Tuesday, September 28, 1999 - Arlingtonva
ARLINGTON COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 414 Arlington, Virginia 22201
Approved Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 The meeting was called to order at 7:14 PM. Commission Members Present: Paul Holland, Chairman Bill Ross Peter Hage
Elizabeth Gearin Brian Coyne
Alonzie Scott Renee Mayo
Guests: Elliot Rhodeside, Rhodeside & Harwell Landscape Architecture & Planning Meredith Judy, Rhodeside & Harwell Landscape Architecture & Planning County Staff: Jane Randolph, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Laura Lazour, Chief, Sports and Recreation Division, DPR Scott McPartlin, Principle Planner, DPR Bethany Heim, Associate Planner, DPR Anthony Fusarelli, Principal Planner, Community Planning, Housing and Development (CPHD) Chairman’s Introduction and Review/Approval of Meeting Minutes The Commission approved the June and July meeting minutes. Paul mentioned an e-mail sent to the Commission from a constituent who was reporting that the new Washington and Lee High School field lights were not coming on at night and that sports activities had to be rescheduled to other fields. APS did get the lights working again and the fields will be open in the evenings as scheduled. Public Comment: No public comments Meeting Minutes: Northern Virginia Conservation Trust Agreement Update [Bethany Heim] Paul started the discussion with an introduction about the new agreement between Arlington County and the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust (NVCT) which had been approved by the County Board at the September Board Meeting. Peggy Stephens is the new Executive Director for NVCT and there are plans to hire more staff. Bethany explained that the purpose of updating the Memorandum of Understanding with NVCT was to better define the collaboration between the County and NVCT, describe fiscal monitoring, and restructure the funding provided by the County to NVCT. The most significant change from the 2007 MOU to the proposed Agreement is the payment structure. The agreement establishes a 60/40 split between a contribution towards NVCT administrative costs and their staff with a 40% contribution to be held in a County fund to save towards purchasing conservation easements. With this arrangement the County has more control of how contributions are used.
Commission Response: Alonzie: Where else does NVCT get funding? What are the other county agreements like? Bethany’s Response - Arlington has more control over the money they get from us. The other counties pay a lump sum. Peter: The agreement is positive for Arlington because they will have money on hand when an opportunity comes up. Paul - In the past NVCT has purchased properties which the county did not even really want. How much control will the County have over what NVCT does? Bethany’s Response: With this agreement NVCT will have to work with the County to use the funds the County has set aside (40% of funding). Jane has to approve their acquisitions. They will give the County documentation on how much money was used for transactions and legal services. Peter: We could supply them with a list of some properties we have on our radar at this point. Maybe they would be a good partner with some of our other projects such as the boathouse. Alonzie: He would like to make sure these funds do not get transferred for other projects in the county. How will the funds be protected? Brian: What is their total budget? Bethany Responded: I do not know. Bethany: The County wants NVCT to focus on obtaining conservation easements. Sellers get a tax relief which the county cannot give to sellers. Peter - Arlington is paying a significant amount of their budget. Paul - their staffing is low now so their expenses will increase in time. Alonzie - when can the commission meet with the new leader? Bethany’s Response: In a month or two. Paul: I talked to some of the board members about if the commission should have seen the agreement before it went to the Board for approval. They said that it was a standard agreement and they did not see it as something the commission would be involved with. The County has a say in who sits on the NVCT Board of Directors Peter: it is good anytime when open space goes before the County Board. Bill: It would be good to get the annual report for the commission. Bethany: NVCT will be submitting reports twice a year. Bethany: There is a map layer which shows properties that the count is interested in getting conservation easements. The layer has been shared with NVCT. Paul: Will the first update be in December? Bethany’s Response: The first report under the new MOU will be in June 2014. Staff Report [Diane Probus] Diane reported that DPR had developed a final concept for the Clarendon- Barton Pop-Up Park. She will e-mail the concept to the Commission before it is posted online. Commission Response: The County should make sure to invite the Republic of Korea to the opening ceremony. Will there be some feature in the park to represent Korea? Diane’s Response: There will be a sign installed in the park to recognize the Republic of Korea Embassy for allowing the County to lease the property for free so that it can be used as a public park. DPR Cost Recovery Program [Laura Lazour] Laura Lazour provided a handout on the DPR Cost Recovery Program at the meeting. In 2010, DPR developed a logic model to guide the cost recovery program and had a consultant develop the model for the County.
Laura explained how the Public Benefit Pyramid works which was created to show increasing cost recovery obtained by different types of programs. The pyramid was adopted by the County Board and has been implemented by DPR these past two years. Details of the program had to be worked out during this time. Commission Response: Peter: The County is not really factoring in the cost of a facility? Is that on the table? Do pools try to recover facility costs? Laura’s Response: We do not know since we do not have Arlington Public School records. Long Bridge is being considered as a facility for potential in cost recovery. The Fairfax County recovery model appears that their goal is for 100% cost recovery. For Long Bridge we need to look at how much of the revenue will be from rentals, we do not expect the community swim to contribute as much. Brian: Will there still be fee reductions at the aquatics center? Laura’s response: Yes, always. Peter: I would like to see the programs and their cost recovery percentage. Laura: I will provide an annual report. That will be a good point to review the program with the commission. Laura: I will update the Sports Commission this Thursday also. Jane: A Board appointed group will study the lighting of the fields at Williamsburg Middle School. Peter – What kind of lights are used with synthetic fields? He had seen information on a type of lighting which could be a cost savings and has lights which are very directional. The VA Tech stadium has them. The county should test them out Realize Rosslyn [Anthony Fusarelli] ( http://sites.arlingtonva.us/rosslynsector/) Anthony Fusarelli and Elliot Rhodeside gave a PowerPoint presentation about the Realize Rosslyn Sector Plan process which will update the 20 year plan from 1992. Staff plans to finish the planning process in early 2014 and to take it to the County Board this coming spring. Rosslyn has the largest commercial center in the County and also has a significant housing stock. The updated plan takes some of the good ideas from the past plan and also incorporates new ideas. The plan will address ways to implement the ideas. The planning process is now in Phase 3. A community workshop will be held in Rosslyn on October 5 where preliminary proposals will be presented to get community input on them. The plan evaluated the existing open spaces, their quality and accessibility. There is a lack of connectivity between the open spaces. Around Rosslyn there are good open spaces but half a mile away from inside Rosslyn. Rosslyn lacks programmed spaces such as courts and sports fields. A slide showed the 2040 projections for residents and employees and how the open space per 1000 employees and per residents would decrease in Rosslyn from the 2013 level. Commission Response:
Peter: How relevant is the data compared to other areas since Rosslyn has mostly employees? What are plaza sports? Staff response: Bocce, 1/2 court basketball, and there are other court facilities Workshop last week with DPR staff - how could the findings be applied to these sites? Paul: Recommended that Anthony talk to Diane about doing a similar online survey as what was done for the pop-up park.
Bill: The 18th street corridor would make all the difference for Rosslyn as a pedestrian oriented street. However, pedestrian friendliness might be a challenge given the wide, major “freeway” like roads that run through Rosslyn. Paul: This plan is obtainable since we know there will be changes coming to certain parks already. There are places outside the study area that should be mentioned also. The boathouse should be highlighted. Ideally that could be a place of connection with the National Park Service land. Peter: Connections to the river is important. It would be nice to get a sense of what it would feel like to see views of the river. Rosslyn - very important sector plan to preserve the views that it has or could have with good planning. The current layout of Rosslyn plaza does not focus on the valuable resource like the river, instead it focuses on Kent Street. Anthony’s Response: There are views from Freedom Park but not a lot of views of the river from other places, although there are other good views of the city. The 18th Street corridor will likely be multi-purpose not totally pedestrian Peter: I prefer to have only walking and bicycling on 18th Street. Not interested in sharing with autos. Jane - can you have hours dedicated only for the non auto mobile Peter: I like the plan. The iconic outdoor spaces like the memorials could be considered for more activity. Elizabeth: Good plan. I keep seeing a rise of families in the county. It is critical to save the field at Wilson school. No opportunity to get such a field inside Rosslyn. Anthony’s response: The Wilson school site is separate from this study. Anthony is happy to come back to the Commission at some point if they are interested on an update on the project. Anthony will e-mail the presentation to Diane so that she can send it to the Commission.
Williamsburg Use Permit - Synthetic Turf Fields [Elizabeth Gearin] Elizabeth reported on the results of the County Board hearing which was still in session that evening. She said that Mary Hynes did a good job of sticking up for the issues. Elizabeth would like the commission to take a proactive approach to the issue of lighting for synthetic fields. A lot of open space is being lost at the schools. Should we talk as a group about how to address higher density by creating open spaces which can bear high intensity use? She would like the Commission to have that discussion. Discussion: Jane: That raises the discussion on how to create a good planning process when the property is not owned by the County but is owned by APS. Peter: There should be a joint commission to address the use of the synthetic fields. Right now there is no process. Need to understand that building the fields is one thing but maintaining them and replacing them falls onto parks. Add this into the consideration of planning for them. The process does not account for the reality of the long term care. Elizabeth: The demand for field use is very high in the Williamsburg area which the community did not factor into their decision since they had to decide on the fields early since a geothermal system was going to be installed. Elizabeth: I would like to know more about the relationship of the turf and lighting. I would like to know what the Commission thinks. Need facts to develop a position from the Commission. Peter: Could you have lighting and shut it down early? Jane’s response: Sometimes they may be shut down at 10pm. There is some variability between communities on the time of shut off.
Bill: There is a strong argument for lighting the turf fields. Something that has to be accounted for is the emotions of the community and also on what happened at Bishop O’Connell School where the community strongly opposed lighting and won. When talking about open space they should consider quiet open space near homes. Be careful to avoid restriction of use by older adults. Not all synthetic fields should be children oriented. Paul: We should contribute to the dialog and the Commission should send a letter. Mary Hynes mentioned some recommendations which could be useful to see. Where are those? Jane’s response: We have information that we can share with the commission from data that we have pulled. Peter: If this discussion is put on the agenda there needs to be bullets on what will be covered. What are your main concerns Jane? Jane’s response: Maintaining the existing fields is much easier than building them. Some fields are coming up for replacement. Managing the fields we have so that they can be replaced as needed. Develop a long range plan on how many synthetic fields the County should have and ensure the resources are provided to keep them up. Alonzie: Keeping fields open to late hours is a way to keep people busy at night instead of being involved in drinking. He is a big supporter of turf fields. Jane: Can look for ways to make the fields more permeable to help environment. Peter –The County should look into studying the chemicals in the turf though.
Commission Member Reports Grants/Awards Committee [Scott / Coyne] -- Bill Thomas Award Update -- Park Enhancement Grants (PEG) Natural Resources (NRJAG) [Haynes/ Gearin/ Hage] NRMP Recommendation #5: Individual NRCA Management Plans Greg Zell, retired Natural Resource Specialist, is no longer serving as a consultant to the County but he has graciously agreed to volunteer his time to complete the last two Park Management plans for the Natural Resource Conservation Areas. He hopes to have all seven completed sometime this fall.
NRMP Recommendation #6 - Natural areas preservation, conservation and acquisition Two properties, currently owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, were highlighted as targets for potential acquisition. One parcel is in the Pimmit Run valley, the second parcel is adjacent to N. Glebe Road near Chain Bridge. Collectively, they represent around 15 acres and include wetlands and some significant champion trees. It is highly unlikely that the property would ever be used for road construction in the future and it was suggested that Arlington County should request that it be deeded to the County for use as parkland. A second potential acquisition could be in the form of a conservation easement adding to Barcroft Park. Eight acres of a globally rare plant community that is currently part of Claremont and is unusable by them could be a valuable addition to the NRCA. It was suggested that both proposals should be brought to the attention of Jane Rudolph, Department of Parks and Recreation Director.
Public Facilities Review Committee [ Elizabeth Gearin] Neighbors and community members are feeling very emotional about the new ES planned for the Williamsburg grounds (considered by the County Board for use permit condition approval Saturday Sept 21.) Over the last several weeks the use
permit conditions have been modified based on community and other input. A more recent version – not widely disseminated after the revised version was shared in August — included installing conduit for lighting during the geothermal construction phase. Installing this conduit as part of the construction makes sense if the County decides to provide lighting at any future point. Once the geothermal system under the playing fields is in place, , it would not be feasible to go back and install conduits for lighting. While this conduit installation does not mandate lighting of the fields, it does suggest that lighting the fields is being considered. The community appears especially concerned about the process used to add this language to the use permit conditions. Community members, including PFRC and BLPC members who repeatedly asked about the likelihood of synthetic turf and or lighted fields were told as recently as the June public meetings that APS was not planning for synthetic turf or lighted fields.
Related possible PRC discussion about policy regarding synthetic turf and/or lighted fields
Ken Bass and I talked last week about the underlying issue that demand for park and playing fields is increasing at the same time that park and field space is decreasing. In Arlington County, we have very limited opportunities to acquire or otherwise assemble open space. One way to address this ever-decreasing level of service (LOS) per resident is to increase the use intensity of appropriate spaces – render the spaces usable over extended periods of time. Replacing grass fields with synthetic turf does this. So does lighting the fields.
The PRC may want to address this issue proactively, rather than reacting to the emotional arguments of individual cases as they arise. What do Commissioners think about this? We could, with Parks Dept staff, assess current County/APS spaces and demand (what spaces are currently synthetic turf and/or lighted), projected available spaces and demand, and devise a general policy as a basis for making synthetic turf and lighting recommendations.
Long Bridge Park [Alonzie Scott] No recent meetings to report Urban Forestry Commission [Caroline Haynes] There was no meeting in August.
Future Business and Up Coming meetings
October 22nd Meeting – Columbia Pike presentation
Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm
Approved Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 The meeting was called to order at 7:14 PM. Commission Members Present: Paul Holland, Chairman Bill Ross Peter Hage
Elizabeth Gearin Brian Coyne
Alonzie Scott Renee Mayo
Guests: Elliot Rhodeside, Rhodeside & Harwell Landscape Architecture & Planning Meredith Judy, Rhodeside & Harwell Landscape Architecture & Planning County Staff: Jane Randolph, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Laura Lazour, Chief, Sports and Recreation Division, DPR Scott McPartlin, Principle Planner, DPR Bethany Heim, Associate Planner, DPR Anthony Fusarelli, Principal Planner, Community Planning, Housing and Development (CPHD) Chairman’s Introduction and Review/Approval of Meeting Minutes The Commission approved the June and July meeting minutes. Paul mentioned an e-mail sent to the Commission from a constituent who was reporting that the new Washington and Lee High School field lights were not coming on at night and that sports activities had to be rescheduled to other fields. APS did get the lights working again and the fields will be open in the evenings as scheduled. Public Comment: No public comments Meeting Minutes: Northern Virginia Conservation Trust Agreement Update [Bethany Heim] Paul started the discussion with an introduction about the new agreement between Arlington County and the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust (NVCT) which had been approved by the County Board at the September Board Meeting. Peggy Stephens is the new Executive Director for NVCT and there are plans to hire more staff. Bethany explained that the purpose of updating the Memorandum of Understanding with NVCT was to better define the collaboration between the County and NVCT, describe fiscal monitoring, and restructure the funding provided by the County to NVCT. The most significant change from the 2007 MOU to the proposed Agreement is the payment structure. The agreement establishes a 60/40 split between a contribution towards NVCT administrative costs and their staff with a 40% contribution to be held in a County fund to save towards purchasing conservation easements. With this arrangement the County has more control of how contributions are used.
Commission Response: Alonzie: Where else does NVCT get funding? What are the other county agreements like? Bethany’s Response - Arlington has more control over the money they get from us. The other counties pay a lump sum. Peter: The agreement is positive for Arlington because they will have money on hand when an opportunity comes up. Paul - In the past NVCT has purchased properties which the county did not even really want. How much control will the County have over what NVCT does? Bethany’s Response: With this agreement NVCT will have to work with the County to use the funds the County has set aside (40% of funding). Jane has to approve their acquisitions. They will give the County documentation on how much money was used for transactions and legal services. Peter: We could supply them with a list of some properties we have on our radar at this point. Maybe they would be a good partner with some of our other projects such as the boathouse. Alonzie: He would like to make sure these funds do not get transferred for other projects in the county. How will the funds be protected? Brian: What is their total budget? Bethany Responded: I do not know. Bethany: The County wants NVCT to focus on obtaining conservation easements. Sellers get a tax relief which the county cannot give to sellers. Peter - Arlington is paying a significant amount of their budget. Paul - their staffing is low now so their expenses will increase in time. Alonzie - when can the commission meet with the new leader? Bethany’s Response: In a month or two. Paul: I talked to some of the board members about if the commission should have seen the agreement before it went to the Board for approval. They said that it was a standard agreement and they did not see it as something the commission would be involved with. The County has a say in who sits on the NVCT Board of Directors Peter: it is good anytime when open space goes before the County Board. Bill: It would be good to get the annual report for the commission. Bethany: NVCT will be submitting reports twice a year. Bethany: There is a map layer which shows properties that the count is interested in getting conservation easements. The layer has been shared with NVCT. Paul: Will the first update be in December? Bethany’s Response: The first report under the new MOU will be in June 2014. Staff Report [Diane Probus] Diane reported that DPR had developed a final concept for the Clarendon- Barton Pop-Up Park. She will e-mail the concept to the Commission before it is posted online. Commission Response: The County should make sure to invite the Republic of Korea to the opening ceremony. Will there be some feature in the park to represent Korea? Diane’s Response: There will be a sign installed in the park to recognize the Republic of Korea Embassy for allowing the County to lease the property for free so that it can be used as a public park. DPR Cost Recovery Program [Laura Lazour] Laura Lazour provided a handout on the DPR Cost Recovery Program at the meeting. In 2010, DPR developed a logic model to guide the cost recovery program and had a consultant develop the model for the County.
Laura explained how the Public Benefit Pyramid works which was created to show increasing cost recovery obtained by different types of programs. The pyramid was adopted by the County Board and has been implemented by DPR these past two years. Details of the program had to be worked out during this time. Commission Response: Peter: The County is not really factoring in the cost of a facility? Is that on the table? Do pools try to recover facility costs? Laura’s Response: We do not know since we do not have Arlington Public School records. Long Bridge is being considered as a facility for potential in cost recovery. The Fairfax County recovery model appears that their goal is for 100% cost recovery. For Long Bridge we need to look at how much of the revenue will be from rentals, we do not expect the community swim to contribute as much. Brian: Will there still be fee reductions at the aquatics center? Laura’s response: Yes, always. Peter: I would like to see the programs and their cost recovery percentage. Laura: I will provide an annual report. That will be a good point to review the program with the commission. Laura: I will update the Sports Commission this Thursday also. Jane: A Board appointed group will study the lighting of the fields at Williamsburg Middle School. Peter – What kind of lights are used with synthetic fields? He had seen information on a type of lighting which could be a cost savings and has lights which are very directional. The VA Tech stadium has them. The county should test them out Realize Rosslyn [Anthony Fusarelli] ( http://sites.arlingtonva.us/rosslynsector/) Anthony Fusarelli and Elliot Rhodeside gave a PowerPoint presentation about the Realize Rosslyn Sector Plan process which will update the 20 year plan from 1992. Staff plans to finish the planning process in early 2014 and to take it to the County Board this coming spring. Rosslyn has the largest commercial center in the County and also has a significant housing stock. The updated plan takes some of the good ideas from the past plan and also incorporates new ideas. The plan will address ways to implement the ideas. The planning process is now in Phase 3. A community workshop will be held in Rosslyn on October 5 where preliminary proposals will be presented to get community input on them. The plan evaluated the existing open spaces, their quality and accessibility. There is a lack of connectivity between the open spaces. Around Rosslyn there are good open spaces but half a mile away from inside Rosslyn. Rosslyn lacks programmed spaces such as courts and sports fields. A slide showed the 2040 projections for residents and employees and how the open space per 1000 employees and per residents would decrease in Rosslyn from the 2013 level. Commission Response:
Peter: How relevant is the data compared to other areas since Rosslyn has mostly employees? What are plaza sports? Staff response: Bocce, 1/2 court basketball, and there are other court facilities Workshop last week with DPR staff - how could the findings be applied to these sites? Paul: Recommended that Anthony talk to Diane about doing a similar online survey as what was done for the pop-up park.
Bill: The 18th street corridor would make all the difference for Rosslyn as a pedestrian oriented street. However, pedestrian friendliness might be a challenge given the wide, major “freeway” like roads that run through Rosslyn. Paul: This plan is obtainable since we know there will be changes coming to certain parks already. There are places outside the study area that should be mentioned also. The boathouse should be highlighted. Ideally that could be a place of connection with the National Park Service land. Peter: Connections to the river is important. It would be nice to get a sense of what it would feel like to see views of the river. Rosslyn - very important sector plan to preserve the views that it has or could have with good planning. The current layout of Rosslyn plaza does not focus on the valuable resource like the river, instead it focuses on Kent Street. Anthony’s Response: There are views from Freedom Park but not a lot of views of the river from other places, although there are other good views of the city. The 18th Street corridor will likely be multi-purpose not totally pedestrian Peter: I prefer to have only walking and bicycling on 18th Street. Not interested in sharing with autos. Jane - can you have hours dedicated only for the non auto mobile Peter: I like the plan. The iconic outdoor spaces like the memorials could be considered for more activity. Elizabeth: Good plan. I keep seeing a rise of families in the county. It is critical to save the field at Wilson school. No opportunity to get such a field inside Rosslyn. Anthony’s response: The Wilson school site is separate from this study. Anthony is happy to come back to the Commission at some point if they are interested on an update on the project. Anthony will e-mail the presentation to Diane so that she can send it to the Commission.
Williamsburg Use Permit - Synthetic Turf Fields [Elizabeth Gearin] Elizabeth reported on the results of the County Board hearing which was still in session that evening. She said that Mary Hynes did a good job of sticking up for the issues. Elizabeth would like the commission to take a proactive approach to the issue of lighting for synthetic fields. A lot of open space is being lost at the schools. Should we talk as a group about how to address higher density by creating open spaces which can bear high intensity use? She would like the Commission to have that discussion. Discussion: Jane: That raises the discussion on how to create a good planning process when the property is not owned by the County but is owned by APS. Peter: There should be a joint commission to address the use of the synthetic fields. Right now there is no process. Need to understand that building the fields is one thing but maintaining them and replacing them falls onto parks. Add this into the consideration of planning for them. The process does not account for the reality of the long term care. Elizabeth: The demand for field use is very high in the Williamsburg area which the community did not factor into their decision since they had to decide on the fields early since a geothermal system was going to be installed. Elizabeth: I would like to know more about the relationship of the turf and lighting. I would like to know what the Commission thinks. Need facts to develop a position from the Commission. Peter: Could you have lighting and shut it down early? Jane’s response: Sometimes they may be shut down at 10pm. There is some variability between communities on the time of shut off.
Bill: There is a strong argument for lighting the turf fields. Something that has to be accounted for is the emotions of the community and also on what happened at Bishop O’Connell School where the community strongly opposed lighting and won. When talking about open space they should consider quiet open space near homes. Be careful to avoid restriction of use by older adults. Not all synthetic fields should be children oriented. Paul: We should contribute to the dialog and the Commission should send a letter. Mary Hynes mentioned some recommendations which could be useful to see. Where are those? Jane’s response: We have information that we can share with the commission from data that we have pulled. Peter: If this discussion is put on the agenda there needs to be bullets on what will be covered. What are your main concerns Jane? Jane’s response: Maintaining the existing fields is much easier than building them. Some fields are coming up for replacement. Managing the fields we have so that they can be replaced as needed. Develop a long range plan on how many synthetic fields the County should have and ensure the resources are provided to keep them up. Alonzie: Keeping fields open to late hours is a way to keep people busy at night instead of being involved in drinking. He is a big supporter of turf fields. Jane: Can look for ways to make the fields more permeable to help environment. Peter –The County should look into studying the chemicals in the turf though.
Commission Member Reports Grants/Awards Committee [Scott / Coyne] -- Bill Thomas Award Update -- Park Enhancement Grants (PEG) Natural Resources (NRJAG) [Haynes/ Gearin/ Hage] NRMP Recommendation #5: Individual NRCA Management Plans Greg Zell, retired Natural Resource Specialist, is no longer serving as a consultant to the County but he has graciously agreed to volunteer his time to complete the last two Park Management plans for the Natural Resource Conservation Areas. He hopes to have all seven completed sometime this fall.
NRMP Recommendation #6 - Natural areas preservation, conservation and acquisition Two properties, currently owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, were highlighted as targets for potential acquisition. One parcel is in the Pimmit Run valley, the second parcel is adjacent to N. Glebe Road near Chain Bridge. Collectively, they represent around 15 acres and include wetlands and some significant champion trees. It is highly unlikely that the property would ever be used for road construction in the future and it was suggested that Arlington County should request that it be deeded to the County for use as parkland. A second potential acquisition could be in the form of a conservation easement adding to Barcroft Park. Eight acres of a globally rare plant community that is currently part of Claremont and is unusable by them could be a valuable addition to the NRCA. It was suggested that both proposals should be brought to the attention of Jane Rudolph, Department of Parks and Recreation Director.
Public Facilities Review Committee [ Elizabeth Gearin] Neighbors and community members are feeling very emotional about the new ES planned for the Williamsburg grounds (considered by the County Board for use permit condition approval Saturday Sept 21.) Over the last several weeks the use
permit conditions have been modified based on community and other input. A more recent version – not widely disseminated after the revised version was shared in August — included installing conduit for lighting during the geothermal construction phase. Installing this conduit as part of the construction makes sense if the County decides to provide lighting at any future point. Once the geothermal system under the playing fields is in place, , it would not be feasible to go back and install conduits for lighting. While this conduit installation does not mandate lighting of the fields, it does suggest that lighting the fields is being considered. The community appears especially concerned about the process used to add this language to the use permit conditions. Community members, including PFRC and BLPC members who repeatedly asked about the likelihood of synthetic turf and or lighted fields were told as recently as the June public meetings that APS was not planning for synthetic turf or lighted fields.
Related possible PRC discussion about policy regarding synthetic turf and/or lighted fields
Ken Bass and I talked last week about the underlying issue that demand for park and playing fields is increasing at the same time that park and field space is decreasing. In Arlington County, we have very limited opportunities to acquire or otherwise assemble open space. One way to address this ever-decreasing level of service (LOS) per resident is to increase the use intensity of appropriate spaces – render the spaces usable over extended periods of time. Replacing grass fields with synthetic turf does this. So does lighting the fields.
The PRC may want to address this issue proactively, rather than reacting to the emotional arguments of individual cases as they arise. What do Commissioners think about this? We could, with Parks Dept staff, assess current County/APS spaces and demand (what spaces are currently synthetic turf and/or lighted), projected available spaces and demand, and devise a general policy as a basis for making synthetic turf and lighting recommendations.
Long Bridge Park [Alonzie Scott] No recent meetings to report Urban Forestry Commission [Caroline Haynes] There was no meeting in August.
Future Business and Up Coming meetings
October 22nd Meeting – Columbia Pike presentation
Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm
