,
and
I
will
move
for
ready
for
motions.
Commissioner.
A
Yeah,
commissioner
hughes,
if
you,
I
believe
that
you
have
motions
to
to
to
present,
so
why
don't
I
give
the
floor
back
to
you
for
that
purpose.
L
Thank
you,
commissioner,
we're
miss
badger.
Do
you
want
to
pull
up?
You
said
you'd.
Give
me
the
courage,
see
of
getting
out
the
the
motions
that
we
prepared
this
evening
up
on
the
screen
for
us.
L
I
can
to
my
fellow
commissioners
I
I
circulated
these
during
the
beginning
of
our
meeting,
based
on
on
on
what
we've
some
have
previously
spoken
and
with
the
discussion
this
evening.
I
see
no
reason
to
materially
change
these
motions,
so
if
there
is
anything
that
commissioners
would
like
to
editorialize
I'm
more
than
willing
to
proceed,
I
have
no
pride
of
authorship,
but,
commissioner,
weird
you
wanna
say
something.
A
L
Then
I'll
go
ahead
and
do
the
motion
and
I'll
do
what
miss
badgers
placed
on
the
floor.
I
move
that
the
planning
commission,
fine,
that
won
the
proposed
use
permit
specifically
the
proposed
field
at
180
feet:
elevation,
the
corresponding
proposed
parking
garage,
one
fails
to
conform
to
the
western
rosalind
area
plan,
two
fails
to
conform
to
the
rosin
sector
plan
and
three
is
not
in
substantial
accord
with
the
arlington
county,
comprehensive
plan.
C
A
Was
that
who
was
the
second
on
that.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
patel.
Does
anyone
have
any
discussion
on
this
motion?
F
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
make
the
point
that,
even
though
I
voted
as
transportation
commissioner
to
have
this
go
forward,
I
did
at
that
meeting
specifically
state
that
I
was
reserving
my
my
right
to
look
at
the
design
at
this
meeting,
those
issues
that
were
not
transportation
related
and
because
of
that,
while
I
stand
by
my
vote
at
tc,
I
will
be
supporting
this
motion,
because
I
feel
that
the
overall
designs
that
the
motion
before
before
us
right
now
reflects
my
views.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Tell
me
I'm
gonna,
I
don't
see
any
other
hands,
I'm
happy
to
call
on
people
when
if
one
goes
up,
I'm
gonna
say
a
few
things.
Just
with
respect
to
this
motion,
I
I
am
happy
with
it
continuing
to
say
to
refer
to
the
arlington
county
comprehensive
plan.
I
think
that
the
letter
that
we
draft
is
going
to
get
into
some
of
the
specific
elements
of
the
comprehensive
plan
that
we
that
that
we
covered
specifically
the
the
glop
and
the
master
transportation
plan.
A
A
I
see
it
as
having
issues
with
above
grade
and
upgrade
above
ground
and
upgrade
parking
under
the
urban
design
element,
also
under
the
urban
design
element
avoiding
blank
and
expansive
walls.
I
I
see
it
as
undermining
the
rosalind
sector
plans,
aspirations
for
an
18th
street
corridor
going
to
quinn.
A
You
know:
we've
gone
over
the
parking
issues.
It
builds
more
parking
where
parking
is
already
underutilized,
even
though
a
number
of
the
stated
deeds
for
additional
parking
are
met
by
construction,
constructing
the
covered
sidewalk,
it
creates
examples
of
of
comprehensive
plan,
area
plan
and
sector
plan
guidance
deferring
to
applicant's
preferred
solution,
even
where
the
applicant
acknowledges
that
other
solutions
were
feasible
and
from
my
perspective,
all
of
these
changes
are
adopted
plans.
A
All
these
art
changes
from
adopted
plans
and
and
policy
to
accommodate
a
preferred
approach,
a
preferred
approach
to
an
admittedly
laudable
goal,
but
a
preferred
approach
and
our
job
isn't
to
defer.
I
don't
think
to
the
applicant's
preference,
no
matter
how
laudable
our
job
is
to
ask
whether
the
preferred
and
proposed
solution
is
an
acceptable
departure
from
multiple
planning
documents
and,
in
my
estimation,
it
isn't
and
that
that's
going
to
be
my
remarks
for
all
of
the
motions.
Thank
you
for
colleagues
for
indulging
in
in
those
comments.
A
Are
there
any
other
comments
on
on
this
motion?
All
right,
I'm
gonna
go
seeing
no
hands
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
roll
commissioner
bagley
is
absent.
Commissioner,
guerin.
M
F
P
A
Absent
commissioner
steinberger
is
absent.
I
vote.
I
motion
carries
six
to
zero.
Commissioner
hughes,
do
you
have
another
motion.
L
I
do
miss
patrick.
Can
you
pull
up
the
next
one?
Please
thank
you
and,
for
my
colleagues
sake,
I'm
gonna
do
the
iot
on
the
screen.
Miss
badger,
if
you
don't
mind
right
between
4a
below
grade
I'm
going
to
put
for
a
partially
below
grade
parking
structure.
L
I'll
speak
to
my
devotion,
commissioner
weir.
I
think
it's
self-evident
from
our
discussion
this
evening
and
as
we
did
in
our
first
meeting
when
we
recommended
a
deferral,
we
went
through
many
alternatives.
L
We've
heard
this
evening
how
limitedly
explored
and
sort
of
marginally
improved
I'll
use
the
terms
the
entire
project
has
become,
and
I
think
that
the
subject
of
our
discussion
earlier
is
quite
clear.
With
respect
to
our
reasoning,.
A
Commissioner-
and
you
may
be
on
mute
I'll,
come
back
to
you,
commissioner
hughes
hi
hi,
commissioner
commissioner
gear
and
I
correct,
did
I
just
hear
that
correct?
Thank
you,
commissioner.
E
F
A
Sir
peterson
is
absent,
commissioner
charlie
hi,
commissioner
schroll
is
absent.
Commissioner
steinberger.
A
Is
also
absent
and
I
vote,
I
motion
carries
six
to
zero.
Commissioner
hughes,
I
believe
you
have
another
motion.
L
A
G
A
Commissioner
hughes
aye,
commissioner,
tell
me
hi,
commissioner
patel
aye,
commissioner
peterson
is
absent.
Commissioner
sally
hi,
commissioner
schroll
and
commissioner
steinberger
are
absent.
I
vote.
I
motion
carries
six
two
zero.
Commissioner
hughes,
I
believe
you
have
a
fourth
motion.
L
You
have
a
final
motion,
although
I
am
very
happy-
and
I
want
to
convince
staff
both
from
aps
and
from
our
own
staff
for
the
tremendous
job.
I
know
that
you
guys
are
doing
and
working
tirelessly,
and
these
this
motion
is
is
meant
to
further
amplify
what
we
as
a
commission,
I
think,
have
begun
to
embrace,
which
is
a
far
more
expansive
role
as
the
community
engagement
of
our
planning
process.
C
A
That's
commissioner,
patel
from
the
second
commissioner
hughes
opportunity
to
speak
to
your
motion.
L
Thank
you
for,
for
those
of
you.
We
heard
this
evening,
of
course,
from
some
of
the
neighbors
or
some
representatives
of
some
of
the
building
owners
of
the
neighbors
and
again
it's
just
to
reiterate.
L
As
commissioner
weir
said,
it
is
exceptionally
unusual
for
us
to
not
hear
from,
for
example,
rafam
or
any
of
the
rosslyn
area,
engagement,
civics
associations
on
such
a
significant
deviation
from
the
original
raps
planning
process
that
they
had
spent
years
doing
and
therefore
we
ourselves
as
a
commission,
did
not
have
a
pfrc
on
this
action
and
was
brought
to
us
in
rather
haste
in
the
spring
and
continues
to
be
brought
forward,
and
this
is
yet
another
reiteration
of
what
I
feel
is
our
continued
need
as
a
community
to
ensure
that
when
we
say
something
that
we
mean
it,
and
also
that
we
explain
more
than
we
should
to
our
neighbors,
what
is
going
on
so
that
I
hope
I
can
get
your
support.
A
Commissioner
hughes
does
anyone
else
wish
to
be
recognized
to
speak
to
their
vote
on
this
motion
call
the
role
commissioner
bagley
is
absent.
Commissioner,
guerin.
M
A
A
With
that,
this
agenda
was
disposed
of
to
county
staff,
to
ms
santeg
and
mr
gibson
and
your
colleagues.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
understand
that
this
was
an
extremely
difficult
and
challenging
and
unprecedented
proposal.
It
is
not
lost
on
us
that
that
this
came
to
us
without
a
recommendation
at
the
last
time,
and
it
is
not
lost
on
us
that
that
reflects
and
the
extent
to
which
this
is
a
difficult
and
challenging
piece.
A
We
are
extremely
grateful
for
your
thoughtful
time
to
the
applicant.
I
I
I
am
extremely
I.
We
are
also
grateful
for
the
work
that
you
have
done.
This
is,
as
you
have
made
very
clear,
a
very
challenging
situation.
The
goals
are
are
laudable
for
universal
design.
As
far
as
the
substance
you
know,
I
I
believe
that
the
conversation
speaks
to
itself,
but
I
I
do
want
to
thank
you
for
for
being
here.
I
know
that
this
is
not.
A
D
Thank
you,
courtney.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
will
go
ahead
and
share
my
screen.
I
do
have
a
very
brief
few
slides
to
kind
of
introduce
this
topic
and
the
reason
for
bringing
it
forward
to
you
this
evening.
E
D
All
right:
can
everyone
see
this?
Yes,
okay.
Thank
you
very
much
so
this.
This
is
a
quick
few
words
about
updates
to
administrative
regulations
and
when
I
say
administrative
regulations,
I
am
including
any
of
the
administrative
regulations
that
the
planning
division
kind
of
has
the
purview
over.
D
That
includes
the
4.1
administrative
regulation
that
governs
the
submission
of
site
plans,
as
well
as
the
site
plan
conditions
which
are
actually
part
of
that
administrative
regulation
document,
and
there
are
a
few
more
as
well,
but
those
are
the
two
main
ones
that
we'll
discuss
this
evening.
D
So
the
purpose
of
this
conversation
back
in
march
of
this
year,
we
did
conduct
an
sprc
meeting
to
discuss
the
annual
update
of
the
site
plan
conditions
and,
following
that
meeting,
there
were
several
questions
from
various
commissioners
about
you
know
the
process
involved
in
updating
those
site
plan,
conditions,
kind
of
what
cycling
conditions
do
and
various
questions
to
that
effect,
and
we
also
wanted
to
you
know,
address
that
as
well
as
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
process.
D
Moving
forward
for
the
update
to
the
larger
administrative
regulation
4.1,
so
you
know
again,
the
the
purpose
of
this
is
just
to
to
review
what
our
standard
practice
is
for
the
process
for
those
updates
and
while
we're
at
it,
we
thought
it
would
also
be
a
good
idea
to
just
say
a
few
brief
words
about
some
of
the
topics
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
in
updating
the
4.1
regulation
itself.
D
So
just
getting
into
it.
The
standard
site
plan
conditions
update
this.
This
was
a
slide
that
we
used
in
march
when
we
brought
this
forward
to
the
sprc,
but
what
this
flow
chart
shows
is
kind
of
the
way
we
approach
that
update.
So
the
the
first
part
of
this
was
to
identify
issues,
ideas
and
technical
changes
that
needed
to
occur
to
the
standard
site
plan
conditions.
D
To
do
that,
we
worked
with
an
interdepartmental
group
of
staff,
we
also
reached
out
to
naop
and
a
working
group
of
their
choosing
just
given
that
they
are
kind
of
our
main
stakeholders
and
main
customers.
Almost
I
would
say,
as
as
they
represent
the
developers
who
are,
you
know,
going
to
be
bound
by
these
conditions
in
the
future.
After
that
process,
we
worked
to
develop
a
first
draft
and
we
we
went
through
and
reviewed
that
internally.
D
After
that
we
reviewed
that
sort
of
with
more
external
stakeholders,
the
nap
working
group,
the
county
attorney's
office,
not
technically
external,
but
external,
to
the
planning
division,
I
would
say,
and
then
we
also
brought
that
forward
to
the
sprc
to
you
know,
inform
them
of
the
changes
that
were
being
contemplated.
D
After
that
you
know,
we
finalized
the
update
with
the
county
manager's
office,
so
this
was
the
the
process
that
we
went
through.
I
will
say
that
you
know,
I
think
that
you
know
several
questions
were
raised
by
commissioners
after
that,
and
the
main
topic
of
this
was:
why
wasn't
this
brought
forward
to
sprc
at
the
beginning,
so
that
you
know
issues
for
staff
to
study
could
have
been
provided
at
that
time,
and
then
we
could
have
come
back
at
a
later
date.
D
You
know,
having
studied
those
issues
kind
of
it,
you
know
issues
being
brought
up
at
step.
One
which
you
know
could
have
come
back
to
a
second
sprc
at
step,
three,
so
that
so
moving
forward
to
2023
that's
kind
of
exactly
what
we're
proposing
now.
D
I
think
it
does
make
sense
at
this
time
to
include
the
sprc.
You
know
in
our
initial
kind
of
fact-finding
step
where
you
know
we're
going
out
to
interdepartmental
staff
to
see
you
know
what
are
some
of
the
technical
changes
that
may
need
to
be
updated.
We're
going
out
to
naop
to
say
you
know
how
are
these
conditions
working
in
terms
of
administration
and
then
we
we
think
it's
also.
D
D
So
we
heard
you
on
that
and-
and
I
think
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
work
that
into
our
our
standard
process
moving
forward
so
on
to
the
4.1
update
itself,
you
know
we're
going
to
be
getting
started
with
that
in
earnest.
This
summer
we've
already
started.
You
know
I
have
already
started
marking
up
that
document
and
we're
going
to
get
started.
You
know
coming
up
with
a
draft
this
summer.
D
Here
is
what
I'm
looking
at
we're
looking
at.
You
know.
The
main
thing
here
is
that
you
know
our
current
iteration
of
the
4.1
administrative
regulation
includes.
You
know:
requirements
for
submission
of
physical,
copies
of
site,
plane
drawings,
which
obviously
is
now
out
of
date,
given
that
we
have
the
permit,
arlington
system
now
live
for
three
years,
so
that
needs
to
occur.
You
know
asap
we're.
Also,
looking
at
you
know
are
there
kind
of
similar
to
the
site
plan
conditions.
D
You
know:
are
there
any
technical
requirements
to
site
plan
and
crystal
city
block
plan,
submission
drawings
that
need
to
be
updated?
Have
things
progressed
or
are
there
any
issues?
You
know
that
that
we
have
identified
that
just
need
to
be
changed
in
that
regard
in
terms
of
the
the
drawings
themselves
and
what
needs
to
be
shown
on
those
drawings,
I'm
getting
one
right
off
the
top
of
my
head,
which
is
that
you
know
we.
D
We
never
get
drawings
submitted
by
applicants
that
show
buy
right
setback
standards
on
on
our
plot
and
location
plan,
so
that
that's
something
that
needs
to
be
updated
and
that's
something.
That's
really
important
from
a
zoning
perspective
when
they
receive
building
permit
drawings.
On
the
back
end
of
things,
we
are
also
looking,
you
know
as
a
result
of
the
work
we've
done
on
the
biophilic
cities
initiative.
D
We're
also
looking
to
you
know,
includes
a
standard
submission
for
every
site
plan,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
be
participating
in
the
green
building
incentive
program,
or
not.
D
That
every
site
plan
include
a
biophilian
narrative
that
you
know
discusses
the
project's
biophilic
components,
and
this
is
something
that
you
know,
as
has
been
talked
about
repeatedly,
could
be
discussed
during
the
site
plan
review
process
we
are
looking
to
you
know,
supplement
and
enhance
the
sustainable
design
elements,
submission
requirements
to
conform
to
what
was
approved
with
the
2020
green
building
incentive
program,
update
we're
also
looking
to
include
a
requirement
for
a
meeting
with
green
building
staff.
D
D
So
we
think
that
it
is
warranted
warranting
of
a
meeting
beforehand
to
make
sure
that
applicants
are
informed
of
exactly
what
they
need
to
submit
in
that
regard,
we're
looking
to
update
tdm
and
tia
now
mmta
submission
standards,
as
these
have
changed,
and
then
you
know
really
any
other
updates
that
that
may
occur
throughout
this
this
review
process
so
as
you'll
notice
from
this
list.
These
are
all
very,
very
technical.
D
You
know
updates.
These
are
all
these
are
all
with
respect
to
how
site
plan
applications
are
constituted
and
governed
and
processed.
So
we
we're
not
we're
not
contemplating
any
check-in
with
the
sprc
or
planning
commission
at
this
time
again.
This
is
a
very
technical
document.
It
really
where
this
is
downstream
of
policy
making.
This
is
this
is
simply
talking
about.
You
know
how
applications
are
filed
and
processed.
D
However,
you
know
I,
I
will
say
that
you
know
these
are
the
types
of
things
that
we
always
keep.
The
sprc
chair,
informed
of,
and
you
know
we
we're
we
can
commit
to
to
working
with
them
at
this
stage.
So
that's
all
I
have
at
this
time
and
I'd
be
happy
to
address
any
questions
that
the
commission
might
have.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you
so
much
chairwear
and
thank
you,
mr
pfeiffer.
I
know
this
is
a
ton
of
work.
My
only
question
is
we
sometimes
get
questions
from
other
commissions
about
this
process
and,
as
you
point
out,
it
is
pretty
complicated.
As
you
know
I
have
said,
I
don't
know,
I
need
to
ask
matt
pfeiffer.
So
is
there
a
way
that
you
will
like
put
up
an
faqs
on
the
webpage,
or
will
you
be
doing
briefings
to
staff
who
will
then
take
it
to
the
other
commissions?
So
they
understand
this
as
well?
D
Sure
yeah
I
mean
we,
we
can
definitely
look
into
that.
I
think
you
know
I
can
think
of
the
top
of
my
head.
You
know
a
couple
of
landing
spots
for
for
how
we
could
go
about
doing
this.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
kind
of
have
a
home,
for
you
know
the
the
4.1
administrative
regulation,
as
well
as
the
site
plan
conditions
and
any
updates
there
too
great-
and
certainly
you
know
this
is
this-
is
not
only
a
planning
division
effort.
D
It's
an
interdepartmental
effort,
so
you
know
enter
key
interdepartmental
staff
will
be.
You
know
apprised
of
these
updates
as
they
go
along.
G
Yeah,
I
guess
there's
some
this
hap.
This
is
one
clear
example
of
it,
but
you
know.
Sometimes
we
get
asked
things
that
are
really
best
answered
by
staff,
so
I
appreciate
you
being
so
open
to
this
idea
of
yeah,
maybe
putting
something
out
there,
and
then
we
can
refer
folks
to
the
page
or
to
the
right
person
and
make
sure
that
everybody
has
accurate,
complete
information.
Thank
you.
A
Mr
pfeiffer,
I'm
very
grateful
that
you
took
the
time
to
put
this
presentation
together.
It's
extremely
informative.
I
know
we've
been
talking
about
doing
this
for
several
months
now
and
I'm
grateful
that
we
have
now
had
an
opportunity
to
to
get
this
briefing.
So.
Thank
you
again,
of
course,
you're
welcome.
Thank
you
again,
ms
badger.
Are
there
other
items
on
our
agenda
this
evening.
A
Before
thank
you,
miss
badger.
Before
we
do
committee
reports,
I
believe
that
we
also
usually
have
a
staff
report
item
on
our
agenda,
and
it
may
be
that
between
this.
That
and
the
other
thing
we've
already
covered
it.
But
I
do
want
to
ask
you
and
mr
pfeiffer
and
others
whether
or
not
there
are
any
other
staff
items
that
that
need
to
be
reported
on
before
we
go
to
the
committee
reports.
B
I
apologize
that
is
an
agenda
item
that
I
overlooked.
I
apologize
about
that.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
staff
reports,
but
matt
pfeiffer
can
chime
in
if
he
has
anything.
A
So
for
committee
reports
we
we
are
down
a
handful
of
of
committee
chairs
this
evening.
I
know
that,
for
example,
commissioner
peterson
circulated
a
report,
so
I
will
note
that
hers
is
as
submitted
the
only
thing
that
I
would
have
covered
in
my
chairs
report
we've
already
addressed,
which
is
the
status
of
the
bylaws
changes
and
non-changes
and
and
policies,
although
there
probably
will
be
bylaws
changes
for
the
the
committee
for
for
the
the
hybrid
participation
aspect
for
committee
meetings.
F
A
I
I'm
glad
that
you're
joined
by
your
co-chair
as
well
this
evening,
commissioners,
patel
and
sally
anything
for
the
zoning
committee.
H
Miss
patel
I'll
go
first
or
I'll
comment.
First,
then
you
can
follow
up,
so
we
do
have
a
scheduled
zocal
meeting
coming
up
next
week
on
tuesday.
I
believe
that
is
july
12th.
In
that
meeting
we
will
be
covering
tdr
for
the
haven
site
and
that
has
some
form-based
code.
H
Columbia
pike
conversation
issues,
so
I
would
encourage
any
and
all
of
us
to
attend,
and
then
we
did
have
we
do
have,
I
should
say
the
missing
middle
study
to
come
to
zoco
and
that
is
sort
of
not
yet
scheduled,
so
we're,
probably
thinking
september
at
the
earliest.
If
not
later
so
that's
the
update
is
patel
that
I
forgot
anything.
A
A
C
You
know
what
I
know.
I'm
sorry,
commissioner,
I
think
one
of
the
things
to
add
is
that
next
tuesday,
the
county
board,
what
mr
rogers
was
saying
is
the
county
board
is
going
to
address
some
of
these
issues
around
missing
middle,
which
is
why
the
july
meeting
is
being
moved.
So
anybody
who's
interested
on
the
commission
tune
in
to
the
county
boards.
Discussions
on
next
tuesday.
A
A
D
L
No
and
the
zoco
meeting,
which
has
a
significant
interest
and
has
had
the
three
previous
meetings
prior
to
this,
don't
think
of
it
so
much
as
the
haven
site.
Think
of
it
as
tdrs
within
the
the
neighborhoods
plan,
it's
very
important
to
sort
of
understand
it
has
a
broader
context
outside
of
a
single
site
and
so
that
and
then
in
the
fall.
We
have
a
lot
of
use
permits
coming,
so
you
guys
can
expect
to
see
more
form-based
code
in
the
coming
months.
F
Let
me
jump
in
there
on
commissioner
hughes
is
that
the
the
haven
site-
that's
also
the
ttr's,
for
the
boston,
macy's
site.
L
It
is
that
is
correct.
The
the
implications
are
as
you
as
you
allude
to
professionally.
It
has
broader
impacts
well
beyond
just
the
columbia
pike,
zoning
along
the
tdr
transfer
rights
allowability
for
the
neighborhood
term
based
code.
The
particular
application
that
is
most
pertinent
is
as
as
was
said,
the
haven
site
which
should
it
go
forward,
is
one
of
the
community
benefits
being
pro
pro
put
up
by
the
macy's
site
owner
who
happens
to
be
both
the
owner
of
the
haven
site
and
the
owner
of
the
macy's
property.
A
So,
thank
you
christian
hughes
and
commissioner
tell
me.
I
believe,
commissioner,
madam
clerk,
I
believe
that
that
is
our
last
agenda
item.
Is
that
correct.
A
Thank
you.
So
thank
you
to
staff
to
the
applicants,
members
of
the
public
for
your
time,
consideration
and
patience
this
evening.
The
items
heard
this
evening
are
expected
to
go
to
the
county
board
on
july
16
and
19.
this
month.
It
will
be
my
turn
to
represent
the
commission
at
the
board
meeting
many
staff
labored
to
make
this
virtual
meeting
run
smoothly.
A
Thank
you
to
all
of
you,
thanks,
especially
to
courtney,
badger,
joanne,
harrison
to
sprc
supervisor,
matt,
pfeiffer,
david
wood
and
others
who
I
may
have
failed
to
name.
That
being
said,
the
commission
is
adjourned,
have
a
good
night.