Good morning everyone. I'm going to call the Land Use Policy Committee meeting to order. The first thing on the agenda is to look at the minutes. Does anybody have any corrections or additions to the minutes? Okay, seeing none, those will be accepted. Today we're going to have an update about the policy plan and where we are with that. I think it's important for us to have this meeting. Number one, so the has a way to review what's happening with our progress and for the board members to be updated. And so I am going to turn to Kelly to kick us off. Thank you, Supervisor Smith. I just wanted to take a moment. We have an intern who is joining us in our office this summer in the Planning Division, NOAA Mac. He is a graduate of George Mason with a degree in political science and he's currently working on his master's degree in urban planning at Virginia Tech, Gohokies. So we are thrilled to have him join us this summer. We're gonna give him a lot of good insight into a lot of the work that we do in the planning division and just wanna take knowledge of. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to Kareen Babak. is's going to get us started. Good morning. Thank you, Kelly. I'm Kareem Babak with the Department of Planning and Development. Today I'm joined by Michael Burton, Katrina Newtson, Carly Aubrey, Kelly Atkinson, and Tracy Strunk, also from DPD, and by Bob Pacora from the Fairfax County Department of Transportation, who will introduce the transportation team when we get to that section. the transportation team when we get to that section. Today we're here to provide three presentations on the environment, land use and transportation elements, but while we've consolidated the three presentations into one slide deck, we will pause for questions on each element after the slides for that element are done. Before we get started, I do want to set the stage and highlight some next steps. As discussed with the board last year, staff took the approach of publishing draft text based on the initial feedback we've heard from the board, the Planning Commission and the community. The text publication and discussions with the board and planning commission were done in segments intentionally to avoid the concerns we heard about having too much information at once. Since the publication of the text before you, we've had additional feedback from the Planning Commission, County agencies, Community and BACs, which is informing potential revisions to the draft text, and we'll be discussed with the Planning Commission at the June 5th Policy Plan Committee meeting. This approach will help us ensure that the staff report and updated text that's included in the staff report has the benefit from as much input as possible prior to publishing. Staff has not yet scheduled public hearings, and we'll do so upon completion of this meeting in the June 5th Policy Plan Committee meeting with the Planning Commission. However, public hearings are still targeted for this fall per the Board's direction, and the staff report with staff recommendations will be released five weeks prior to the hearings, which are currently, we currently anticipate releasing the staff report in September. Before we get into the individual elements, we want to highlight the strategy we used for all of the revisions. Most of this occurred before we put pen to paper to ensure that the revisions would be effective and to ensure that we did not remove any good text that is still working. Internally, we reviewed the policies and objectives and how they have been implemented through the years. Looking at old zoning cases, proffers and development conditions, talking with those that work with the policies regularly, and identified where we've had success and what some challenges have been with implementation. While we generally found that the elements were strong and provided appropriate flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and trends, we did identify areas that could be clarified, strengthened, or topics that could be introduced to continue providing flexibility to ensure relevance and applicability of policies into the future. We coordinated with our topic leads team, planning commission liaison's, the community, additional county agencies and non-county entities. We've now been through three rounds of community outreach and are working to incorporate comments we've been receiving since the publication of the draft text this spring. The staff recommendations will be published with the staff report ahead of the public hearings. We then developed research topics and papers to dive a little deeper into some areas that are new or needed additional research. These topics were selected as it was clear to us some additional information was needed to address our questions and the points raised throughout the outreach ahead of attempting to create or update policy. These papers are available on our project web page which is linked later in these slides. After all that we began the work of streamlining, aligning and adding new policies to the plan. The work included reorganizing the structure of the elements and developing new objectives. We also updated appendices within the land use and transportation elements, which will be discussed later in this presentation. Since the policy plan and comprehensive plan are intended to serve as a guide for future land use and development related decisions, a key focus of the work we've done is to ensure the guidance developed through this project of woods being overly specific. Does not rely on trendy buzzwords and provides the appropriate flexibility for staff, the planning commission and the board to be able to apply the recommendations across the county. Another focus was to ensure the newly revised policy plan could be easily understood by the community and developers. And with that, we'll move into the environment element. Before we get into the details, we wanted to acknowledge that the entire element has been updated to address the board authorization for this project. A few areas worth highlighting are that we've modified the introduction to explicitly add new concepts and clarify connections. While these were generally implied in the existing element, we've strengthened references to our changing climate and equity. We've streamlined the content throughout the pre-embles objectives and policies to reduce the redundancies and eliminate outdated information. We've aligned with C-CAP, resilient Fairfax, one Fairfax, the tri-action plan, and other guiding documents as appropriate. We've added specific references to health within the element. We've created a new objective and associated policies to address equity. And we've coordinated with our topic leads team and other county agencies to ensure the changes are appropriate or generally address their concerns to the extent applicable for the comprehensive plan. The detailed changes can be found in the red line version of the draft text that we've published and the clean version provides an easier review experience that shows all the information incorporated without a markup. While we've received many comments through the outreach process and discussions, this slide shows a general summary in groupings of the recurring themes. Some of these items are addressed in the current policy plan, either indirectly or directly, which indicated to us that we were starting from a good place. However, we have work to strengthen the existing policies while also adding some new ones to address the feedback we've heard. For example, C-CAP and resilient Fairfax address the importance of incorporating strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reduction and providing adaptive environments. Some of these strategies such as green building commitments, tree preservation and flood protection can be found in the existing element. The draft updates to the policies, objectives and associated preambles aimed to do a clearer job of linking the importance of these existing new or improved policies to the goals of greenhouse gas emission reduction and creating a more resilient built in natural environment. Since we've published the draft text last month, we've received additional feedback related to the proposed elements lack of specificity on certain topics such as storm-owner management and vegetation practices. While staff is working to address these comments, a key area where we would like board feedback on is how specific this plan should get, recognizing a need to convey aspirational county goals and also to provide implementable guidance. As an example the comprehensive plan text today contains over 50 recommendations relating to storm water management. Some of these are specifically tied to a particularly degraded stream but most are general and repetitive. To address the more general guidance we're working to develop a county-wide storm water management policy policy with a goal to, in the future, limit site-specific store-modern management text in areas where a specific, to areas where an, the specific exceptional need has been identified. To that end, the published draft includes a more general policy for entitlements to exceed minimum code requirements that could be applicable across the county, but would be flexible enough to be applied based on watershed conditions. Based on the feedback we've received, we're now considering a menu of options that includes items such as good forested conditions, one inch of retention, attaining the lead rainwater management credit, and an intensity-based approach determined by FAR. While the menu of options is based on previously adopted site-specific storm water management guidance that was previously based on watershed conditions, if included or adopted this would now apply across the county regardless of watershed or site conditions. One challenge we've identified is the need for additional information. On when each option would be most appropriate to ensure we continue to obtain water quantity and quality commitments that meet our county goals while addressing the site-specific conditions and providing flexibility to balance other plan goals. This would also provide clarity to the development community on quantity and quality expectations. The next slide will provide some additional details on our changes, but I do want to highlight that data center recommendations are contained within the land use element as that's where we keep our use specific guidance. Some more specific changes that we've made through this update. An objective to the majority of the policies have been retained, but either revised, consolidated, or regrouped. The primary draft revisions are grouping existing county programmatic policies together, proposing to move up site design that mimics natural hydrology, maximizes infiltration, and other practices related to site design. And as noted on the previous slide, we're still working through the addition and development of appropriate county wide stormwater management policy. Additional references and policies have been provided for PFA's, insult management, and for the long standing practice of incorporating 50% continuous every time. Undisturbed open space for non-residential projects in the RC zoning district requiring special exception or special permit approvals. Objective five has been updated to expand the discussion of potential impacts of light pollution and incorporates principles of dark sky lighting practice. Objective-5 has been updated to expand the discussion of potential impacts of light pollution and incorporates principles of dark skylighting practice. Objective-10 has been expanded from just tree canopy to also include native and adaptive landscaping, invasive plant management, healthy soils, conservation corridors, and assessments of sites to identify environmental constraints and opportunities. Objective 11 for the most part is unchanged. The creation or enhancement of conservation quarter connectivity was added to the objective as another purpose of the policies. And policy D was an existing policy that was moved here to consolidate easement references and to one objective. Objective 12 is new and it's where we focus on equity issues that are specific to Fairfax County. This includes urban heat impacts, lack of tree canopy, flooding, poor air quality, and environmental contamination. Objective 13 has been updated to expand on renewable resources, formalize the practice of bird friendly design, profound electric vehicle charging policies to apply to all development and not just residential, and incorporate concepts of site sustainable site design. I do want to note that the entirety of the environment element does focus on sustainable site design practices, but we've strengthened that connection. We've also increased plan guidance for lead certification to lead silver and gold to better align with C-CAP and the operational energy strategy. Some items like climate resilience, climate resilience and biodiversity are addressed throughout the element. And further, we want to emphasize that while we've done our best to address the land use-related feedback and items that can be addressed within the environment element, there are still some things outside the scope of this project like banning gas powered lawn equipment and regulations that are addressed by other bodies. Shown here is our proposed revised structure for the element. The underlying areas include a very high level note of the changes that we've made. Based on the feedback and the addition of policies, we've tried to maintain the general structure of the environment element while focusing on enhancing and adding new policies to fully address the board authorization of this project. And as I've mentioned a few times we are continuing to work on refining county wide store modern management guidance with our DPWS and LDS partners. This recommendation be applied to developments pursuing an entitlement application going forward and the final recommendation for such a policy would be included within the staff report. And with that, we invite you all and anyone watching to review the current environment element as well as the draft text that we've proposed. Visit our project webpage and provide feedback to plan forward, FFX, public input.com. Thank you for sharing with me. We would like to turn it back over to you for questions and discussion. Thank you, Kareen. It's a lot of work. And I know the board appreciates all the outreach and the work you've done with this. I think the biggest challenge is how specific you get. Because when people are passionate about certain topics, the tendency is to think put it in the comp plan. But as the board has said before, the comp plan is our general guidance, right? And we have other documents and places when it gets to specific issues that might change over time how we deal with them. So I think you're absolutely right when you deal with storm order and what we have to be careful what we put in here because we're writing policies for the whole county that as you said Might be different in different parts of the county I'm gonna turn it over to the chairman Thank you supervisor Smith and actually you said what I was gonna lead with which is the question of how specific we get My my preference would be to err on the side of less specific simply because we have so many other plans and documents in place that can be referred to. And obviously we want this to be relatively timeless. And so the more specific you get, the more need you're going to have to go back and have to make constant adjustments. So referencing some of the other plans that are easier to adjust, certainly on the environmental side We have as you outline a ton of other guiding documents that are much more specific involving the environment. And frankly, any redundancies or outdated information or things like that that get into the policy plan makes the policy plan harder to use, harder to understand, and more of a challenge, I think downstream for staff and trying to deal with how it matches up to a particular application. And so I would say, for certainly the policy plan originally was set out to be aspirational, high level guidance, not very detailed type of type of thing that we want to make sure we prevent here. And so I would say error on the side of being less specific and relying on other documents to buttress the points that the policy plan is trying to get across. And then secondarily, I think the question that I have is with the changes so the draft was published in April. You've been receiving changes. You just mentioned for folks watching or for us to submit comments. But help me understand where we go from all those changes and all those suggested edits to a final version. What does that look like and what does the public participation level look like from kind of where we're sitting today to when we might be ready to adopt this piece? Thank you. So with the changes that we've been receiving, we've been compiling them and trying to see what's workable with the comp plan and what isn't. And so on this part of the, I'm going to say January, June 5th, Policy Plan Committee discussion with the Planning Commission, we will be highlighting what changes we are incorporating and what we're not able to and then over summer will continue refining that draft text with our partner agencies. And we've done three rounds of community outreach already. Last week, we just wrapped up Round 3. So we invite additional community input into our public input email address and also to the public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Okay, so you will be publishing what you believe to be reflective either incorporating or not incorporating, but in a transparent way, the comments that you got, and then that final draft, that will be the subject of the public hearing at the Planning Commission and board, when do you anticipate that final draft being published? So we can commit to five weeks prior to the public hearing right now, we're anticipating that publication would occur in September, but we'll work backwards from the final dates that are set for planning commission and board public hearings. Okay, that sounds fine. And I think along the lines of the timeframe, I think many of us were hoping to get. So there's a lot on your plate. There's other things that need to be moved into. So trying to get this piece behind us, is I think is very important. and I just want to re-emphasize the point of high level, you know, rely on other sources of information that are much more specific to be referenced and as Supervisor Smith rightly pointed out, this is a very large county and some pieces of this may be very applicable in some parts of the county and other pieces might not be applicable at all. And that's where that high level, I think is important and us relying on other other documents to try to steer that process, I think is most helpful. So thank you. Thank you. I have Supervisor Palchuk, then I'll call. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, Karen, and the staff who've worked on this, been trying to educate myself as well as I can. It is quite a complex document. And so first of all, just definitely thank you for the work on this. And absolutely agree that there are some updates that needed to happen to make this more regular language. I do also agree with the chairman because I think as we get too specific, right, and there are so many different plans and policy plans and area plans and average jurisdiction does it differently, right, and I think the more we're able to sort of simplify what we do across our 400 square miles so that we can be a little bit more targeted. I have the most urban areas, the more transit-oriented areas. And so it's going to look pretty different from some of the mountain-vernin area, spring-filled areas, and even parts of drain spill. So I just want to make sure that we are looking at it that way. And really, as you do that outreach, I hope it's targeted and that we are able to put it in understandable language, right? To really get feedback from our community that maybe hasn't had the opportunity or the outreach to understand what this means to them, right? How will it impact their community? What do they want to see in the next phase of the plan? So that's one thing that kind of worries me as we do these very complex and overly complex plans and put more into them is it is the community's plan, right? And this is, it's our policy plan. It's not the specific. So again, I highly agree with doing that. And then more specifically, I've been looking at the environmental piece, which I think is critical. And I've been kind of trying to compare the way we do it with some other jurisdictions. I think, like, Gendra is updating their green building policies. And one of the things I wonder is, what's comparable if we go up to lead gold? We talk about other ways to approve, right? And lead is one way. There are so many others like passive house and federal ones. Have we looked at other comparable to lead gold if we're saying other ways to get approved also work? So with our policy plan, thank you for the question. We do have lead as the sort of standard that we use for comparison with the county. We've in the past approved Earthcraft and NGBS, the National Green Building Standard, as alternative residential programs. Earthcraft also has a commercial program. And so with this language, it gives us the flexibility to have applicants propose other programs for us to review and see if it's something that would align with our policies and our goals to allow them to pursue that through proper commitments or development conditions. And so anytime we do get a suggestion for something that's outside of one of those programs, we do review it vigorously to try and make sure that we're we're meeting those goals. No one's proposed passive house yet, but we do encourage through this update more similar things to the operational energy strategy, which does hit it in that zero and all of that. So I think hopefully with this revision we'll start seeing some more of those proposals. Yeah, and I know in a way, right, Leigh, kind of lets us have that outside review, but I know it also becomes a very costly review that's kind of like organic about that review and some businesses, whether it's in farming or this, are choosing to go with a different process that maybe lets them put more and be more specific as to what they're doing versus putting the time and money into this external review. So I just hope we look at that. I know it's a bit of a challenge, but are there really comparable? I wasn't able to find one if there are to us going up to lead gold. I just want to make sure the outcomes we're looking for are practically going to work here and what have other jurisdictions been able to apply that has given them what they're looking for. And then my other one is just, do we have specific priorities when we're looking at these, are we, and maybe looking across, we have C-CAP in so many other places? If we simplify it, then we can really be more nimble as, okay, here, you know, focusing on energy versus carbon, versus water, versus, you know, if everything's a priority. I don't know how much of that we want to put into, I guess, the policy plan versus leaving that in our other Environmental goals and seek up goals I think that's that's exactly the challenge we've been grappling with with our policy plan We've always relied on third-party certification just because The county is so big and we were previously doing something called soft commitments that were really Staff time intensive and didn't really get us to the point that we were trying to get at with sustainable design practices. And so with the revisions we've made, we've kept the emphasis on energy efficiency since that was a board priority and we just refined the way it's worded a little bit and so we are able to strike that balance between projects so that we're not penalizing someone for not being able to do something. But exactly to your point, we are relying on those other documents like C-CAP and the operational energy strategy to help us move the needle. Thank you. My final question is back to the outreach is we'd love to see what we've done for both targeted outreach and with our business community. This housing becomes more and more expensive. Just wanna make sure that we'll be able to continue to build or try to build more accessible housing and buildings and not bring it out of reach of our community. So thank you. And we did publish a community feedback report. And April, I believe it was. So we'll send that to you. And then if you have any further questions, feel free to reach out to us. Okay, just how it was done. I don't know if it's in there if I missed it. Thank you. It's within there. Okay. I have supervisor Alcorn, then Herity, then Walk and Show. Thank you very much Madam Chair. So good discussion about basically maybe simplifying parts of this. And I think there's some good examples of where there is guidance that exists outside of the policy plan. That's helpful. For example, we have urban design guidelines in, I know in rest and in Tyson's and some other places. And that's that exists outside of the policy plan. I guess one of the things that would be helpful for me is to understand anything that's coming out of the policy plan. Where's it going? So if we are going to take stuff out of here, I want to make sure that if it's still useful and it's still appropriate that it's going somewhere. Because there's an example of, I don't know how you would do that for example with the EQC policy. I mean, in several pages, there's a fair amount of detail there, but to me, that's probably something that can't go anywhere else, but as you look at simplifying it and seeing where things should go, that I think would be super helpful, at least from my perspective. And I would also, as we're looking at some of the details, I think it's important to remember like our C-CAP plan. Our C-CAP plan is primarily internal to the county. And there may be things in our C-CAP plan that call for external parties, for private parties to do things. And this policy plan can be an implementation strategy of our CKIP plan. So there may be the other way too where there may be plans that there's a little more detail here, but actually they're tied, not, doesn't come out of the policy plan, but maybe it's just a reference. So I would caution us about simplifying it too much because comprehensive planning is one of the few areas the General Assembly gives us clear authority for at least on the land use side and certainly a lot of things we don't want to put in the zoning ordinance because it ties everybody's hands too tightly. So I appreciate there may be some things that we can simplify but there are also some things I want to make sure we keep in here for flexibility purposes too. So thank you. Just on Supervisor Alcorn's point because it reminds me of something. Have we checked this really clearly against the zoning ordinance? Because actually I find the data center information in here to be the exact opposite of what Supervisor Alcorn just described. I think it goes beyond what the zoning ordinance requires. And so I am worried a little bit about the compatibility of the two and how much work we put into the zoning ordinance amendments relative to data centers. And then when I look at what's in here, this actually looks like it goes far beyond what our zoning ordinance says. And so how do we kind of referee that? The compatibility between the zoning ordinance and the policy plan, because the policy plan is meant to be a much higher, wider view of what's going on in the zoning ordinance, of course, is the enforceable application. And I actually see, and maybe there's other examples, but this one example, it almost looks like the tug of war between the two the policy plan is more specific and ask for things that even our zoning ordinance does and so help me with that. Good morning Tracy Strunk planning and development. We can certainly go back and double check some of those things as well with the with overall with the zoning ordinance the comp plan. The goal with the data centers and we'll get to that in the Landry section but was one of the things that we actually wanted to kind of touch base with you all in particular. And if you recall when we did the report last year, a little over a year now, there was a lot of discussion about what needs to be in the regulations that will apply to everything that's going to be by right, what needs to be in the regulations if something's going through a special exception, which then sort of looks back to the comp plan, and what is something that's sort of more general. And so the guidance that we heard or thought we heard at that time was let's focus on the zoning ordinance and particularly those by right situations which were not covered in any way really in the zoning ordinance for data centers and look at the comp plan when we got to that section and the environmental section. And so that was our goal was that the idea was that there are there's certainly regulations that apply to by-right situations that cover everyone and then if someone is coming in and asking for something additional through the special exception process or potentially rezoning process, then maybe there are additional things because they are doing more than to buy right. And that's kind of generally the way we work. If you're doing more, you might get asked a little bit more. And so where that balance is is something we certainly want to hear from you all. Now, I appreciate that. And I think that is something we should spend some time talking about just from the standpoint of making sure there's compatibility but also making sure if there are areas where the policy plan is meant to be more aggressive than the zoning ordinance that we pay particular attention to those areas and the reasons for that. Because the conventional wisdom is that's not what we've used this tool for in the past. It's not to say we can't moving forward, but I think it is a little bit of a change from the foundational elements that the policy plan be pretty high level and not overly specific. So I think that's a good intersection conversation to have with how that does fit with our zoning ordinance. Thank you. Supervisor Heredy, then we'll... Yeah, I'm gonna, I think work from the general to the specific, but I'd like to echo the chairmen's comment on less specificity. And it is, it's not just a wide range of geography as Supervisor Smith mentioned, but this varies widely in the size of the projects that are coming forward and all that. So it's got to be the broadest, the broadest kind of language in my book. Some of these are recommendations, some are certainly requirements, which makes it very, very difficult, especially when you've got the variety of projects. A couple of general questions, sorry I missed a couple of months with some surgery, but what work has been done on the cost impact of these. and I know that varies widely but we talk a lot Around this table and around the dies about the affordability of housing in Fairfax County Have we looked at the cost? I mean there's some very good recommendations here that are great things, but I mean the stuff on soils if you've got to bring in a whole ton of soils to remediate an area if you've got to remove all the invasive species, what are you doing to the cost of housing? And it's difficult when you've got varied projects, like I just said, from the small to the large, but I would hope as we went through this, there was some look at what the cost impact of these were before they got in there. And who's doing that and what kind of cost information can you give us when it comes to the cost impact of a lot of these? We have a supervisor here. We haven't done a specific cost impact, this cost acts. But we have done as we look at proposals that we're making, we certainly review what's happening in the development community and in the development area and what, you know, what people are doing as part of their regular developments. And we also are trying to balance the cost between a development coming in and mitigating some of those things as they do the development while they're doing the work on the ground and the cost to mitigating that if nothing is done at that time and who bears the cost if if that does goes forward in the future. So those are the things we're balancing and we can certainly keep looking at that. Just adding Jennifer Miller, Deputy County Executive for Community Development. I think that's a good question and something. Tracey and I have just been going back and forth a little bit on the county executive and I met with a bunch of developers and then also met with NAYOP to get some input on some of the cost impacts as an example. With the data centers, if you go from lead silver to lead gold, I reached out to a couple data center developers and said can you give me an estimate of what the cost differential would be here just for considerations. So I think on some of those big impacts that's something we can work to try to quantify and then bring back. Maybe yeah, and maybe a study of taking an existing application and what these additional things would require of that application. You know, you can figure out you're smart enough to figure out to get it done. To see them. To stay to that point, we're actually doing that now, right now, with a specific application. I'm not going to mention the name, but we're absolutely doing that right now, because it is about cost to delivery, and that's what we heard from those developers. Yeah. And they won't be absorbing it. They'll be passing it on, trust me. One the things sorry that we asked the development community because we have started to hear a little bit of anecdotal information about like hey the cumulative impacts of these costs and we say we don't get input from you all on a project that you choose not to pursue because of these cost impacts. So we asked that community if they can help articulate that to us and we said you know feel free to provide that to us to the board and so that that can be weighed against some of the requirements so that's something we've recently asked that that's good news thank you the second one is more on our internal impacts if we assess the the impact on the time and training requirements it's going to take to understand all these new requirements. I mean, what's that going to do to the time of an application? Supervisor Herty, Kelly Atkinson. A lot of the policies, as Ms. Bec mentioned, are putting into writing things that we've already been doing. We've already been pushing for invasive species management for enhancing soil. Some of the green building things with the increase, these are things that we're already seeing and already looking at. And so we haven't quantified any of that, but it's our anticipation that there's not gonna be a significant staff training that's needed because we're just codifying things that have already been done in practice. So staff familiar with the American bird conservancy standards already? Again, we're asking them to commit to things that we're already looking at. I mean, we're not trained experts in that, but it's things that we're already seeing developers offer to. So this is a requirement, I'm just gonna do one specific, I could do this with a bunch of them, but ensure all fenestration and lighting is bird friendly, consistent with guidelines published by the American Bird Conservancy or equivalent standards. Our staff's already familiar with them. Supervisor Heredy, maybe the suggestion would be, why don't you go through the document and pull out the things that you want us to address specifically to you because obviously there's gonna be, there's 10 supervisors, there's probably gonna be 100 things that you guys want us to look at. So why don't we just go forward with that and so we can come back to you with a solid plan. Sure, I'll do that. I had one question on this is that the current standards or is that as they get revised or is it, I mean, they're a great organization, by the way, located right here in McLean 30 years old. So generally the way things things that are in the policy plan would get implemented would be a proper commitment or a commitment by the developer. So that would be a discussion. And generally people commit to current standards unless there's some specific thing where sometimes there are times where they will commit to sort of whatever the current standard is. So. So we're going to, as we go forward in the American bird conservancy changes their standards, whatever they are in five years from now. So we're committing to those standards. Hold on a second. We're not committing to those standards. The Board of Supervisors will be committing to whatever standards we move forward with. But again, I'm going to ask if we all could get a list of all the things that you want us to look at that you believe are things that you don't want in this plan or things that you need more information on. We'll be more than happy to go after it. Just have a little trouble giving control of our comprehensive plan requirements because it says ensure to an outside unelected body. It's all. Thank you. Supervisor Walkenchall. Thank you Madam Chair. The first of the list of 100 things for board members to ask for, I'll start. I think if we're going to be asking and I think it's appropriate to ask developers or property owners to share their perspective on the upfront cost that might be associated with some of these requirements. We also then need to ask them about the savings associated with them. So, yes, there's an upfront cost for a lead certification, but there are long-term savings associated with many of the elements of that lead certification. So please do not come back with only one side of the ledger with respect to those requirements. Question for the Tyson's Urban Center and TSAs, The Grayson's Urban Center and TSAs. there's a lead gold certification for non-residential and lead silver for residential. Can you just talk me through the thought process in making that distinction and having the different levels for non-residential versus residential. Certainly right now, much more demand for residential than the non-residential. So there's a strong market for residential, but just talking through that thought process in terms of having the different levels for non-residential and residential. And then I have one more question for that. Sure. I think you, I'm Korean, but back with DPD. So with the certification levels, previously our plan did recommend higher levels of certification for non-residential development and basic certification for residential development. And so through what we've reviewed, through what projects have been getting lead certified, we've seen more consistent and attainable lead silver for residential projects, and we've seen more lead gold for non-residential. So that's based on our experience that they've been able to get to it. And then the kind of broader question, which is relevant to those items and other portions of the plan. And it goes to, I think, Supervisor Paltrowx point in question. The lead or equivalent program. Is it difficult or more difficult to find lead gold equivalent versus seems to me easier to say lead or equivalent when you get down to the specificity of lead silver or equivalent or lead gold or equivalent that strikes me as a bigger challenge to find an equivalent program or certification that is analogous to the very specific requirements in lead silver or lead gold. Have we done that before and how would we, how confident are we that working with a developer propryoner that could be accomplished? So in the past when we've had this come up we have worked directly with the certifying body so the group that administers Earthcraft or the National Green Building Standard reviewers to make sure that if we're recommending a higher level of that program, so NGBS, I think silver or Earthcraft silver, that it is comparable to lead. Okay, so those groups will look at lead with you, look at lead silver and say here's our equivalency. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that. I guess we're ready to rock and roll to the next section. Before we jump on, I just want to say thank you. I know this is a big. There's a lot of stuff in here and I really appreciate all of you. Spending the energy to look at that. All right. Good morning, everyone. My name is Michael Burton. I am with the Department of Planning and Development. I am one of the co-leads for the land use element. I am joined by my other co-league Katrina Newtson and Carly Aubrey as well who provided support. Next slide. Thank you. As a point of comparison to begin I wanted to start with reviewing the existing structure of the land use element. This slide shows the broad topics under which the objectives are organized and under each objective are corresponding policies. As you can see, the majority of the objectives fall under the land use pattern and there are currently 17 objectives in total. This slide shows the existing appendices of the land use element of the policy plan. There are currently 14 appendices, which have been added over the years to the end of the land use element. Since these appendices address important policies and our guidance, one of our goals for this project was to incorporate these appendices into the body of the element itself as both dedicated policies and new development criteria. The draft land use element has been reorganized into eight broad categories, each with its own objectives or criteria. This new structure aligns more closely with the goals outlined in the comprehensive plan overview element, reflects updated planning principles, and ensures a more balanced distribution of objectives across categories. As mentioned, we also aim to integrate the former appendices directly into the element to support future policy development and simplify references. We're appropriate appendix content with incorporated into policies or use specific guidance. For more extensive subjects like the development and redevelopment criteria and transit oriented development, we created dedicated criteria chapters. As mentioned previously, staff identified recommendations from the Clarian reports to be incorporated into the Lansing's element. As the findings were in response to emerging land use trends, newly introduced policies will provide staff with the tools and flexibility to respond. New opportunities were identified for our consideration of ground floor retail and or retail in mixed use environments. New policies in this area will encourage greater consideration of where ground floor retail opportunities are encouraged. Similarly, as we continue to respond to changes in office to manned, the Office Repurposingosing Report recommended additional considerations for evaluating both the repurposing of existing office structures and or the redevelopment of existing office sites and these were incorporated into the use specific guidance. We incorporated new guidance that would support the expansion, both in gross floor area and height of existing buildings to be repurposed and Allow for new residential density intensity outside the footprint of the repurposed building in areas developed with surface parking Lastly staff has incorporated additional guidance around the preservation of areas designated for industrial use in our concept for future development Collectively, the introduction of these new policies represents our effort to stay ahead of emerging land use trends and provide additional flexibility. Another addition, informed by recent development trends, is a new concept called suburban village centers. This new classification represents predominantly commercial notes within our suburban neighborhoods along arterial roadways and that provide a range of services to adjacent lower density communities and are currently or have the potential for a mix of uses or mixed use. They may also be appropriate for a wider range of housing types such as multifamily residential or town homes. The goal was to classify areas functioning as neighborhood commercial hubs that are generally less intense in nature than the activity centers identified within our concept for future development. An already built example might be Grand Park Plaza, or the adopted plan amendment for the Pan Am shopping center, or one of the recent SSPAs, Hilltop Village Center. While suburban village centers have not been geographically designated, the classification would allow staff to identify these important functional areas. During a plan review process and provide additional guidance for how redevelopment in these areas could be treated. The concept of suburban village centers was included in several policies and criteria, with objective two, most specifically addressing suburban village centers. In a future review of our area plans, additional considerations could be explored based on the unique needs of each community, and this classification could be added to the concept for future development map. Another notable step taken during the review of the land use section was the introduction of a new objective that highlights the importance of creating places with high quality urban design principles. Existing policies that focus on these elements were reorganized under objective 12 and strengthens their intent. Likewise, this further supports guidance included in the county adopted volume one, urban design guidelines for commercial revitalization districts and Areas including mixed-use centers and newly introduced suburban village centers In our broader review of the policy plan synergies were identified with our goal of articulating place making and Existing plan guidance within the visual arts element as a result existing policies from the visual arts element were synthesized and reorganized into the land use element as objectives 13 and 14. This approach ensures that these objectives are better integrated, excuse me, into the plan review process. A key goal was to incorporate equity-focused policies across the entire policy plan tailored to the context of each individual element. In the land use element, this effort resulted in two new objectives supported by five specific policies. The new policies promote stronger connections between communities and economic opportunities, while recognizing and respecting the unique cultural and economic identities of each area. The emphasized thoughtful approaches to displacement, equitable access to resources, and the preservation of a resilient, diverse economic base. Lastly, new development criteria were introduced for consideration of data centers. The newly developed criteria built upon the staff work conducted as part of the January 2024 data center report and the zoning ordinance amendments, which was presented to the board on March 12, 2024, and the amendment adopted in September of 2024. The table list nine topics for which criteria are proposed and would apply to data centers seeking rezoning and or special exception approval pursuant to zoning ordinance standards. To highlight a few of the proposed criteria, staff proposes for data centers to achieve a standard of lead gold. For energy and water demand, staff proposes criteria to encourage coordination with utility providers, use of renewable resources, and the implementation of energy or water efficient strategies. For water quality, a couple of the proposed criteria encourage monitoring or cooling system discharge and site design to exceed code requirements for open space, tree preservation and planting, and storm water treatment. And for noise, staff proposes that data centers should seek to exceed minimum code limits through site design, building design and mitigation measures. And that concludes the presentation. Our contact information, project webpage, and links to the draft text can be found on the slide. As Kareen mentioned, we are accepting comments via our public email address. And that's all we have. Thank you Madam Chairman. Thank you Michael. All this work and everything good you're doing for the Senate will suburban. So I personally thank you for all of this. I did want to talk for a minute about the building repurposing for the commercial and your process. I know when I would talk with supervisor Gross, and she had, I think, maybe the first one of those, there were some frustrations. So if you could talk me through kind of lessons learned and the changes you've made with this, I think that would be helpful. Kelly Atkinson. Yeah, the changes that we've made to the repurposing policy have been informed by trends that staff has seen the Dirt 3 Pre-Application request, primarily through pre-application request. So we have one project in the Mason District where there was a request to repurpose, but just based on the exterior of the building with the windows, they needed additional flexibility with the gross square footage to bump out the building slightly to add windows. There was also a request to add floors to the height of that building. And based on how the policy was currently drafted, we haven't allowed for additional GFA or additional building height through the policy. And so what we've done is we have added additional guidance to the policy plan to allow that. And we've based that off of the minor modification provisions and the zoning ordinance. And then we've also had requests to repurpose buildings, but in addition to that, also build new market rate housing, which we could also get affordable housing through through our policies and ordinances. And so we've provided additional guidance there. These are all ways to avoid need for plan amendments, so that we're getting to that board concern about the speed and the consistency and predictability of the process that we're providing that additional flexibility using past plan guidance such as the preservation policy in terms of mitigating impacts and looking at compatibility. Thank you. I think that's really important that we take our lessons learned and we move forward so that we can get more housing. So the other piece is the data center piece. I share the chairman's concerns that we have gone way too far with these pieces. I think it's going to be important to get feedback also from industry. But when I think the board, I know the board did a great job doing our zoning ordinance for data centers to create balance because we all use data and we need the data centers and have requirements there. I'm not going to go into detail of which area is I'm more concerned about, but one of them is the repurposing. How much I'm looking at this, and I'm looking at a warehouse or other facilities we have, and are we requiring them to deal with repurposing? I think that the staff report on data centers, when I reviewed that back when we were doing the zoning ordinance, it went too far in certain areas in my opinion, and think we need to inform what is valuable to put in the comprehensive plan because we want to have a great environment for people and what is too much here so I would appreciate a look at this and some discussion with industry and other people to get to a better place with this. With that I'm going to turn to the chairman. So I concur with exactly what Supervisor Smith just said with regard to the data centers. I will say, and maybe I'm reading this wrong, but one of the areas I think that's a challenge in here is the pace quality and types of development section if I'm looking at the new one compared to the old one. This is a case where elements of the old one I think are better than elements of the new one. I'm just concerned about this section and not having it read as if it's not a legal, adequate public facilities requirement. And when I read things like support the pace of development, redevelopment, or repurposing in the county for new uses and densities and densities through the adequate provision of transportation, public facility services and infrastructure. And then I read the old language on that that says the pace of development in the county shouldn't. Should be in general accord with the comprehensive plan and sustainable by the provision of transportation and public facilities. I mean to me, the old language gives us the flexibility to understand on a case by case basis how a development is affecting public infrastructure. And I am a little bit concerned about what the definition of adequate provision of transportation public facility services and infrastructure will be interpreted as. And so to me that goes a step further than I'm comfortable with and certainly there are areas of the county where we're trying to induce redevelopment, revitalization, in some cases, the public improvements that come with the development need to be factored in and I know would be factored in, but we have a humongous housing shortage right now. We have parts of the county where we're trying to induce redevelopment and I would sure hate for objective 4 to be misinterpreted as a there will be a traffic delay or we are adding kids to a classroom. I mean we get the memos on those that tell us what the school capacity is and kind of going back to the comment that was made earlier about not taking the authority from an elected board away and giving it away. I think we through working with the public, through understanding our constituents, understanding the very specific issues with adequate public facilities, understanding of how that aligns with our joint conversations on CIP with the school board. I mean, we know what's down in the pipeline. We know what's necessary in some of these areas. And I just see that part could be misinterpreted and somebody not come forward with a potentially valuable development to the county that addresses a housing shortage or some other commercial use that we need and say, well, it doesn't look like this is adequate with regard to provision of transportation, public facilities, services, and infrastructure. And that, to me, is very broad. That, to me, is very subjective on a case-by-case basis and does concern me because just in alignment with what we were talking about before about how different parts of the county are. There are some areas where you would say no to a case because you know there's an existing huge public facility problem that will be exacerbated. And then there's other areas of the county where you're trying to transform an area into a transit oriented development and Change people's behaviors and induce revitalization and address our housing shortages That's a very different review. I would think of what our infrastructure needs are so I'm concerned about that area and and Perhaps maybe a little bit of an overstep of at least what would make me comfortable Can Can I just add, because then when you read policy A under that, and I forgot I had to start timing of development, should coincide with the provision of transportation and other necessary public improvements in that. It, that creates an issue, and I'm sorry, I want to add on here, because I did have a question under policy C to understand this. Require the proportionate participation of all development and fully mitigating impacts to public facility and transportation capacity. And so I think those questions go with what the chairman brought forward. And just to be clear, anything that you see in this document, we can go back and either bolster, remove. It's basically a guide to where we think or what we thought we heard from the board. Some of these policies are existing. Maybe it's time for us to reshape and remove. Yeah, I don't disagree with. I mean, in some cases, the old language is better than the new language, too. I think for me looking at that, some elements of the old language here give us more flexibility in having the board work with the community to decide whether development lines up with the adequate infrastructure that we need for that development to be successful and for the community around it to be satisfied. And this new language to me seems to almost take that out of our hands. And I just don't know how you would make the interpretations needed under objective four as a staff, particularly when you have a case that's supported by the community understanding that there could be some infrastructure impacts with it. Okay, I have a supervisor, Palchuk, Dan Alcorn, and Lesk. Thank you, Gimba. Chair, thank you. Awesome work again, Michael and staff. Yeah, so let me start with the areas that give me really positive goosebumps, which would be, you know, the equitable community development, the outreach, that piece of it, right? Because if we're not bringing the community into the process and early and empowering them and more people in the community, we're going to have a limited number of voices making decisions and almost having a veto power, right, for the larger community. So, to me, you know, it's just words on paper unless we're thinking about the processes. And I really love that that's in here. So thank you. And I assume our equity team was involved, so very much appreciate that work and we've learned, and I've been learning more and more about how to do that even better. There's always room for improvement on that. So very much appreciate that. And I do echo, I'm glad the Chairman spoke, because I echo some of the concerns on the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the specificity of the I echo some of the concerns on the specificity of the, especially the accommodating future growth density and density objectives. And I would say in addition to the challenges he shared, going back to the environmental challenges, right, we know that the biggest emitters or greenhouse gases are transportation, especially related to long commutes. So I don't know where we bring that in. I haven't heard that yet, but if we are keeping you know appropriate housing and different levels of prices of housing from being developed closer to our work centers closer to the county, then we'll continue to see more and more people having to live farther and farther away and driving in single occupancy vehicles all the way to work. So to me, that is something that cuts across all this is why we need appropriate housing for the number of jobs that we have or are looking to grow in the community. So that's one thing that I hope we consider strongly and its environmental impacts as well. A little nitpicky, but when you bring up the villages, I love that as well, being able to think about suburban villages, especially I have a lot of border communities to the cities, fair facts and and Falls Church and trying to see what are the right fits there where we have kind of some development, we're seeing them develop a little bit more on their side and so thinking about what's appropriate right on our side of the county side so we can build those sort of village feelings as well so I love that that's in here. But the one issue we had on policy, the C there, when you mention the two ends, multi-family, and townhouses, there's all the stuff in between now, the two or two's and the triplexes. I don't know if they have to be in there, but I just think they're an important mix in the different types of housing. Yeah, and then finally, just really agree with the density and density going back to every single district, even within our districts, right? There are different areas. And we can't get the transit without the housing density, right? And so it does have that chicken and egg. And it reminds me back to when we look at the fire code. And there's so much in the fire code that ends up being sort of up to interpretation in some ways, which pieces we look at. So, you know, whether it's cross sections, but making sure that we're not putting staff in a difficult position of having different sort of, and I know it's always will be there, but so many overlapping priorities and the different plans and with having to guess which ones are going to be picked right to have that highest priority. I don't know the answer to that, but I do think that kind of addresses the let's try to keep the policy plan a little bit more high level and flexible so that we can go into more detail, especially after we've had those community conversations and in our area plans and what each community would like to see in its greater area plan and what's missing there. So I love this conversation and I appreciate your work on it. I'm glad I'm not on your side of the table on this one. Definitely a lot of improvement but I agree with looking at a little more flexibility here. But on the flip side with the data centers, I don't know where that kind of research should go. But that's kind of what I was hoping we could do for the last questions I asked around lead or other certifications. Like how do we get a little bit more into the weeds to understand what the outcomes and the impact are so that we see, right? What the community outcomes are going to, what the both the expense and the cost savings, the life cycle savings are gonna be for our community and for the development and for the environment, so we can kind of have more of that cost benefit analysis of what we're putting on paper. So, love this, thank you. I have supervisor Alcorn and Les. Thank you Madam Chair. Just a couple thoughts, really good discussion. Appreciate that. I do, I am interested in the chairman's points that he brought up in terms of the old language and the new language. I mean a lot of that goes back to the days when we were all fighting about adequate public facilities, which we've never had at authority in Virginia. And I think some of the existing language was put in because we knew we didn't have that authority. We could at least put it in the policy plan and aspire to it. So I think it is appropriate time to take a look at that again. We still have some similar issues, but some have changed as well over time. And I appreciate Supervisor Paul check and some of the points she brought up. There are a couple of places I want to focus on very quickly that relate to that. First of all, an objective one, policy D. It says accommodate forecasted population employment growth by establishing, you know, that goes on. The word forecasted is circular because all of our population forecast come out of a comprehensive plan. So we probably want to think about another term there that gets to some of the bigger issues that we're talking about, like, you know, additional population or needed population, you know, or balanced or some combination like that. Let's put in there what we want, you know, not just the forecast. And then I want to raise one other issue and it also goes back to sort of the village issue that supervisor Paul Check was talking about.. I think we might wanna be a little bit more intentional about our activity areas and our growing areas. Whether the new suburban centers that we're talking about here, or just any of our activity areas. And there really, I guess, two, maybe three things that we should include explicitly in our policy. The first thing is, we have our TOD areas already. Obviously we've got a number of those, but we have a lot of areas that we're growing that do not have transit service or at least not significant transit service. So I think explicitly we should be thinking about making these areas that we're focusing development transit ready. So this is a big discussion that's going on throughout the region on bus priority. So and the rest of the region is struggling to retrofit their existing development pattern to get bus priority. So, I'm not saying buses are always going to be the primary transit service, but they're there. We know they can work when designed and integrated with development. So, thinking about some language that talks about our growing areas as transit ready, I think would be really helpful. And then the other thing, and this is a related thing, it gets back to the village idea, is really integrating active transportation into the integrated uses. Integrated uses is already talked about in the language, but we probably needs to close that loop just a little bit because across developments, you know, in our growing areas, we need to integrate really the uses at a human scale that allows for more pedestrian and bicycling active transportation. And then the last one I'm not sure about, but there may be a third item that we wanna include, and that's integrating with our green open spaces in our activity areas, in our growing areas. Because we talk about parks, we talk a little bit about open space, but perhaps that's a third thing. So these are all really important things. And I hope we have a chance as a board to talk a little bit more. Because honestly, these are things I want to make sure that everybody understands and is on board with. So thank you very much. Supervisor Les. Go quickly. My colleagues have actually touched on a couple of the points I wanted to make, but the uplifting on the suburban village centers and specifically thinking about the hilltop project, which is the one that's in my district and the conversion from formerly office on a site to a residential multi-family. I think this is really important having the flexibility and the ability to do that makes imminent sense. I appreciate that as one of the new policies here. And then second, just thinking to about the community that I serve as a relates to the manufacturer housing. And I just want to uplift what's being done as it relates to the Equal Development Section. I heard very loud and clear, and I think all of us who've been in meetings hearing from members in those communities, harmony and Iribon, particularly in my district, since that we're not included, since that they're not being protected as it relates to future development. So the language that's here gets to that very clearly and distinctly, and I think that's important and necessary. And the last point I'll make is one relative to a case that we just heard last Tuesday. And I know there was a lot of issues that came up relative to, quote, unquote, traffic and schools. And one of the things, at least on the traffic side, it is helpful if we're able to look at the impacts of traffic from more than just the site, but looking at it from a more connected and expansive view. So thinking about what is the background traffic from other developments that are planned in the area that would impact that site. So I think being able to ensure that that's part of a analysis that we have. And I guess we'd have to obviously talk to the plan nominators and those applicants to have them do that background work, but I'm glad that we were able to, in the case that we heard on last Tuesday, to get concurrence for that, because it makes a difference. So I just want to lift that up as a way for us to help, for those who are saying cumulatively, we're not looking at those impacts and not aware of how other projects in alignment with this new proposed project will affect traffic in the area. So with that, I'll conclude my remarks. Thank you. Thank you. I thought we might get done early and now we're going to be crunched to be done so on to transportation. Good morning members of the board. I am Bob McCora with Fairfax County DOT and I'm joined by my co-workers Jeff Herman, Mike Garcia and Taylor Roy-Mire behind me. Taylor and I are the co-leads for this Transportation Policy Plan update. Today I'll summarize the work that we completed in updating the Transportation Policy element. Similar to the other teams we've been working with a review of the current policy plan to understand how it was organized, written and what were the key topics. The transportation policies are written for everyone to use and we needed to ensure that it continued to be read or friendly. We noted that there are a lot of repetition and overlap of terms. So in taking the boards direction, we focused on streamlining modernizing, and reformatting the structure. There were numerous changes that we made to the transportation policy element, where there's outdated information, economic or demographic data, or vehicle road volumes, re-remove those references, so it doesn't artificially date the policy plan. We coordinated with the other elemental teams when we spotted overlapping policies so that we would not repeat ideas or policy recommendations. The new structure has objectives that are directly supported by the policies and are grouped into topic categories and themes. We updated the transportation strategy with emphasis throughout related to active transportation, safety, equity, and for access to transportation, and the relationships with land use and the environment. On forward thinking, we recognize that there are technologies that are emerging that could help us, that could help take us into the future and for us to keep pace with innovation. Basically, we took a broad brush and updated all of the objectives and policies. Throughout the community engagement phases, we received many comments and had discussions on a variety of transportation topics. Overall, there were many related to transportation issues and concerns in the different areas of the counties, whether we visited in-person or in a broader perspective in the virtual meetings. We heard that we heard about the need for more sidewalks and bike lanes, less traffic and congestion, more bus service and additional routes and concerns about safety because of incidents involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. When we talked about the policies and guidance for current transportation needs and also for the future, that's when we received comments about expanding rail and bus rapid transit lines, transit oriented development, fixing roads, again improving safety, adding more crosswalks and more funding for pedestrian and bike facilities, and also ways to reduce emissions or adding street trees and embracing future tech and electric cars. The comments and ideas we heard were the backbone for this update for the transportation policies. This slide here highlights the objectives and policies we revamped. You can use this as a quick reference guide when reviewing the transportation policy document. Generally, the objective topics remain familiar with the current policy plan, but after the first one, multimodal transportation system, they are in a different order. These are the familiar topics besides multim transportation systems, land use and transportation, public transit, TDM, transportation demand management, transportation and environment and funding. Note that we work with the FC DOT transit team to review and update transit policy recommendations. In modernizing the policy plan, we also use newer terms where appropriate. It revised objectives that appear as new topics are active transportation, technology and infrastructure, and community engagement. In our updates, these objectives may have been policies scattered about in the current policy plan, but we thought that they deserve to be objectives with policies to support them. Safety was mentioned a lot in the current policy plan, so we thought it would deserve to be its own objective with supporting policies. For active transportation, it's not really new, but this is where we grouped policies for pets, bikes, and micromobility. That's a new term. We just gave it a newer name and more policies for promoting walkable and bikeable communities. We worked with the Fairfax County Department of Transportation Act to Transportation Team to help us group policy recommendations and in relation to their ongoing work with the act of Fairfax Transportation Plan. Technology and infrastructure is where we have policies to support improving the transportation network and also to recognize that technology could help with innovative ideas, analysis and design work. On community engagement, this what we added since we asked the public and stakeholders to provide us with their input on capital projects, head and bike facilities, transit updates, and transportation studies and designs. The transportation element also has four large scale maps in the current version. These are static maps and are updated. However, if you go to the conference plan policy maps web page, there you'll find the newer updated maps for the county wide transportation plan, the trails plan, and the bicycle map. A fourth map, which details the roadway system functional classifications, and is found in Appendix one, will be updated and linked to the of plan maps. Four of the appendices have been updated for readability and understanding with newer text definitions, tables, and diagrams. There is an Appendix 5 for the Bicycle Master Plan, though it's not listed here. This plan can be found on the FCDOT website. It was not included in this update that we are proposing any changes as we are not proposing any changes to it with this policy amendment. The new active transportation and trails plan will be a separate comprehensive plan amendment that the board recently directed staff to begin. We will be coordinating with the active transportation team to ensure that the policy updates also support the new active transportation plan and vice versa. In this regard, we will be updating the maps in reviewing appendix 3 by control classifications as well as appendix 5. In closing, this is the project website where we can find our current policy plan and the draft new draft policy plan text for review Like the others we're accepting comments today and via our public input email address noted here And with that Like to turn it back over to the board and looking forward to the comments and Ideas you have for us. Thank you very much. I am going to turn it to the chair. It was good. I have supervisor beerman. Thank you for all your work on this. I have a couple questions that actually fit, I think, in the context of a lot of what you've heard already about keeping the plan broad enough and flexible enough to give us more opportunities. This is supposed to be the broader document than we have narrower documents. And I know this actually was a letter addressed to you, Mr. Pancora, from the Transportation Advisory Commission, the TAC, submitted comments. And there was a line in that that I thought if the sort of line coming from this side of the table has sort of been surrounding flexibility, the line that the TAC consistently used was a context-sensitive approach. The idea that we really needed, the tech believes that the transportation element of the policy plan should acknowledge that its implementation will require a context-sensitive approach balancing key priority factors such as land use and transportation plans, economic development priorities, one-fair fax inequity safety and environmental considerations in different areas of the county. And I look through the plan, and there were some points where, for instance, objective one policy G, integrate comprehensive transportation analysis metrics. That sounds kind of like a context-sensitive approach. Appendix four, which acknowledges, right there, right there there's a line, sorry, actually it was appendix, no that's appendix 4, roads and revitalizations, the county is comprised of diverse communities and development, development patterns, some of which have urban features, higher land use densities and more active transportation, micro transit services. I guess my question is, do you feel that the plan implements actually two part question. One, do you think that's a useful suggestion coming from the TAC? Two, do you feel that the way the plan has been written implements that suggestion? And three, what would you point to as aspects of this plan that you feel are doing a good job of implementing that suggestion? Excuse me. OK. Great comments that we worked with the tech, almost all of last year, five different times. We met with them. This is your chance to show off. Yeah, OK. So I worked with Mike Champness and his comments, the letter that he provided to us were really great. And we did incorporate a lot of their ideas into the policy plan here. So his concept for or the tax concept for working context sensitive was also related to the concept for future development that's in the land use policy. So that helps to orient the policies that we have that are specific to certain areas, but not specific enough that all these policies are only just for one kind of community. We emphasize to them that the policies are county wide and there are certain policies within transportation or within the other elements would apply to other areas of the county that may not apply to other particular areas. So trying to emphasize that it was recognizing that there is this context that the county is so large and there's different and unique communities throughout that we can't specifically tailor one set of policies to fit one group or one area and it not fit with the other ones. So we wanted to be brought as broad based as possible. So the TAC did provide us a lot of comments about 15-minute communities, transit-oriented development, looking at transit stations. They looked at electric vehicles and active transportation. So a lot of the comments that they gave us we actually incorporated in it. And one of the comments that you might not see directly is, did we use AI to help us with this? We used that sparingly, but we did use that. So we're trying to embrace some technology as well. So, and that was a good comment from them. There are, as we're getting some more of the, round three comments, we're getting some other transportation related comments, more in very specific comments to certain areas of the county. So there's things that will still probably going to as we do the staff report and the next round of recommendations. There are things that we're still going to be adding to it. And with the tax help, there'll probably give us more comments as well. So thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Heritage Yeah I'll try to be quick. I'll go back to where we started. I mean the county is a big county and it varies widely and you've got rural areas like the aquacon watershed and you get suburban areas and then you so I think flexibility again is key. A little disappointed I didn't see congestion mitigation really mentioned anywhere in here overtly. I mean what our residents want is to get from point A to point B as quickly as they possibly can. And I think I would work congestion mitigation in here somewhere. And then request for information. I don't expect you to have this. But it'd be interesting to see the the mode share from five, ten years ago. You picked that the number of years, however, makes it easier today. And what we project this, that to be in five or ten years, if that's something that is getable. And I should probably know that, but I don't have it. I think it'd be interesting for the board to see that. You can go ahead and make a comment. Something looks like you want to. Yeah, we can actually look for that data if we have that. So and provide something that's like a background report in our staff report. Yeah, and I also just noted a here. We're encouraging EVs in this, but discouraging SOVs, I thought EVs were SOVs most of the time. That's correct. EVs are SOVs, single occupant vehicles and electric vehicles. So as everyone's trying to get into electric vehicles, we also have our policies were to reduce single occupant vehicles. And that was promoted a lot in the current policy plan. We still have that. Didn't mention as many times as it was last time, but we are still encouraging a reduction of SOV. So that way we're looking at bike and pet facilities, expanding bike and pet. So we're discouraging SOV EVs. But not. Well, if there's a way to emerge more rumors to have EVs, maybe we can get more people in those cars. Yeah. V not be for anybody who misheard it. V S O V. Okay. I think it is time to adjourn this land use policy meeting. I want to thank all of the staff that have been working on this. I know it's a big lift and we appreciate your communication with the community, with the different business partners, and with the Board and the Planning Commission. So thank you very much, and the Land Use Policy Committee is adjourned.