Okay.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Okay, thank you, Burton.

Testing one, two, three.

Good evening.

Welcome to the January 6th, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing at the Redella S.

Dell Resource Community Center.

This is the namesake was here earlier.

This new location of our public hearings pending the renovation of City Hall.

I am Melissa McMahon, Chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission.

Before we begin, I have just a few announcements about participating in tonight's meeting.

If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out a speaker form online by following the sign up to speak hyperlink on the cover page of this evening's public hearing docket or in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form, which can be found on the tables located immediately outside the chambers and providing it to Ms.

Jacobs, who has her hand rate.

Please note comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker, with the exception of applicants and their representation.

To make your public comment through the Zoom application, please click on the raise hand button located on the Zoom task bar once you hear your name called to let staff know you need to be unmuted.

If you are dialing into tonight's meeting via phone, please press star nine to execute the raise hand function once you hear your name called upon to make your statement, followed by star six to toggle the unmute function.

For those here in person, please come up to the podium located at the front of the chambers when you hear your name called upon to make your statement.

Before starting your public comment, please first identify yourself by first and last name and address.

Property is zoned R25 residential.

The applicant is Classic Cottage of Classic Cottages LLC, represented by Chad Ready, agent.

Good evening.

Sam Shelby, Planning and Zoning.

Yes, so as Kendra mentioned, this is a subdivision on East Braddock Road.

It is one full lot and two partial lots that are going to be technically consolidated and then resubdivided into two lots.

And the proposal complies with all subdivision and zoning requirements.

It's currently developed with a single-story single unit dwelling.

It's in the Potomac West small area plan, pretty close to where Mount Vernon and Braddock Road intersect.

And it's principally surrounded by residential dwellings and a place of worship across the street.

So this slide shows outlined in red the existing lot.

It has kind of a funny upper part here at the at the upper corner.

But that's gonna that's that's an existing condition.

So right now it has 50 feet of frontage, it's got about 5,000 square feet of uh lot size, and the proposed subdivision is shown here with the new lots, one one of the new lots on the right and the other new lot on the left.

I mean right, left, blue and red.

Um, and they'd be each have about 2500 square feet of lot area and would be suitable for development with a um semi-detached two-unit dwelling.

So it again it meets all the subdivision requirements.

Um it's within the range of sizes and widths and um uh frontages of the surrounding lots, um, and it meets the lot requirements.

So we are recommending approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody might have.

You are there any commissioner questions for staff?

Commissioner Brown.

Okay.

Right, hearing no other questions for staff.

Um, let's open the public hearing.

Okay, our first speaker is Catherine Shamic Reed, followed by Monica D'Angelo.

And I just would like to say if our speakers could bear with us, we will have a timer on the screen.

Um, but our sound, we're still working at the King Center Sound, so I will speak up to let you know that the time collapse if you want to see.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the planning commission, my name is Catherine Chak Mac Reed, and I live at 10 108 East Braddock Road, immediately adjacent to the property under consideration today.

I respectfully oppose the proposed subdivision of 106 East Braddock Road.

My husband and I moved into our home two and a half years ago.

After falling in love with the Rosemont and Delray area.

We are not opposed to investment in our neighborhood.

As a neighbors, we understand construction is temporary and a necess and a reality of progress.

However, we strongly oppose the subdivision of 106 East Braddock Road into two lots.

This proposal raises significant safety concerns at a time when the city is already critical of the Braddock Road corridor for its traffic and pedestrian state safety.

Doubling the density of the specific lot only exacerates these concerns and runs counter to the city's Vision Zero initiative.

Regarding the site plan, classic cottages is shared that they intend to keep a single shared driveway for the two separate units.

This plan is functionally flawed.

A shared driveway leads to car stacking or musical cars, if you will, for residents.

This will inevitably lead to residents abandoning a shared driveway for street parking.

The very parking the city is considering eliminating.

Furthermore, the existing driveway currently crosses our property line.

That is something that Classic Cottages has said will need to be resolved.

It is unclear how a shared access easement would realistically function in such a constrained space.

Ultimately, this proposal feels like an attempt to maximize a developer's bottom line at the expense of the neighborhood's character and safety.

I kindly ask the commission to maintain the integrity of our block and to deny this request.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Thanks for your time tonight.

My name is Monica D'Angelo.

I'm the homeowner at 104 East Braddock Road on the other side of the subject property.

Um and I respectfully object as well to the proposed subdivision request of 106 East Braddock Road.

In 2023 and 2024, I undertook substantial over 200,000 of professionally designed improvements and restor and restoration to address long-standing groundwater and drainage conditions affecting my property on all sides.

Those improvements were designed based on the established development pattern and site conditions of adjacent properties, including 106 East Braddock Road, as they existed through August 2024.

These concerns were communicated to the city via email via email on May 27th, 2025.

Well, existing drainage conditions may predate the current proposal.

My concern is not an attribution of fault, but an allocation of future risk.

Approval of the subdivision would permanently expand development entitlement in this parcel and increase structural intensity in a manner that limits the city's flexibility to respond should site conditions change or cumulative impacts, which are inevitable, become evident over time, causing undue harm to my property.

It is not clear to adjacent property owners how changes in impervious surface coverage grading or side yard separation associated with a two-unit configuration vice single unit dwelling would be constrained once subdivision rights are granted, nor whether the configuration material increases the likelihood of future requests for dementia relief.

Approval of the subdivision would establish development rights that cannot easily be revisited at later stages of review.

Water infiltration due to high water to to a known and existing high water table and increasing sheet flow as a result of significant development is an ever growing matter in the city that residents are personally faced to deal with.

Allowing greater impervious services to be developed guarantees greater hardship for existing residents who have made significant investments to preserve the history and character of their homes while enhancing long-term structural integrity.

And for those of us who are committed to remain for a very long time.

However, parcel specific subdivisions, particularly following demolition, do not inherently produce affordable housing and should proceed only where site-specific impacts are clearly understood and appropriately constrained.

For these reasons, I respectfully request the planning commission deny the proposed subdivision request.

Very much.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I didn't sign up because this was on the consent calendar.

I'm happy to fill out a form.

I'm here representing classic cottages, and I'd be happy to respond to those issues that have been raised.

Go for it, applicant.

Well, um, first and foremost, um, the application as Sam has represented to you complies with all of the zoning requirements for a resubdivision of this parcel.

Um, so there isn't necessarily a basis for you to deny it because it meets all of the requirements of your subdivision ordinance.

But this developer has significant experience in the city building uh new homes on newly subdivided pieces of property.

Um he has heard from one of these neighbors uh previously.

Um as everyone I think understands under the requirements of our zoning, if you are increasing um the amount of impervious area, there are stormwater retention requirements and detention requirements that are significant under our zoning ordinance that have to be complied with.

So the existing home didn't have to comply with those because it was built in such an age that we didn't have those requirements.

These new homes will have to comply with those requirements.

So I respect that people have made investments in their property, completely understand that.

But this piece of property and this subdivision meets all of the requirements of your subdivision ordinance, and as such should be approved by you tonight.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Kennig and a second by Commissioner Manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carry seven zero.

And that brings us to commissioner discussion.

All right.

I I um I'll I'll kick off and lean on Commissioner Brown if he if he has any additional comments.

Um, I wouldn't, I wouldn't have pulled this item from consent.

I would have approved it on consent because of primarily because of the same arguments that the applicant made, which is that it meets our requirements for approving a subdivision, which is not quite the same as what we do when we approve the development special use permit or other kind of development proposal.

Um I would also say that in terms of the steps, it's not uncommon for us to hear concerns from community members alongside upcoming, forthcoming future development, small development like this where it's one or two houses as well as big ones.

And a lot of the challenges that neighbors face are the what I'll call the operational ones that are associated with the process of implementation.

And um it was a little bit um inferred by by the applicant's description, but issues around drainage and alignment of the driveway and site specific impacts are largely addressed through staff review of the final plans for the development itself, and they are charged with making sure that that building meets all of the requirements of the zone, not just from a sense of setbacks and that kind of thing, but also that it's meeting the building code, it's meeting all of today's standards to ensure that it's not having detrimental impacts on its neighbor.

But again, those items aren't items that we can weigh in on tonight when we're reviewing a subdivision.

Anything in addition to address uh I'll just add that I may have said this before, but I'll say it again.

I believe we have an increasing trend toward uh taking down relatively small uh single family detached homes in this zone and replacing them with uh uh side by side, but I would call sort of a duplex style, which is allowed in this zone under slightly different conditions, including the the width of the lot can now be 25 feet for each of the two.

That's what's going on here, and I do not regard it as a as a favorable development because it defectively doubles the amount of housing uh on the particular property from what it was before, uh turning it into a for two families rather than one increasing the stock of housing in the city.

Um I've noticed some that some of these that have gone up these double-sized buildings uh really dwarf the the adjacent bit older buildings, but I think that's simply the price we are paying right now with a diversity of housing types is exemplified all over the Delaware area.

And frankly, I we have not heard a uh broad based concern about this development if that were to continue.

If the concerns were to be elevated and heard more and more frequently about the size of these duplex units, we might consider adjusting the development standards for them generally, but we're not there yet.

Right now we are in a pattern where uh I'm sure the staff is closely watching the impact of these changes.

Yeah, bottom line is that this one is in compliance with all of the requirements Commissioner Brown, do I hear a motion?

Madam Chairman, yes, I think your discussion um raised a couple of points from you.

I'm familiar with the neighborhood, and I think um one of the things about the the history of this layout, and it's evident in this plaid is that the entire neighborhood was was originally plotted at 25 foot widths, and then it was developed by either taking section logs building 50 foot widths generally bungalows or building it family development that were code.

And then my memory's getting a little murky, but I think there was a point at which the right to build a two-family development five foot law width went away, and we had a whole era years ago for ten years or so where really sort of couldn't do that by right.

And Mr.

Brown, you may be able to correct fields here, but we did the infield task force.

Um one of the adjustments I think brought back the fact that you could then by right do what this applicant do, which is returns to the original distributed development neighborhood and build co-joint building like that.

So I'm actually comfortable that this is completely consistent.

And your other point about whether new projects that come in and essentially build by right once this is actually turned out to be uh larger, either sexually in some way or actually is because the actual allowable zoning on the larger than the home was built.

So that makes us back to either we need to reactivate the I think that's what came out of the Until Task Force were average streets, that bags, average sites, a couple of like uh mechanisms that tried to sort of take advantage of work to the existing scale at least.

I would concur with you that I don't know this kind of position what you had mentioned, Chair about the nature of the review process.

It's very precise, it's very working very specific, and I think observation staff does a great job of making sure that kinds of issues that the report do not occur if they're as a function of having drawn on there for well and having moved to uh approve subdivision 2025 000 that was 4009 uh 106 East Radic Road based on Stanford Board and discussion.

Okay, I have a motion by Vice Chair Canigan and a second by Commissioner Brown.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

That brings us to item six.

Docket item number six, development special use permit twenty twenty-five one zero zero three zero.

220 and 224 South Peyton Street, public hearing and consideration of a request for development special use permit and site plan with modifications to construct a multi-unit residential building with ground floor commercial use and special use permit request to increase the non-residential floor area above 1.5 and for a parking reduction.

The property is zoned CD commercial downtown.

The applicant is windmill hill LLC, represented by Lauren How the Attorney.

Good evening, Chair McMahon and Planning Commission members.

For the record, my name is Stephanie Sample, and I'm an urban planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning Development Division.

Windmill Hill LLC proposes to redevelop an existing surface parking lot at 220 and 224 South Payton Street with a small infill mixed-use building.

This is the agenda for tonight's presentation.

This small infill project requires approval of a DSUP for multi-for a multi-unit building with eight one-bedroom rental apartments over ground floor office uses.

And includes a and includes a request for an SUP for a parking reduction and an increase in commercial FAR above 1.5.

The small site and unusual lot shape means that certain modifications for side yard, open space, and crown coverage are also requested.

The project site is in a mixed-use area of Old Town with street frontage on South Payton Street and Commerce Streets.

Note that the Commerce Street uh right-of-way does not go through but instead terminates in a traffic circle.

The site is approximately three blocks away from the King Street Metro station and near numerous bus lines, bicycle routes, and in a highly walkable area of old town.

There are mix of uses nearby, including office residential, and educational.

The project is located in the King Street Eisenhower Avenue Metro Station Small Area Plan as and is in the old and historic Alexandria District.

This slide shows the proposed building for footprint, which includes open space at the triangular point of the site, which will function as a private open space for the office tenant.

The building steps at the building steps back at the second and third floors, which is shown by the dotted red line.

And each floor contains four one bedroom apartments, each with its own private open space.

Curb cuts on both streets will be removed as part of the project for the creation of uninterrupted sidewalks and a planning strip with consistent consistent street trees.

The residential project entrance will be on Commerce Street, while the office entrance will be on South Payton Street.

The area in front of each entrance will have signs indicating the active loading only, so that Ubers, Doordash, and Amazon, et cetera, can park outside of the travel lane.

The BAR reviewed this project in concept, and they were supportive, only requesting a few minor architectural refinements when the project returns to the board following city council approval.

There were four meetings where this project was discussed.

There were two applicant hosted meetings, a BAR concept review, and the project was previewed at the November planning and zoning virtual community meeting.

As with all projects, we like to call out certain highlights.

With respect to schools, the project has the potential to generate one student.

Transportation improvements consist of the removal of two curb cuts and a safer improved streetscape.

Finally, with respect to stormwater, the project exceeds the minimum treatment requirement and provides a 14% reduction in phosphorus runoff.

Benefits include the removal of a surface parking lot for a contextual infill building, new rental housing, and a transit-rich location, and contributions to the urban forest fund and the housing trust fund, as well as a contribution towards the purchase of a standalone parking meeting.

With that, staff recommends approval and we are available for questions.

Are there any questions for staff?

Do we have any public?

Good evening.

First of all, I want to thank you all for the important work that you do and appreciate you being here and serving our community.

It is on according to my maybe I need to speak louder.

There you go.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

Uh my name's Andrew Herseth, and I represent the letter that was submitted by nine property owners and neighbors of this uh property.

Uh the letter is in the record.

And I just want to touch over a few points.

Um, and I and I understand, you know, this is a challenging position in which you you all need to make a decision.

Uh again with competing priorities and interests.

And I understand the need for affordable housing.

I understand the need for housing.

Um, and that that's definitely an interest and a priority that I know you're focused on.

But at what cost?

And and that's that's what I'd like to talk to you about.

There are some concerns, and I may I request that you pull up the location map again, just so we can have some visuals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So uh one of the concerns that we have is neighbors and residents of the street is the emergency aspects of Commerce Street.

It's uh five between 500 and 600 foot long cul-de-sac, which under modern codes would not be allowed because it does not have the appropriate uh emergency vehicle turnaround radius, and having neighbors that that I've spoken with that have ridden in ambulances from Commerce Street, they do use the curb cutouts that Stephanie sample just uh shared with you all.

There's a curb cut out on each side of this lot that go that at the end of Commerce Street serve as an emergency access route.

I don't know that if I wasn't able to determine that in history if that was something that was deeded or not, but it's absolutely used.

And I, for one, having to potentially be riding in an ambulance, don't want the ambulance staff to back up 600 feet to get to the hospital.

They they're not able to turn around.

Uh so that covers the emergency aspects of it.

As far as the parking and the congestion, also talked about in our in our um letter.

We understand that this is a special use permit, so that means unlike the Braddock Road subdivision that you just stole uh heard, that one met your ordinances.

This one does not, and they are requesting special use, and that what they're asking for is a reduction in parking and the uh increased far.

The increased far has flood risks that I'm concerned about.

We already have severe flooding in that area, and you're just gonna exacerbate that.

The parking is also a huge problem on Commerce Street.

The street is full all the time because of the local businesses.

The the street is full all the time because of the local businesses and the residents that try to share that street, and you're gonna add additional load.

So if you do choose to approve this, which I hope you don't, please put that condition that the residents would not be able to obtain a district for permit.

I think you can make conditions for your approval, and I urge you to do that if you do choose to approve this.

Thank you very much.

One moment.

Uh Commissioner Manor has a question for you.

Yeah, it's um I don't think we have a flood map.

Hold up, but the flood map or the flood zone, and and uh a flood zone is just a map zone based on history.

So it's not necessarily going to be accurate that could the flood as we've seen in recent history, floods incre uh can easily go outside of the flood zone, the map flood zone.

Oh just I haven't been there personally to see it, so I can't represent that.

Sure, appreciate it, but but we'll just need you.

You're free to sign up to speak.

He he he will follow up, so I guess he can he can address that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I have one question.

Quick question.

So um what you're saying about an ambulance is that the cul-de-sac end is so small that an ambulance can't turn around.

Yeah, it does not meet the minimum requirements for an apparatus turnaround.

There's an island in the middle of the cul-de-sac.

It's not a it's not a normal cul-de-sac, it's it's got a curved island in the center.

I I can't even turn around a small car there.

There is no way to turn around at the end of that cul-de-sac.

You have to drive around the island to come back, and a fire truck can't do that.

And and a large ambulance could not as well.

Because cars do use that turnaround every day, don't they?

They do.

Thank you very much.

And we can follow up with staff questions to clarify some of these items and make an eye slip.

Um next speaker.

Uh before I call the next speaker, if I could just ask all uh participants with the mic to see directly into the mic, we are still working out the the volume levels and things, so it'd be helpful if you speak right into the mic.

Thank you.

Um our next speaker is Karen Griffin, followed by Tim Foley.

Good evening.

Thank you, madam chairman and and uh commission members.

Um, I'm just gonna make one small comment.

I was the uh neighbor that Mr.

Hurse was referring to in 2020.

Unfortunately, I went by ambulance to the Alexandria ER four different times, and at least twice that I can recall, but I was lying down.

We did have to go over the bumps on the curved cutouts at least twice.

And I almost fell off the gurney, if you call it that.

Um, and I remember that very distinctly, thinking, wow, this is a really rough ride until I realized which direction we were going, as opposed to going around the circle, because the fire trucks just don't bend and they're so much longer than a car.

Um but and I concur with everything else uh that Mr.

Hertz said, um the parking is the biggest issue for most of us and flooding and um oh I know.

So talking about the I think they call it the city green space, which is the sort of little peninsula you might that the road goes around.

Um and in its current shape, it's a little round.

A little round berm.

Um, and hopefully the applicant is not planning to shrink that because it is a nice size right now, and cars can go around, but fire trucks are a different animal.

So thank you very much.

Unless there are questions, I don't know.

I think we're good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tim Foley, followed by Thomas Merish.

Good evening.

Uh good evening.

My name is Tim Foley.

Um, first of all, I'd like to apologize for my out-of-order behavior.

Um, I I am on the Board of Zoning Appeals and I know better.

I should not have done that.

Um, so um I'm gonna be practice with this.

My um my biggest concern with this uh development.

I I think it looks nice, and I know something's gotta go there, but my biggest concern is parking.

Um Drew actually pointed that out really well.

Parking is it can be absolutely insane in this area, and at putting more parking pressure on residential parking is just something that is just I mean, it would I think it would devalue the properties there significantly, and it would make all of our lives significantly worse.

Um, as it is now, myself and four of my neighbors do pay for parking elsewhere because we just can't find reliable parking on the street.

There are times where even when my parking spot elsewhere is taken up and I come back in our other car, you just can't find parking.

And yes, it's very walkable, but even at that, I mean everybody has park, uh, everybody has a car, or just about everybody has a car that's there.

You know, it's it's not like you can live there without a car.

So it's you know, it's just one of those things.

The um the floor area ratio uh increase, uh it's concerning to me too.

I I didn't know Drew was going to talk about it, but flooding is a problem.

Let me characterize the flooding for you.

It's uh the cul-de-sact fills with water, it uh starts to come up Commerce Street.

The furthest I've seen it come up Commerce Street is you know, maybe about uh 30, 40 feet up Commerce Street.

The deepest it gets when I was going wading through was about a uh foot and a half to two feet before it starts spilling over on to Duke Street.

I think the problem is largely that the one single drain there gets clogged.

Um, but this is in heavy rains, and as you know, around Alexandria, there's a lot of flooding areas that just it it just floods.

Um I've seen this flood, I've been there for eight years, I've seen it flood at least four times.

Um, you know, at varying degrees or so.

So it is it is a problem there.

Uh it's not something that you want to, you know, just dismiss.

Um the other thing with the emergency vehicles going around that Coldest Act, the Coldest Act right now is largely used by the um the daycare that's right there.

And the when the daycare is letting on or letting out, you can't get around the cul de sac at all.

I mean, you just cannot get around there.

So, like if you drive down Commerce Street, you literally have to do uh like a you know, a 30-point turn in order to get out of there because like what Drew was talking about, you can't turn around.

And an ambulance or uh an emergency vehicle would literally have to back up out of commerce street in order to get out of there.

So it is it is another concern.

So I'm not against this development.

I just think things need to be you know properly addressed before it moves forward.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Speaker is Thomas Maresh.

Yeah, maybe please the commission.

Can you hear me okay?

My name is Thomas Marsh.

I live at 342 Commerce Street.

I'm an owner and occupant there.

I oppose this plan.

Um this plan and my house are located in the old and historic district.

And what's this plan is to put in a modern high-rise multiplex.

I don't know, it's gonna be condos, that could be Airbnb.

I don't we don't really know what it's gonna be like.

Um because right now what we have this property, even though the address is on Peyton Street, the entrance for the condos are on Commerce Street.

So Commerce Street is very much affected by this.

Um and I just want to explain a little bit about the character of this of Commer Street.

106 Commerce Street was built in 1890.

It's a single family home.

108 Commerce Street is a single family home built in 1890.

110 Commerce Street is a single family home built in 1890.

112 Commerce Street is a single family home built in 1890.

205 Commerce Street was a is a single family home built in 1920.

207 Commerce Street is a single phone single family home built in 1920.

209 Commerce Street was a single family home built in 1880.

308 Commerce Street is a faint single family home built in 1794.

310 Commerce Street was built in 1800, where Tim lives.

And um, so 316 Commerce Street was built in 1900.

311 Commerce Street was built in 1920.

318 Commerce Street is a single family home.

These are all single family homes built in 1886.

Three 328 built in 1946.

Okay, we're coming a little bit closer.

330 Commerce Street, 332 Commerce Street, 334 Commerce Street, 336 Commerce Street, 338 Commerce Street, 340 Commerce Street.

We're only at 342 Commerce Street.

I'll build in 1946.

My house is directly across the street from this plan.

Um there's so this is my objection.

As far as the this is I'll review my notes.

It seems to me that the commission is gonna be carving out a transitory exception to the old and historic district.

I just don't understand why we want to carve out an exception.

We are in the old and historic district.

So that that's the point I wanted to make.

For the parking, um right now I don't have a car.

I did have a car, but then someone stole parts of the car, so I don't have it right now.

Um but the parking, there is no parking on that side of the street.

The parking is only on my side of the street.

So right now, the construction guys that are building doing the construction of 333, just park their cars on the no parking side of the street.

And I just see that continuing if this with the way this plan is formulated.

As for the um and the circle, yeah.

I remember eight winters ago the tow truck, no, not the tow truck, the snowplow truck was going around the circle and destroyed half the curb cutouts and uh in the century can still see it.

They never really fixed it.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

I have a question for Stormersh.

Did you take all of these current concerns to the VAR?

Yes, I discussed this at the BAR they have my three minute speech, and um but I work full time and I'm just kind of thank you.

All right, it looks like we might have uh applicants representation.

Who wishes to speak?

Right.

For it, please introduce yourself and then fill out a speaker form at the end.

I I did oh, she did okay, great.

Good evening, madam chair members of the planning commission.

My name is Lauren Riley with Walsh Caluci.

We represent the applicant, Windmill Hill LLC, and I'm joined tonight by the applicant as well as members of our design team with Kalinski Group Architects as well as RC Fields, and miraculously we all made it here tonight instead of City Hall.

This is our first uh meeting here in the new Del Pepper building.

If we go to the next slide, the applicant here at Windmill Hill LLC has developed uh numerous residential projects throughout the city, but we're really excited to bring this project forward to you tonight because it represents a really unique opportunity here in the city to create a modest in field development in one of the most transit-oriented areas in the city in old town.

If you go to the next slide today, this property is highly underutilized as a surface parking lot that is 100% impervious paved area.

Yeah, there we go.

Uh that's uh 100% a purpose paved area.

It's got about 16 parking spaces on it.

There's two curb cuts, one on Peyton uh and one on Commerce Street.

You can see there's no street trees along South Payton Street.

The sidewalks are quite narrow on both sides.

And that this you can also see that this is a small triangularly shaped lot.

Um there are several site constraints constraints here, and uh triangles are not the most favorable uh shape for for development.

Uh but nonetheless, if we go to the next slide, you'll see that our design team has done a remarkable job at crafting uh a building design that fits on this uh small irregular site uh but also complements the neighborhood surrounding it.

Uh you'll see we're substantially improving the public realm here by adding street trees along South Payton Street.

We're widening the sidewalks on both Peyton and Commerce uh and putting forth a high quality building design that'll activate uh the pedestrian realm there um and reduce vehicle trips to the site.

And as staff noted, we've had uh several meetings with the community throughout our application process, and we also met with the Board of Architectural Review in October.

Uh we received positive feedback from the Board of Architectural Review with only uh a few suggestions for design changes that we've been able to incorporate with with this submission.

And then in terms of our our community meetings, we've heard you know both um positive feedback from the community support for the uses.

You've seen letters in your packet tonight that support the proposed use in the project, but we've also heard concerns about parking and traffic, and in terms of traffic, we're actually reducing this project.

We'll reduce uh trips by about 47% to the site based on the trip generation for what is today a surface parking lot.

What will tomorrow be an eight-unit residential building with ground floor retail?

And then in terms of parking, um, you know, even though the site constraints make on-site parking infeasible.

This is still a great uh the ideal location in the city to reduce parking and to reduce reliance on cars.

This proposal is in line with the small area plan recommendation to reduce parking in transit rich neighborhoods in the King Street metro area.

Future future residents here, these eight units, they'll have access to free bus service through Dash.

There'll be a six minute walk from the metro station.

They can walk to Amtrak, they'll have access to all the neighborhood amenities here.

They could walk to grocery store, pharmacy, restaurants, um, etc.

And this development will attract renters who are carless by choice.

Uh, and ultimately the project will not um will not negatively impact uh the neighborhood, especially as I think staff will address future uh on street parking um here.

The residents will not be able to obtain district district permit parking uh in any surrounding on-street parking will be metered, so residents will not be able to uh to to park uh in those areas going forward, and then if we go to the next slide in conclusion, this project as a whole is um will provide a sensitive development that brings high quality architecture and provides new housing units in one of the city's most walkable neighborhoods, and so we asked for your support tonight to approve the project.

And with that, uh we're available for questions if you have any.

Thank you very much.

Are there questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Brown.

The uh the eight residential units are each of them all on one floor.

No, uh no, Mr.

Brown, there are three levels.

The first level will be all commercial use, and the second and third levels will be residential units with four units on each level, and the building steps back so that each question is about each residential unit itself.

Are they are they one-floor units?

Yes, that's correct.

And what is the average cross square footage of each moment?

They're a little over 600 square feet in size.

They're one bedroom units uh in terms of their average, um, their average area.

They also each unit will also have a balcony or a terrace as well that they'll be able to use.

Thank you.

Commissioner Duvet, please.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Lauren, for that.

I asked this question to staff, and unfortunately we didn't get to connect on it.

The ground floor commercial is going to be offices and not retail.

Is that correct?

It could be either the request is for a commercial use.

We anticipate the that the initial user will be office.

It does not preclude uh future user to be retail or some other permitted uh commercial use in a CD zone.

How much square footage was that about?

Uh the ground level, I believe it's yeah, 2700, about 2700 square feet.

So a small office tenant is in dispute.

Thank you for um for clarifying because I was also gonna ask staff to confirm that the project residents will not be eligible for the residential permit parking district.

So they will have to make do if they actually try to come and live there with a car.

If despite all of the transit amenities around them, they choose they choose to have one.

Rent a parking space.

Um I don't have any questions for the applicant.

I think I might have some follow-up for staff.

So you may sit down.

Would anyone like to close the public hearing?

Well, it before staff, we can close the public hearing.

I'm sorry.

And then we can ask.

Uh move to close the public hearing.

All right.

I have motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Dubai to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

And that begins our discussion and questions, follow-up questions for staff.

Commissioner Manor.

How is the per student calculation made?

Uh the city and the schools work together um yearly to come up with a formula.

I mean, the formula probably changes very minimally from year to year, um, based on um generation current generation, student generation.

So, for example, affordable housing, um, larger units can produce more children than a single family or a one-bedroom.

That's why we have uh this project generates technically less than a student.

Obviously, you can't have less than one student, you have one student.

So it's really an estimate of of what they expect um the project to generate based on um history.

Rob Kearns, this is based on development in Alexandria, the generation from the buildings here in the city, not just sort of a nationwide setup number of projects.

It's based on real context.

That number is quite low, but if there's thanks very much.

Thanks very much.

What is the parking reduction request?

Uh a total of seven spaces, which is all the spaces.

We're going from seven to zero.

Correct.

Okay.

What is this?

What is the staff's experience uh with other projects where parking uh for apartments has been reduced to zero in this area?

Um there's been one recent approval of a project on King Street farther away from the metro.

Um sort of not done yet.

It's not done yet.

Um and they had a full parking reduction as well.

Catherine Milliar's planning and zoning.

Um also um many of the existing buildings in Old Town, particularly along King Street, um, are these mixed-use buildings with ground floor commercial and apartments above, and many of them we have done lots of existing buildings that do not have any parking.

And similarly, those residents, because of the location on King Street on commercial, they're not in an RPP, so they can't get the um residential parking.

So I think in this particular area, you do have a lot of residential units.

Um, some that have been approved, as Stephanie mentioned, um, but many that just out of practice don't have parking.

I also take it as a good sign that the previous project on King Street that's car-free was financed and is actually going forward to construction right now.

So the financial side of the market's accepting um the viability as well.

What's what's the address on that?

I don't remember the I think it's 615 king.

It's the former Walgreens building in the 600 block.

Commissioner Dubay.

Yeah, I just want to follow up a little bit with staff on the issue with the commerce street.

Sir, can you is it possible to go into the staff report on page 11 and show the commissioners that particular graphic that shows a 40 46.7 foot fire truck that can make that turn, which is a pretty close to what the average engine is in the city.

I don't know if we could show that the problem with that street is that I used to live right at West in Prince, so I kind of walked through there to get all the foods, but um the problem is the parking that's in there during the day.

Primarily, there's always three or four cars there.

I drove through there twice at different times a day in the past two weeks, and there's always cars parked there in the no parking area.

Um that's obviously an enforcement issue, it's not something we can call.

Yeah, right in front of the daycare.

Yep.

So yeah, it's impossible to make if there's cars there, but the the way the streets configured, if there's no one parked where they're not supposed to be parked, you can't make that term and for most of them, most of the units.

But the problem is that we saw when I was working in I saw when I lived closer to that that there was always somebody.

So again, that's something that APD or traffic enforcement's gonna have to work on.

Um can't do much about that.

I don't think from our from our side of the well, this is definitely in the realm of the city functions.

So I I think with with uh if this project is approved, obviously changing patterns will um uh happen if we're the city will probably have to have a role to follow up on circulation and how that's gonna um work there on on uh the both of the streets, but also I did hear about the drain that apparently is not working uh up to up to the standard, it probably should be.

So that's something we would also need to look to look into and follow.

I I apologize.

It's in the site plan.

It's on page, oh it's up page, oh that's not it.

It's the site plan page 11.

Yeah, it's it's page 11 of the site panel, which is an attachment.

Um one of the attachments, and there is flooding there.

Obviously, we've talked about that before.

The the recent project on Prince Street.

If you remember, we couldn't you couldn't use the one floor of the garage because of flooding issues.

That's right up the street from there.

Yeah, it's definitely a problem.

So not the only one in the city.

Okay, so we covered the emergency access question.

Um we we heard from a neighbor concern about um compatibility with historic homes, and I was wondering if staff would just um maybe make a a quick statement about the role of the BAR in reviewing projects like this that fall in the historic district, even though they're new, we have processes for approving new infill development in these areas that can be compatible, but that's not typically the role that we take.

And I was wondering if staff would just um maybe make a a quick statement about the role of the BAR in reviewing projects like this that fall in the historic district, even though they're new, we have processes for approving new infill development in these areas that can be compatible, but that's not typically the rule that we take.

Right.

Uh certainly in the olden historic district, um the BAR reviews permits to demolish um and certificate of appropriateness.

Um prior to that, and prior to coming to planning commission, there's a optional process called concept review, and the board looks at the project with respect to a tight scale mass and architectural character, recognizing that um there are a mix of uses around here, historic and 80s uh infill projects.

Um, but looking at new construction as something that is compatible with historic, but is not replicative.

Um, and the board felt pretty comfortable that this project met those standards and just asked for some very minor architectural um refinements before returning to the board.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for staff?

And if not, we can just break into commissioner discussion on the item.

Would anyone like to kick off their thoughts?

Commissioner Ramirez, actually, um I could I do have a question for staff.

I mean, just thinking about the parking issues, and I know understanding part of the issue here is just enforcement in that area.

But do we have the data available or are we able to research the data available of the the, I guess the parking density, the actual actual parking usage in some of these some of these areas.

Um, yeah, I would say I I for one am always in favor of uh being able to use public transportation, all of the infrastructure that we have established in the city and throughout the metro region as much as possible.

But um the reality is that for convenience will do have cars.

Um, this being, I would say a relatively small development, it's not going to be as big of an impact, say as a much larger development were to take all the parts away.

Do you does is does the city have access to data to see where like where we have a you know what is the parking density in this area?

Is it going to be um negatively impacted by taking all of this, all of the parking spaces wiped this development?

Uh certainly.

Um the those couple of questions in there.

Um the city does have the ability to to determine how many uh RPP district four permits there are.

Um that's not something that I have access to.

We I didn't think to ask for that.

Um we have we are aware that there are a number of nearby parking garages with monthly rentals.

Um the all of the parking in that general area is metered, um, whether it's or restricted, I should say.

Um much of it's metered.

Others, other parts are restricted.

So uh there is a contractor that apparently covers that area that the city has hired.

So um there's probably limited to no sort of you know positives, I would say, for a tenant here having a car in that they would be limited to two and three hour parking, would we have to constantly you know moving their car if they were to park on the street?

Um, but there is availability, a lot of availability in nearby garages.

I would also add to that that um Department of Transportation Services pre-pandemic did an extensive study on commercial residential buildings and sort of right-sizing parking.

And when they did that, they went on and did extensive surveys at night during the day.

Like what was the parking utilization rates?

We don't have the staffing to be able to dynamically ongoing, keep up that that data gathering, but but we are looking at again, doing that study again in the next couple of years because as we all know, parking, the parking demand and the parking utilization storage shifting as people are, you know, as as people are getting into car-free living or car light living and making different location choices now.

So we will, you know, have more of that rich data coming.

Uh, right now we we anecdotally check to make sure there, you know, a lot of the office buildings um do have uh unutilized parking assets now on the King Street card.

We check some of them and there is availability for for uh users.

I don't know if this exactly it's not a current reference, but I'm pretty sure um around the time when the AMP was updated, um, which is the Alexandria Mobility Plan, the share of households in the city as a whole that was car free was about 10%.

Um and my experience with those statistics is that they vary by geography.

So where Dave Brown lives, it's probably zero percent, but here it's probably more than 10% of households.

And we have one planning commissioner who's car free.

So that's one out of seven for whatever that statistic matters.

Um, but yeah, for for more context on car demand.

Absolutely.

Yep.

I guess part of my questioning is just to um develop that understanding that when we look at the parking reductions, right?

That there is an already an analysis of the area and the actual to kind of like quasi as close to real time as we can kind of understand of how people are using um different modes of mobility uh through the city and transit through the city.

Um so that it's not like you know, we're taking the parking away and it's it's done just as a blind group.

One of one of my observations with choices like this um is that there is a I I think there's a significant difference between established residence in neighborhoods where there's always been available parking and the patterns that we we take on, and then the new residents that come into development that was built on a premise of less parking availability.

Um so obviously a building that is advertised with zero parking spaces poses a challenge for the shopper, you know.

Are you going to choose to rent there knowing that you're bringing a car, you're gonna have to go find a rental space somewhere else, or you're gonna choose a different building?

So I think this applicant is hoping to target their market for mostly non-car owning folks, and it helps to provide a market that has a variety of housing types, including ones that didn't have to cost in the price of parking, right?

So for car-free households like Jody's, he could choose to rent a place that wasn't incorporating that extra cost just by default because it was part of how the building was built because he doesn't need to pay that extra cost.

And I think the the fact that the right in the apartments in this building, um the the parcel will improve the availability of the curb for curbside pickup and drop-off and the kinds of activity that might be happening for these residents, like they might be getting an Uber.

Um, and so they might need to um go into DC and it's late and Metro's not running very reliably, so they might be dropped off again at home.

And so making sure that the street functions, making sure we don't have those issues as Commissioner Dubay mentioned of people parking illegally along fire lanes and otherwise no parking areas that that might um choke things up a bit, but knowing that these residents are by design most likely using this space in a very transitory way, they're not going to be using it to store cars long term.

Um there other yeah, yeah.

Um I I get I guess I just I'll just say that I'm in support of this project.

I think it's a very um the design really tickled me, is I guess the way I would put it.

I think it's I I love that they're making an opportunity out of what would seem like an impossible opportunity with the shape of this parcel.

Um, there's a big blank wall facing the street and a bunch of parking area right next to other activity um that is just used randomly for like I don't know, I saw some Comcast trucks in there, just some like random parkers, but it's it's it's surface pavement.

Um the issues uh of drainage are likely to be helped by this development because this development will have to manage the runoff of the building, whereas the pavement the paved parking lot doesn't do any of that, so it's just gonna contribute to um to stormwater issues in the street that hopefully a fix to that storm drain will will also help.

Um the location is optimal.

Um I know staff and the applicant went through how proximate it is, not just to transit, but to neighborhood resources that you need.

So you could walk to the grocery store and you can walk to the pharmacy.

There's a lot of places that you can walk to um and not even have to worry about whether it's a car trip.

Um there are the request is for SUPs for floor area and a parking reduction and modifications for side yard, open space and crown coverage.

And so I just want to sort of for the record address that I think that the FAR requested here is in keeping with the scale of development in this area and the fact that the building steps back the way it does from the corner provides a really nice transition to the open space that's there, that's sort of city space, and a nice transition to the smaller historic homes that are nearby as well.

The modifications for the side yard, I wanted to ask staff, I think it's kind of a funny rhetorical question.

Why do we even require a side yard setback in this location?

Um, because no one else has a side yard setback, right?

All of your homes are are touching each other.

Um there's a lot of proximity of homes in homes and buildings in this part of town.

So the fact that this building wants to build against that completely blank wall to maximize the space that it has on the parcel makes a lot of sense.

And I'm not sure it seems like we could look at that for streamlining in the future.

Um it makes it also makes sense that in this part of town, open space and crown coverage are hard to achieve in infill development.

And I think that this project um does a good job of balancing that by providing open space on the corner that's available to the um office or retail tenant users, providing above ground open space for the units, and providing a bunch of new trees along street frontage that doesn't have trees today.

So we're gonna see more trees go in, we're gonna see open space that's actually usable open space by people right now.

It's a parking lot, so no one uses that as gathering space.

Um I think all of those, despite the the challenges, those are all improvements that are gonna benefit the urban design in this location.

Um so I find it a very reasonable project, and I'm happy to support it tonight.

Vice Chair Kenick.

Um Madam Chairman, um thank you.

I I think this is a really quite a fascinating project.

I appreciate uh the um the extent um and the thoughtfulness of the input that we had from the neighbors to fully acquaint us both with the challenges that they have concerns about and the sort of tight-knit um civilized nature of their uh of their street.

Um I think the staff has done a really good job of uh kind of capturing and explaining all the uh aspects of this, and I think we've received a pretty uh good level of confidence about the fact that the concerns that were raised have all been to uh I'm persuaded they have been addressed in a way that's uh satisfactory and and uh doesn't hold any serious risk for the future, and I hope that turns out to be the lived reality for the neighbors who are concerned now.

Um but I I find this uh just a uh a pragmatically creative infill project along the lines of what you just described, and I very much appreciate as always your comprehensive technical analysis for all of the pieces so that the rest of us don't have to um sort of pack together.

Um I just find this a really uh I think it's uh uh pretty much as the applicants have presented it, it's a very uh clever, thoughtful, thorough, uh multifaceted solution to a really challenging design uh problem on a really tiny spot of land, and it um and it is indeed replacing impervious surface in a in a blank spot.

So um I I think the programming is really clever.

Uh the fact that there's they are small units is by necessity.

The fact that all of them have some exterior open space is another sort of brilliant feature on a tight site.

Um and the fact uh that it was presented to the ground floor really truly is commercial and sort of not tightly defined commercial.

So the idea is that it may very well be an office tenant now, but that we also can have confidence that two or five or ten years from now it could serve for neighborhood-based retail as well.

Um, and I think I'm an okay guinea pig for that because I happen to be someone who held about a 2500 foot leasehold for a small architectural firm for a number of decades.

And if I could beam myself back in time, I would look very seriously at this configuration in this marvelous location.

So I'm running on again, but I'm happy to make a motion when you're ready, Chair.

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Dubai.

Sorry, um, Vice Chair, I just have one clarification.

Some of the um neighbors talked about the cut through, which is the cut through of the property itself, I think.

Um so if you come in from Peyton, you can get into that little parking lot.

But on the other side, on the commerce side, you can get through.

It looks like you've it's been driven over enough that it just kind of broke the curve down.

Um that but that piece of property is exactly where this is gonna go.

And that's owned by the applicant.

That was never a fire line, it was never a dedicated right-away or anything, correct?

Or the applicant, I guess.

I just want to make sure we're clear because that's that was raised by a couple of yes, I can confirm there are no emergency vehicle access easements over the property.

Anyone who is driving over the property uh does not have permission to do so unless they are leasing a space there that's that's owned by the applicant.

So that's correct.

Just out of curiosity, because I'm looking at that outdoor triangle.

Is there an accommodation in the building for ventilation for the ground floor to go up for food service by chance?

No, I'm hearing the architects.

No, we've not built in ventilation for our food service.

Um I first looked at this project, I saw that essentially five exceptions to the normal rule were being sought.

Um the FAR, the uh parking reduction and modifications to the side yard open space and crown coverage requirements, which prompts me to think what's wrong with this project.

Why do they need so many exceptions?

Uh and so I I start out somewhat skeptical.

In this case, I find that each of the each of the adjustment requests are either modest or appropriate.

But I also look at the cumulative impact of doing five different modifications all at once on one project.

But once again, I find myself in agreement with those of you who have expressed the notion that this is uh a creative effort to fill in a spot that could use filling in.

So uh I don't find the cumulative impact to be in any way uh disqualifying.

I'll be happy to support the project.

Right.

Vice Chair Kate, would you like to make a motion?

I move to recommend council approval of development special use permit 2025 10030 for 220 and 224 South Peyton Street based on the staff report and the discussion here at the second.

All right, I have a motion by Vice Chair Kenig and a second by Commissioner Manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

And that brings us to our next item.

Item number item number seven master plan amendment 2025 0005.

Rezoning 2025 000 six special use permit 2025 000 66.

Encroachment 2025, 00009, 732 North Washington Street and 710 Madison Street.

Public hearing and consideration of a request for an amendment to the old town north small area plan chapter of the master plan to change the recommended height district limits map to allow for 55 feet in building height, B a rezoning from CDX commercial downtown zone to CRMUX commercial residential mixed use zone.

C special use permits for multi-unit residential use and a parking reduction, and D an encroachment into the public right-of-way for upper floor balconies to facilitate the conversion of an existing office building to a multi-unit residential building.

The property is CDX commercial downtown.

The applicant is 732-806 development LLC by Kenneth Wire, attorney.

Mr.

Shelby, please proceed.

So Sam Shelby again, planning and zoning.

Um speaking of a lot of uh requests, this is a request to convert a building, and this is the assemblage of uh approvals needed to convert this building from office to residential.

The applicant is proposing um 20 residential units with some minor exterior alterations.

Um we found that the the proposal advances the old town north small area plan goals and that the proposed use and the parking reduction would be um would not be impactful to the surroundings and would be compatible also with the neighborhood.

There we go.

So this is the the subject property, it's an existing building um at the corner of North Washington and Madison Street.

Um it's currently zoned CDX, it's in the old town north small area plan.

Um, and it's surrounded by uh a variety of uses.

It's uh office on the same side of Washington and across the street.

There's a school behind it, and there's a new residential development across the street north of the property on Madison Street.

So as I said, this is uh a conversion to of an existing office building to resid 20 residential units.

There would be no increase to the uh building height or floor area.

There's some minor exterior changes proposed that would all require BAR approval.

This is in the old and historic district.

So that would include um expansion, a slight expansion to the fifth floor, some balconies um and some improvements on the roof so um residents can get to the roof to get to the open space that would be provided up there.

Um this uh slide still says off-street parking requirement meant.

I thought I caught this typo earlier, but didn't apparently.

Um, and so the arc off-street parking requirement is not met, and they are they have requested a parking reduction, and that's part of the notice language and everything.

This is just uh an error on this slide.

Um as I mentioned the or Kendra mentioned the approvals are the following on the screen rezoning from CDX to CRMUX, which are both old town north designated uh zones.

Uh, there's a request to amend the master plan, and this is a little bit of a technical thing.

The zoning ordinance references the master plan in terms of what the maximum height is.

And so that needs to be amended to accommodate the fifth floor expansion.

There are two SCPs, one for the multi-unit residential use, which is required in the CRMU proposed CRM UX zone, and a parking reduction as well as an encroachment for the the balconies, the proposed balconies.

So as in terms of the rezoning in the master plan amendment, um, we find that this this proposal again advances the small area plan's goals.

The small area plan identifies uh or anticipates office to residential conversions and it identifies specific buildings for these types of conversions that you know, based on their age, um, that they tend to be more and more um eligible for um or more uh I guess eligible for conversions.

Uh that also the size of the floor plate helps that it uh there's fewer technical problems when converting a building that has a smaller floor plate.

Um the small air plan also identifies uh conversions as an innovative housing solution to increase housing in the old town north small area plan's boundaries.

Um and the this specific air sub-area actually identifies or calls for increased residential square footage in the um this this mixed-use core area of the small area plan.

The we find that the master plan amendment requested is acceptable also because it's just a technical increase.

It's not increasing the height of the building, it's not increasing the height of the building beyond uh at all, and it's not increasing the that existing height isn't necessarily taller than any of the surrounding buildings that um are across the street or nearby.

Um these requests also happen to eliminate the regulatory non-compliance that the building already has.

Right now, it exceeds the zones uh maximum of FAR and it also uh exceeds the existing height.

So both the rezoning and the master plan amendment, if approved, would bring the building into compliance.

The special use permit considerations as established by you know the zoning ordinance and the CD CRMUX zone are similar to the small area plan uh considerations we just went over.

So part of it is whether or not the the balance of uses remains um in an appropriate mix in the area.

So we find that, you know, again, because this is surrounded by a variety of uses that this extra residential here is perfectly compatible with the neighborhood.

And it happened, it also happens to be likely lower in intensity than the building if it were occupied by any of the other commercial buy right uses there.

Um, you know, as a as a fully occupied office, there would be more users in this building than there likely will be with the fully occupied residential building.

Um this also, because of the people living in the building, this increases pedestrian activity and and general activity during nights and weekends, which is imperative for a lively and and safe and active neighborhood.

Um we also don't expect any parking uh impacts with this because they are asking for uh tech a five-space reduction.

Um less than a half a mile from the metro.

It is uh very close to multiple bus stops.

It's also close to two grocery stores, so many um uh errands could be can be done on foot without a car.

And uh there are, you know, if you're really just counting the spaces, there are enough spaces technically on the site and the adjacent property that are both the subject of of the application for the total required off-street parking spaces, but the spaces on the alley uh on behind the property are tandem, so they're they're uh they're in a line.

There's so they they can't technically be counted as parking, but that also sort of supports the parking reduction in staff's opinion because it uh maybe there's a uh unit that has two spaces they could they could very easily use um those those stacked spaces.

We are also recommending approval of the encroachments.

They would provide sort of outdoor access to residents.

It would, you know, I'm thinking of like cage for eggs.

There, you know, there's there's a space to go outside and get air, but it's not you know, the the bulk of the open space requirement or the entire open space requirement is met on the rooftop of this space.

So this would just kind of add some visual interest to the street uh front of the building and provide um some uh you know outdoor air space for uh residents.

And because they're so high above the sidewalk, um, you know, the there's a condition that says they have to be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk, but the plans really show that they're more like 11 feet.

It wouldn't impact the use of the of the sidewalk or the street right there.

Um because this is uh conversion enabled by a special use permit, uh the council's uh uh Office of Residential Conversion, you know, the contribution policy uh states that uh you know uh sets a dollar amount per square footage for special use permit enabled conversions, and so that the applicant has uh voluntary voluntarily agreed to contribute 41,395 to the housing trust fund.

And with that, we are reckoning recommending approval of all of the all the things, and we're here to any answer any questions anybody might have.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Manor.

20.

The parking is all in that space behind.

Right.

They're all tandem.

Not not all of them are tandem.

So there's nine technically 18 tandem spaces and then five right behind the building.

Yep.

Okay.

Commissioner Breck.

And the the request for the roof that is that like penthouse to give people access.

The uh the height increase is to it's explained in the staff report as well as we could.

Um there's also some images images in the staff report.

Um it's on page nine eight and nine, if we could possibly bring that up.

But that that's some that shows it a lot better than I can sort of explain it.

Um, and I don't want to put uh our clerk on the spot, but it does.

Um while we wait for that, Commissioner Brown.

Um, Mr.

Shelby, I just want to put on the record something that we discussed and that we don't see too often, and I wanted to make sure my fellow commissioners were aware of it.

The um the parking lot on the other side of the alley from the building is actually part of the project.

And as a result, the gross lot area of the parking lot is included in the overall project, which increases the gross floor area of the building uh multiplied by whatever the FAR is.

Uh and that I just wanted I just want to point out that that's we don't see that too often.

I wonder, is that still something that is that is done today, or is this an artifact of the way things were done before?

Um the provisions that allow this specifically say um projects in uh coordinated development district zones or the CRMUX zones, or I think it's any of the commercial residential mixed use zones.

So it's a pretty it probably showed up with a 929 ordinance.

Um and I'm not quite sure why, but it it basically it says that they have to be these certain zones where there's a lot of control over what um can be built on the site, and it has to accompany with like a development approval.

So it's it is a pretty limited scope, and that's probably why we don't see that too often.

So the bottom line for now is that if we walk by that open parking spot, it's not a candidate for redevelopment.

Right.

Okay, we have the drawing up in front of us.

Yes, so this page uh shows the existing elevation on and the fifth floor has this like fake mansard roof thing going on.

Um the next page shows the proposal.

So you know, if you look at the corners, you can see that it gets filled in a little bit.

You know, there's there's gonna be less of a slanting roof, the slant gets steeper, and yep.

Yes, Commissioner Du Bay.

It says there's nine parking spaces, but then the one on the south side of that is also indicates it's gonna be a trash enclosure.

That actually eight parking spaces with a trash enclosure.

Is that where or is that an existing?

I'm looking at the application.

And then the follow-up to that is the unloading and loading for move in and move out gonna be on street side, Madison Street side, or is that gonna be through the public hour?

So I think the applicant's better suited to answer the trash enclosure question, but it looks like that is one of the uh tandem spaces, so it's not counted toward the total parking requirement.

Um, but that's that looks like to be based on this diagram what they're doing.

Um this use is not required to have loading and unloading off-street loading and unloading spaces.

Um, it might get tricky doing um loading because there's bus stops in front of the of the building on Madison Street.

Um, so you know that but that's something that's worked out when they when they have move-ins.

They they they have to file for permits.

I'm sure he can answer that.

Yep, thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Shall we go to public hearing?

Um, we actually do not have any public speakers.

We just have the applicant.

Okay, and wire.

Um can you fill out a speaker form afterward?

Yeah, please step step up to the mic.

I am Melissa Ken and I am a resident in Old Town North at 525 Montgomery Street.

And I think it bears saying that staff and applicants consistently misquote the small area plan for Old Town North.

Old Town North does not encourage conversions.

It says it on page 31, chapter five, existing and planned office uses, encourages the retention and expansion of commercial and retail uses through amenities, connections to open space, providing the framework for more retail and pedestrian improvements.

No staff person ever mentions that.

I think that's really important.

They also say that that um this is important to convert it to residential because it's going to increase pedestrian flow.

Pedestrian flow is only at night.

The issue with the um with the curve with having both commercial and residential is that um let me find my place here.

Uh when you convert office buildings without a commercial or retail component, it damages the wall, it it influences and negatively impacts in walkability of the community.

If you have all residential along North Washington Street, which is what the pattern we're starting to see, it's gonna become completely dead during the day and not as safe as it would be if it was a mixed-use development, which it is right now.

Um commercial and retail uses for a mixed-use neighborhood, keep foot traffic consistent throughout the day, provide promote good lighting, walkable surfaces, safe crosswalks, and so other businesses see it as a safe place, an active place, and so they want to move in.

Once you take start taking away more and more commercial spaces, you're changing the neighborhood dynamics completely.

That's all I wanted to say.

And I think it's important to note it.

Please stop misquoting the small area plan.

Um, it was written in 2017.

It was updated in 2022.

That whole chapter was never changed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the applicant.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

I'm Ken Wire with the law firm Wire Gill.

Uh, my colleague PT Blooms, Patrick Bloomfield, and Jerry Ricardi are here.

They should be no strangers to you.

They're doing the two projects across the street, which are under construction.

Um, I do want to note that these conversions are not something that um developers or owners take lightly.

This property's been vacant for two and a half years.

This is not we hit a bump and we're gonna go ahead and try something different.

This client tried for years, the owner to lease it, and the market has responded, this building's not viable.

It has been functionally vacant with four to five people for about two and a half years.

Um, Patrick and his team didn't look to do this project.

They saw it out their window and asked questions, and when it came on the market, they figured they knew the market well and the neighborhood well, and decided to take a good hard look at it.

We worked um hard with Mr.

Shelby to come up with a conversion um that meets the parking requirements.

If you count the tandem to clarify, there are eight spaces in the back because one of them is the dumpster and nine spaces in front.

So one of the spaces is in front of the dumpster.

We'll obviously have to coordinate uh with the building management on that.

In 2017, the city council approved a policy that recommendation that acknowledged office to residential conversions are a good thing.

Vacant office buildings.

Can I finish my testimony?

I don't interrupt yours.

Do I do I?

Do I interrupt your con?

I don't interrupt yours.

I'm not talking about the old Tamp Plan.

I talked about the 2017 office to residential conversion policy.

She's talking about something else.

And in that policy, I hope you read it.

It talks about vacant office buildings or a drag on the community.

An office to residential conversions, generally speaking, or 65 cents on the dollar of net positive impact on the community.

Obviously, an empty office building is detrimental to the viability of the neighborhood.

This is a small building, it's 20 units.

Um we think we've done a good job laying out what we intend to bring to BAR.

To be clear, they have not seen that plan yet, much like your approach uh approval from two months ago for 601 with Street will be going back to BAR.

Um Patrick and his team have extensive experience working with them.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and we agree with all staff.

13 recommended um conditions of approval.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

And if not, I'll take a close motion to close the public hearing.

I have a motion by Commissioner Dubay and a second by Vice Chair Kennig.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Seven zero.

That brings us to commissioner discussion.

Who would like to begin?

I'm gonna just start calling on people, guys.

Commissioner Ramirez.

Um, I just wanted to voice my support for this conversion for the very reason that the market itself has changed substantially.

Um we've seen a lot of office commercial buildings sit empty.

Um, the, you know, there's a general lack of foot traffic around it.

We also have to recognize that residential use has also changed.

There is a very active hybrid uh model these days for working at office and third spaces, homes.

Um, there's a much more kind of fluid, I would say, uh, model um for where people do work.

Um, and I for one am excited about this building being able to live a second life.

I'm I'm looking at it and thinking, thinking to myself, you know, how many um unfortunately, you know, seeing how many, how many buildings and houses, for example, um, do get raised and then something brand new gets put up in it.

But um, how many of them actually have good skeletons that can be reused?

And this is one example of a building that has a good skeleton that can get a second life.

I'm expected to see it get a second life.

Um, and I think hopefully then it'll um encourage a little bit more uh, I would say a little bit more foot traffic around it.

Um, you know, for its uh next iteration.

Thank you.

Other commissioner comments, observations.

I know we're gonna talk in more detail about office to residential conversions in another item on tonight's agenda.

So Mr.

Shelby will hear more as we go.

Um I will be supporting this item.

I live very close to this building.

I walk by it to get to Harris Teeter and Trader Joe's.

I bicycle by it to get to well, I bicycled by it to get to the hearings at City Hall, which I don't think I'll ever get to do again.

Just putting that on the record.

Um another admirable historic building that could be reused and will be reused and re-envisioned.

Um this um what I like, well, some of the things I like about it are um the the relative little it's asking of us in the approval.

So Mr.

Shelby outlined how it's a it's actually kind of a complicated set of things we have to approve or recommend approval for.

But as far as how the shell of the building is going to change um and what people will perceive, we'll see some balconies.

But it's not, it's not getting bigger, it's not elbowing out into space.

It's just putting people in a place that's that doesn't have any way of attracting people today.

And this is um a challenge that we face in many parts of town, uh, across the region and across the country.

So I will foreshadow that I think that this ongoing question of the right amount of office to residential conversion is a totally valid one.

And we will keep asking it because at some point it does make sense that you can't make all the office residential.

You can't make all the commercial residential.

And I think staff know that.

I think the market knows that.

I think the market knows that, but when we are thinking about what will support community vibrancy today in the old town in the old town north, we're walking through and living in for the next 20 years.

We're working with the context that we have today and what what is possible to fill these buildings.

Um so I think this is a very compatible um proposal for this for this project in this location.

Um, and I'm happy to support it.

Any other observations, questions, or motions for the adventurous vice chair canig.

Madam Chair, I I concur with all the observations that have been made in support of the project.

Um and I and I especially second your last observation there about the uh trying to manage the process um or just understand the process and understand when it when we're in the mode where it's something that looks very promising, and so we're we want to activate it and then it happens and it gets some momentum and it goes on for a while, and eventually we have to start thinking about whether it reaches a point where it's not up anymore.

I uh appreciate Ms.

Kennan making her point especially about the uh the the point about the mixed use of things, and I agree that in a perfect world this transition would keep retail on the first floor, we rejuvenate the building, and in the process of that magically find a way to make the retail on the street level vibrant again or ballot or uh feasible again in the context of turning it into a residential building.

That doesn't seem to be possible again.

I think but it it raises the issue that that you've raised, and I think it's one that that we really do um need to look at and um glad I'm glad that you put that in play.

So I would move uh let's see, actually I could turn to Ms.

Brown for a moment.

So we have uh the master plan uh which we're adopting that amendment, but we don't have to initiate.

That's correct, it's one vote on the last one.

Uh and the rezoning and the special use permit and the encroachment, do those all need to be separate or um I would recommend doing the rezoning separate from the special use.

Okay, but the SUP and the encroachment could have yes.

Um I move to uh recommend that we adopt the resolution approving master plan amendment 2025-0005 based on the staff report and the discussion at the I'll second all that.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve the master plan amendment.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries seven zero.

Uh I move to recommend council approval of rezoning 2025 000 six.

Well, we're right.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manner to recommend council approval of the rezoning.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, motion carries 7-0.

I move to recommend council approval of uh special use permit 2025 00066 and encroachment 2025 000.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canick to recommend approval of special use permit and encroachment and a second by commissioner manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries 7-0.

That's all the move, the moves on this one.

Um we did as part of the special use permit.

So we are ready for docket item eight.

Docket item number eight.

Zoning text amendment 2025 is zero zero zero nine, commercial to residential conversions, initiation of a zoning text amendment and public hearing and consideration of a text amendment to Article 12.

Noncompliance and non-conformity of the city's zoning ordinance to establish provisions for office to residential conversions.

And to clarify the regulations related to the use of non-compliance structures generally.

Thank you.

Um, just a quick point of order before staff starts, just to mention to the audience that this is a different kind of a room than we usually operate in, and it's smaller.

And so every time we go we transition between items, um, and Ms.

Jacobs is reading the next item.

The hubbub in the back drowns it out.

Um, I don't know if that actually carries over to the to the recorded or the uh transmitted audio.

As we all get used to the room.

Okay.

Yeah, but it's just as cold.

Um so Sam Shelby again planning and zoning.

So here I'm to talk to you about the uh proposed set of amendments to uh create a special use permit process for conversions.

Um so there's a little bit of background of kind of give you uh some idea of how we got and where we are.

Um the zoning ordinance has basically always allowed higher um non-residential FAR than residential FAR.

And what this means is when a non-residential building gets built at that higher uh FAR, it's difficult to convert it to um a residential use because then it makes it not comply with the with the residential FAR requirements, which is you know for the most part lower than non-residential FAR.

The ordinance has always also uh exempted almost all non-residential buildings from setbacks, open space, and other minimum lot standards, so like minimum dwelling or minimum lot size for dwelling unit or um maximum density requirements, you know, those non-residential buildings aren't subject to that.

Um and then thirdly, the the 1992 rewrite of the uh zoning ordinance.

It was the last time the zoning ordinance was comprehensively rewritten rewritten and new zones created and and properties rezoned across the city.

Um the in the non-residential commercial zones, the FAR was halved basically in a lot of the for you know large swaths of of old town and um the commercial zones in the city.

So these things all together, if a building was constructed at a non-residential um as a non-residential building, and particularly if it was before 1992, it kind of freezes that building in time because of how non-compliant it is.

It's out of whack with the uh in non-complying it is in terms of residential requirements.

And so these things taken together kind of uh create like a zoning puzzle that we have to turn the ordinance inside out and shake it to see if we can find a pathway to convert an existing building from non-residential to residential.

Um so that you know gets into the some of the inefficiencies in this process.

The um we have to interpret certain things to make these these modifications or to make these uh uh conversion projects move forward.

Some of them can't without rezoning the actual building.

Um these are uh issues that add time to the application process.

Um it makes it very unpredictable for applicants whether or not they can proceed on uh path A, B, or C or D.

Um and there's also a lack of consistency, like no two conversion projects that we've seen in the last couple of years are really the same approval types.

So that's cut that kind of gives you an idea of the zoning issues that we're facing here.

Um in 2020 or sorry, 2002, um these staff at the time realized like, you know, maybe it isn't that reasonable to ask for a uh a building that wants to convert from non-residential to residential to be demolished and rebuilt smaller.

And one of the reasons that they uh the primary reason they they you know decided that wasn't reasonable was buildings on King Street that are historic and can't be demolished because they would be erasing the historic fabric of the city.

So what they did was created a special use permit process very similar to the one we're talking we're about to talk to about tonight that allowed for non-residential buildings on King Street to convert to residential uses with special use permit approval.

And this has been successfully implemented um a couple of times on King Street already.

One of the more notable ones was 1101 King Street, which is an enormous office building that was almost all vacant and now is um multiple residential units that's right on King Street and it really activated or will activate a part of King Street that was relatively quiet and uh and vacant.

Um the 2023 zoning for housing policy study um analyzed conversion trends and identified uh further regulatory challenges at the time there were no changes recommended to the zoning ordinance.

The idea being that conversion projects could rely on um section seven seven hundred of the zoning ordinance, which um allows for additional height or FAR in exchange for affordable units.

Um it turns out that that the math doesn't math for that, that the the extra building space that you need to to make a building comply and and follow that path.

Um it can't be achieved through 7700.

7700 limits the density bonus to one third, and that it often is not nearly enough to um accommodate uh conversion from office to residential of a building that is that far out of whack of by uh out of whack as I explained with uh with the residential zoning requirements.

So this slide just shows you some of the recent the conversions that we've we've taken forward since uh zoning for housing.

And um, as you can see, there's uh several in Old Town North.

There's one on Prince Street.

Um, and the one on the bottom I included just because it's uh it's a the most recent one, and that went through the whole the whole process because it was a it was a large addition to the building, and um it's a uh you know, a significant number of units.

But this shows you kind of an idea of the of where these uh properties are and the various approvals they've needed to get before planning commission and city council to convert.

Uh we you know, just as background information, the uh office vacancy rate in Alexandria right now in 2025 hit 21.1%.

Um, and that's about 4.1 million square feet of vacant office space in the city.

And it varies pretty significantly across uh different submarkets.

And some submarkets are have higher vacancy rates because of tenants that moved out, uh large tenant tenants that moved out, or um uh and and some of the lower vacancy rates are due to neighborhoods that provide the things that office users that that the current office market uh is showing to uh be you know, sort of necessary components for uh desirable office space.

So Old Town is is one of the lower area lower vacancy rate areas, and it's because it has a mix of uses.

It's got um residential, it's got retail, it has restaurants, it has a lively neighborhood character that um is what the office market is is demanding currently.

So what we are proposing is a um a new special use permit procedure um that would apply to existing buildings that don't currently or can't comply with residential zoning requirements.

Um the multi-unit use has to be permitted in the zone.

So you couldn't put in this doesn't allow a um a residential building in a zone that doesn't permit it.

Um and this special use permit will be unique because it it will have built into it um the availability to ask for reductions to open space requirements or setbacks or off-street parking and other zoning minimum requirements if the applicant can demonstrate those meetings that meeting those requirements aren't feasible.

Um, as with with every SUP, this is going to be standards subject to the same uh SCP requirements that exist in the ordinance.

So there's a very long list in the ordinance of when council can what council is to consider when they get a special use permit before them.

Um and so basically it's it's all about offset offsetting potential impact.

So if a if a site, if a special use permit comes in to convert a building and they can't provide open space on site, and they they first have to show us that or have to show demonstrate to council that it's not feasible to provide it on site.

And if if it's not provided, they also have to prove to council in order to get approval that the the impacts created by not providing on-site uh open space are mitigated by either um you know a contribution, for example, or the there's some other um mitigating factor that uh mitigates the lack of open space.

That's just one example of of you know, setbacks could be another one that uh could uh that a applicant can request.

So this is just again, just a single special use permit application.

It reduces the time frame for some of these requests from months to three just the standard special use permit time frame, which is about three months.

You know, as I was mentioning before, with with these conversion projects and the complexity of approvals that they need, a lot of that time is lost negotiating with the applicant and and coming and discussing internally what process a uh what track uh a conversion process can get on.

So this would hopefully some you know shorten that time frame a little bit.

Um as I mentioned, so this is these requests would utilize existing special use permit considerations.

So it's uh considerations related to health, safety, and welfare, um, compatibility and neighborhood impact.

And this would also give council better ability to review the project that's actually in front of them.

So does the conversion align with the small area plan goals?

And some of these examples are um, you know, in Eisenhower East, the small area plan identifies certain minimum office densities near the metro.

And so if a if a request came forward for a special use permit for a conversion under this um under this process that council could say could say no.

They could say yes, you can convert portions of the building to residential, but in order to stay consistent with the small area plan, you have to have less residential and retain some commercial um another example is Old Town North Small Area Plan establishes criteria that sort of set up um buildings that would be likely conversion candidates.

So again, these are building age and amenities and uh trains at proximity.

And so if it was a building that was brand new and had great amenities and it was a office a great office space, then council could have uh an ability to either condition an approval or possibly deny a request for a special use permit to convert.

And so this is again to try to keep to give council the the ability to uh take a more inclusive and holistic of review of these requests.

Because one of the one of the main problems that we have with these these ad hoc kind of uh special use permit conversion projects is that often the question being asked is is it okay to provide less parking here?

And by the way, we also need to have um an open space modification and setback modifications, and it's not necessarily can we convert this building?

Is it it's more framed in like you know, is this part less parking um compatible with the neighborhood and will impacts be created?

So the question being asked is not necessarily the one it is not necessarily can this building be converted.

So this this what we're proposing allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the conversion um and and gives council that uh you know a little bit better uh frame to uh to actually review what's being proposed.

Um the idea that this would follow the current voluntary housing contribution policy is the we would it would follow the the current housing contribution policy, though there's a s an established rate for um converting a building with a special use permit and the this would this would because this is a special use permit and would enable conversion, it would it would follow that current policy.

There's a there's a handful of other updates again.

Whenever we crack the ordinance open, we find some other opportunities for improvement.

One of them is to relocate um the residential reversion process, and so this process establishes when a building can be converted um back to residential that was originally constructed as a residence.

Right now it's in a definition section and it's a process, so it doesn't really belong in a definition section.

And we're also updating that slightly to allow for um additional residential density.

That those requirements right now limit um the number of units to whatever the maximum number of units that previous previously existed on the property, and in some cases that's lower than what the zone allows for residential density.

And so basically the idea is what we're saying is now it can be either in compliance with the zone or the number of units that existed previously, whichever is higher.

Some sort of minor changes also are the ones that I skipped over just now are um the zoning ordinance doesn't really define um how to change or what the what the parameters are for changing and use in a non-compliant building in general.

And so what this what we're proposing are just changes that say you know the use has to be permitted in the zone.

You can't increase existing non-compliance um unless this uh this sort of process is sought or another another enabling you know process is followed.

Um and so that those are just kind of technical updates that we're making to non-compliant building regulations.

We launched the city website or we launched this information on the city website in back in August, and we've had we've talked to you all before back in October about conversions.

Um we sent out multiple e-news notifications and we held a community open house in October as well.

This has been mentioned at the um the our planning and zoning virtual community updates.

We met with Arlington County staff as well as NAOP.

Um and we haven't really heard a lot of feedback, and I you know, part of the reason I think that is is because we're not this isn't necessarily this is almost amounts to a technical update that it's not um a brand new process or allowing brand new things, it's just changing kind of the what is being requested and and considered at these at these meetings for conversions.

That's a lot of uh dense information, and I'm finished and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has to ask how many Shelbyisms I'm gonna keep track of tonight because we had we had a free range egg analogy.

And then this time we had math doesn't math.

Which is terrific.

So thank you.

Um thank you for these gems.

Sorry, everybody.

Um questions for staff.

Commissioner Brown.

No questions, just a comment.

Um this proposal made a lot of sense to me when you presented it to us in October.

Um when you presented it again here in uh January.

Um the arguments for the change are even more compelling and cohesive.

And I did my usual thing, which was to compare what you're saying that you're doing with the actual text of the proposed changes to the text amendment, and I see zero problems.

I think you're getting done what you intend to get done.

So I'm looking forward to uh to supporting this.

Thank you.

Um I believe we have a public hearing.

Yes, we do.

So um please.

Our first speaker is Melissa Cainan.

Followed by Ken Weyer.

Thank you.

Aren't you guys freezing?

Yes.

Um I'm Melissa Kennan.

I live in Old Town North Montgomery Street.

Um, I I think conversions are a great idea to solve a temporary problem, but I don't know if any of you are old enough to remember in the 1980s when there was a surplus of schools, and almost every single school that had fewer than a certain percentage of students, all nationwide were converted to housing.

Then within 10 years, every city was responsible for providing more and more how more schools.

They had to fund new schools because they didn't have ones that they could convert back into schools.

I think we're in the same problem here.

Um one concern I have is that there are three stakeholders here when you have a conversion.

You have the city, you have the developer property owner, and you have the neighborhood.

This text amendment is written only for the first two stakeholders.

Shouldn't laws be balanced?

There is nothing in here, it's a glaring omission that there's nothing mentioned here in about the neighborhood ever.

Nothing in here about a neighborhood.

So what I'd like to present is a um that the city come uh ask the staff to come back with a little bit better plan that includes benefits to the neighborhoods.

Umce there's a uh forgiveness of meaning even the minimum zoning residential zoning requirements, there needs to be some kind of positive impact on the neighborhood.

Um, I'd like to recommend that a couple of things.

Funds could be donated to the um to that particular area since the Eisenhower and Old Town North neighborhoods are targeted specifically for this, that a fund be created to um for the expansion and improvement of public open space and street landscaping, since we'll be those will be eliminated from what the developer has to provide.

Um that ground for retail or commercial uses be uh encouraged by the city and not just accepted that they can't find anybody for uses for conversions over a certain size, and also for every conversion in Old Town North, they should also follow the arts contribution that's required for any residential development.

Um it took decades to create mixed-use developments in the city, and I really hate to hear the conversation turning more toward let's just convert all the office buildings.

Um in Old Town North, since it's specifically targeted, I think you need to know some statistics.

That um the neighborhood, the number of anticipated conversions and DSP um development projects since the 2017 S SAP have been exceeded by the total that were anticipated.

There are a total of 17 17 conversions or developments of commercial buildings.

Um, and we're only a quarter square mile large.

Thank you.

And this is a neighborhood that's that's adopted.

The other one is that 1201 East Abingdon Drive is missing from the staff list.

Why is that?

That's the largest conversion that added more residents to a neighborhood without any residential um possibilities.

So again, we just asked them please to consider including the neighborhood in your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next and final speaker is Ken Wire.

Good evening again, everyone.

Uh my name is Ken Wire, and tonight I'm speaking on behalf of NAOP Northern Virginia.

We're the largest commercial real estate association in the Commonwealth of Virginia with over 900 members.

Um, since I've been a member 20 years ago, we have a very um intense dialogue with city staff on all policy members on all policy actions, excuse me.

And our role in that is to make sure technical things work out from the development industry side.

I do want to give Mr.

Shelby credit.

We spent a lot of time on this.

Um, he did a very good job on talking about a technical amendment to allow something to happen that in my opinion needs to happen.

Um I went with Arlington County staff recently.

They're trying to get rid of some number of millions of square feet of office in their community because it actually drags down the office rent.

We actually have a diametrically opposed office and residential problem in our community.

We have residential not availability, the price is too high, people can't move in.

We have the opposite problem with office.

There's too much of it, it's old, and no one could pay to renovate it.

And our discussion, Mrs.

Um McKinnon's correct, that we do need to have a conversation about it.

But tonight, what it is is allowing a technical mechanism to do that.

I think staff did a great job doing it.

I'll save you from rambling on.

We support staff's recommended policy and look forward to bringing future future applications under this new text amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And was that our last speaker?

Yes.

Okay.

I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Kennig and a second by Commissioner Manor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

I think Commissioner Ramirez also had a related either.

Okay.

7-0.

Thank you.

That brings us to Commissioner discussion.

Who would like to begin?

Commissioner Brown.

I've already expressed my endorsement of this project.

I want to just take a moment to respond to one of the speakers tonight on this project.

What I hear, what I see is a claim that this amendment only serves two out of three stakeholders, namely not the neighborhood.

And that this is true, especially since the increase in market rate housing will continue to exacerbate the existing affordable high affordability crisis and increase the disparity of income among residents.

I disagree with this.

Uh not because I'm supporting this project because I think that this is basically economically illiterate.

Um the supply of housing and the and the market rate of rents for that housing is influenced by the abundance of the supply of housing.

When you increase the number of market rate housings, you increase the overall supply of housing, which has a downward impact on the price of rental units.

That is a benefit to the third stakeholder, which is claimed by this by this uh witness to be not served.

So I I disagree with the whole premise of this opposition.

And I just felt important to state that on the record.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Commissioner Dubai.

Yeah, just briefly, I I do support this amendment, and generally I'm gonna support anything that reduces the amount of time it gets it takes to get through the process and for us to get to an approval on a good project.

And while I'm not as eloquent as my colleague Mr.

Brown, I you know how the neighborhood benefits to me, the neighborhood benefits by having a building with people in it versus a two-year bacon building.

That's my observation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lanahan and then Commissioner Ramirez.

Yeah, I think we have a series of these discussions happening this evening about these the conversion of existing buildings, and we could choose to speak at any one of these moments.

But um, I think every one of us, from what I understand, did ask staff about what happens to that um balance of commercial and residential because we all in fact want mixed use.

And um it's not a perfect answer, but I do believe that they're conscientious and aware of that issue, and that there will be a point at which someone will apply and they'll say, I'm sorry, but the small area plan requires that there continue to be commercial, and the this is not the moment to approve it.

So I have to believe that that there's enough staff awareness of that and interest in mixed use that they will um work to make sure that that happens.

So I chose to say that this time rather than the other examples.

Commissioner Ramirez.

Just wanted to also express my support for this um amendment.

Um again, I I echo uh uh fellow commissioner Dubai's um sentiment that in providing this kind of time capsule or time cap um for the process.

I hope I I hope that that helps um any applicants who come forward into the city.

Um, I know that you know, in in any in the course of any development, you know, by the time it comes to us, um, most of the applicants have already had a fairly large expenditure on their own part, um, doing feasibility studies, just trying to um uh understand and and confirm the success of the project that they're gonna move forward with, um, not to mention uh land purchasing if that that is already taking place, market studies, um a lot of expenditures have gone into place already before before you even comes comes forward.

Um so so being able to to capture time um uh for any applicant that comes to the city.

I hope that that helps to facilitate the application process.

Um, and and I also do agree that uh, you know, on one hand, it is true we we want to make sure that there is that balance, right?

Um, we do recognize um that there is a conscientious approach to evaluating different project types throughout the city and relative to our small area plans, relative to the master plans.

Um we we are not, I would say, from the planning and zoning office side, from all of our various commission sides as well, not interested in seeing the city fail.

Um, and we have seen different models be able to be very successful, and so I I have to say, you know, I'm I'm in support of this.

Um, one part for that temporal um capture, uh, one part for um kind of reacting and developing and thinking in real time relative to the context of the market that we're in.

Um, and then hopefully then, you know, looking forward, right?

We're going to re-evaluate and be very thoughtful in um how we uh approach other projects and other uh market conditions as they come at us.

Thank you.

Commissioner Manor.

I'll just add my voice to the um I'm in favor and I'm particularly in favor because you're simplifying things.

Commissioner Ramirez is quite right.

People go in to a lot of expense before they even come forward to do this.

And my understanding is that not all commercial office buildings lend themselves easily to residential commercial.

And I like to say that this erase the line between home and office.

Yeah, this phenomenon is not going to go away.

I mean, it used to be the city was all about attracting commercial office development, and that's gone out the window.

We just the demand just isn't there anymore.

And I think the city is quite lucky to have the demand for commercial for uh conversions.

And I also like to say I don't think we have one docket where there's not a conversion on the for us.

And again, to make it simpler to fill up empty buildings, I'm all in favor.

I congratulate you on coming forward thinking this through because I know there's a lot of group group complicated pieces to the puzzle.

Commissioner Mann.

Um, I will be supporting this item.

I will I want to highlight, I won't go over some some of the same ground that my fellow colleagues have, but I wanted to draw a connection, um, the connection in my mind between office to residential conversions and form-based codes, because what I see this initiative doing is acknowledging that we want to use buildings over and over again and make them into what they need to be today, not necessarily what worked for the neighborhood 20 or more years ago.

The fact that we can do this with with office buildings is actually pretty cool.

I think we have a lot of residential development these days that maybe wouldn't convert so well because of the way we build it for another night's work session.

Um, but but office buildings are often built, have been built historically very well.

They have those bones.

There's something that can be can be repurposed.

Um, and it's speaking to the fact that we have successfully throughout the country um implemented codes that acknowledge that a lot of what makes a building compatible is not the exact thing that's happening inside it, but it's the way that building interacts with its with its streetscape.

So we're saying that we can put residents in these buildings and they will interact and and be part of the community just like office building tenants would in that same space.

Um, so this is not um conceptually challenging for me.

I also want to acknowledge um our um Ms.

Kennan's concerns that we make sure we have ways of looking at the impacts, and I think that staff have have addressed that appropriately because what we're um what's before us for recommendation for approval tonight is a new SUP.

It's still a special use permit, nothing's happening administratively, nothing is by right.

This is still something that comes before us that are that is considered in the context of each small area plan and for master plan conformancy and for its potential impacts based on the change in use.

So we have a lot of opportunity to have these conversations for the development proposal to capture these things, and we saw some of that in the item earlier tonight.

How is it going to provide for for open space, even if it can't provide for all the anticipated open space?

Um so I think the SUP process helps us with that.

Um and lastly, I wanted to mention um there are some maybe more minor benefits associated with being willing to reuse these buildings.

If if we didn't want to do this and we wanted to insist that these buildings needed to stay commercial, then we would be sitting next to empty buildings for potentially a long, long time.

Um another option that developers have is to tear down buildings and build something brand new.

And when they do that, we lose the the embodied carbon.

We've sort of gotten rid of the embodied carbon of the building, and when we're doing office to residential conversions, we're actually trying to do as little as possible to we're reusing as much as possible and and disposing of as little as possible.

So I think that that's a sustainable approach to understanding the value of the urban fabric that we've created.

Um and another sort of minor thing that I wanted to mention is the construction related impacts and disruptions to communities and neighborhoods.

Um if if a property owner felt they couldn't reuse a building, and while these projects are complex, I find my experience is they're not quite as disruptive as full teardowns and rebuilds of buildings that then have a excavation sheeting and shoring for underground parking, which we wouldn't expect in a lot of new residential development.

I've lived through excavation, sheeting and shoring of underground parking very close to my house, and it's not fun.

So if we can find that a reuse is compatible with what it already has, not creating any new holes in the ground, it's overall going to be a reoccupancy and a revitalization of a space next to neighborhoods and homes that that don't then have to go through a four-year, you know, construction mess around a full a full rebuild of a project.

Um so I think that some of these things are really it'll it'll be site by site, but um this is a it's something that we know we value.

We've been doing it for some time.

This makes us able to do it even better than we have been in the past, and I support that effort.

Yes, Commissioner Maynard.

Just getting back to my sense that we're lucky.

Yeah, I'm very fortunate in my retirement to be able to travel quite a bit, and the for lease or the more desperate for lease or for sale signs is a global phenomenon.

You see it everywhere, and again, we are lucky in the city that there is a demand for conversion.

We're not sitting on many, many thousands of square feet of empty space, not generating any economic activity.

So again, thank you guys for putting the effort into streamlining the process.

I have one final thing to say.

I think um, because we see so many conversions, there's sort of the implication or presumption that it's easy, and in fact, it's not easy.

Most office buildings, I guess we're lucky, I guess, in this area that ours are smaller, and so it they are convertible, but um many cities that have larger office buildings, they just are gonna stay vacant.

So I think we should consider that as well.

All right, I'm happy to entertain a motion tonight, Chairman.

I move that we initiate zoning text amendment.

Um oh oh oh no.

Second all right, I have a motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Commissioners Ramirez and Commissioner Ramirez will get that one.

Okay, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

Oh nine.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion by Commissioner Brown and a second by Commissioner Lanahan to recommend approval of zoning text amendment.

All right, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

Thank you very much.

Docket item number nine.

Master plan amendment 2025 0004, grain building plan, initiation of a master plan amendment.

Staff is the City of Alexandria Office of Climate Action.

Please, Mr.

Free, proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am Ryan Freed, the city's climate action officer.

I'm joined today with by Dustin Smith, the Green Building Manager, and Bonnie Brown, uh Deputy City Attorney.

Um, I want to start by just first by thanking Department of General Services and the Information Technology Services team for setting this up.

This has been a huge effort from them to put us in this new space, and they've done a great job.

I think things are working pretty well tonight.

And I just wanted to start by thanking them for letting us be here and having a well-run event tonight.

Um I also, for the Green Building Plan, I want to thank our partners across the city, including the city attorney's office, planning and zoning, code, housing, and many other departments that helped us get us to where we are to be able to present this tonight.

And of course, I want to thank my team, the Office of Climate Action, who spent a significant amount of time developing this plan.

I also think that it's important to thank the community for the robust feedback we've had on this over the last couple of years.

Um it's been about two years, um, a little under two years since we kicked off the advisory group for this.

Um I think it's important to note that, especially here on January 6th, that we can have passionate conversations in a respectful way, um, and that we can demonstrate how community can have um differences of opinion um and and create good policy.

Um so I'm grateful to be here with the city and in the city that cares about this topic.

All right.

So the green building plan, um, a new chapter in Alexandria's master plan.

Um ultimately we're here tonight because we're in a climate crisis.

Um, and this has a profound impact on our reliability on the resilience of our community, on our daily lives.

Um, the climate has a significant impact in everything we do.

Um, the city has taken this very seriously for many years.

Um, and this green building plan is the next step in the city's response to that.

Um, the city has an environmental action plan 2040, which sets really robust goals.

Um, overall, that is to achieve a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and at least 80% uh reduction by 2050.

Um, that requires us to take significant actions, um, especially in our built environment.

When we're talking about climate change, we have to understand what it really means for our community.

And this is not something that's abstract.

Um, we feel this in Alexandria very clearly.

Um, greenhouse gas emissions lead to climate change.

Um, and we have that has a severe impact on our community.

I think one of the most important things uh is this chart that we have here.

It comes from the Energy and Climate Change Action Plan, um, which was adopted about two years ago.

Um the reality here is is that it's getting hotter um and it's getting measurably and noticeably hotter um in Alexandria from historically having one day over 100 degrees Fahrenheit to in the 2050s, we plan we expect to have about 10 days that are over 100 degrees and the 10 times increase in the number of extreme heat days.

Um, and if you look at the days above 90 degrees, we're looking at more than double that um in the next 20 years of what we can be expecting.

Um that's significant.

We'll also be seeing increased storms and increased flooding along with this.

I think the most important thing to talk about this is the impact that this has on our community.

Um, this also has a huge impact on utility resilience.

When we're talking about electricity, when we're talking about efficiency, when we're talking about how buildings and people use energy in our community, this is what's important.

Um Dominion Energy's latest integrated resource plan says that based on the growth in the region, um, largely from data centers and other uses outside of Alexandria, um, we're gonna need to double our generation in the next 20 years.

Um PJM, our regional transmission operator, um, they're having a hard time procuring enough generation now in order to meet the resilience requirements that they have to have to say that we have a reliable electricity grid.

Reducing our energy use is a significant contributor to that reliability.

If we continue to grow energy use, if we continue to have a problem with reliability, we will see brownouts, we will see blackouts, and that's not just inconvenient, that's life-threatening.

Um, not having the ability to have electricity when we expect to turn the flip the switch and turn the lights on.

It's not just an inconvenience.

And that means we're losing food in our refrigerators.

We're losing opportunities that we need.

And that's real money, that's medicine, um, that's rent.

These are things that have a real impact on Alexandrians.

So affordability and livability are primary concerns and drivers for why we're putting the green building plan together.

When we did this, um, uh as the planning commission is probably aware, um, the planning commission and environmental policy commission submitted a letter and really asked us to look at the green building policy from 2019 and make some updates to it.

When staff did that, we wanted to look at it in a way that focused really on the key metrics.

What are the things that are going to help us make the biggest impact toward achieving our environmental action plan goals?

We also wanted to remove costly requirements.

We wanted to reduce the amount of requirements that were necessary and create some regulatory certainty for the industry.

If we can do those things together while achieving our environmental action plan goals, that's that is a win for everyone, the community, the industry, and hitting our city goals.

Through the policy development process, we kicked this off in about in March of 2024 with an advisory group.

The Green Building Policy Advisory Group included about 14 members, including Commissioner Koenig as a representative for the planning commission.

I see in the audience a couple of members of the advisory group are here as well.

And we met regularly on specific topics throughout that.

Staff in about April of 2025 released the draft of the green building policy update.

And then you can see on this slide, all of those green dots are the are a sample of the public conversations that we had, including meeting with the planning commission, the environmental policy commission, and many meetings with NAOP and industry representatives.

As we built the green building plan, there are four major components that we focused on when we said we wanted to focus where it matters.

These are the pieces that staff believed where it matters.

It also tracks really well with what the EPC and the Planning Commission put forward as their recommendation.

So those are energy use intensity, renewable energy, electrification, and then there is a smattering of additional resilience provisions that we'll discuss.

So first is energy use intensity.

Why energy use intensity and what is it?

It's a pretty simple measure of how much energy a building uses.

It is literally how much energy it uses converted into British thermal units divided by the amount of square footage in the building.

And that gives us a number.

And that is EUI.

This is important because we think energy use is the key driver of greenhouse gas emissions.

We we know it is.

Ultimately, this green building plan is designed so that energy performance is a key factor in the design of a building.

That just like open space and other things that the city has as requirements for buildings, that from the outset, from concept through design and completion of a project, that energy performance is a key factor that applicants are looking at for those projects.

You'll see here that we have different EUI targets recommended for the varying property uses.

Different property uses have different energy intensity.

And we've set uh targets here that reflect that.

Happy to go into more detail about that in the question period, but the the explanations are in the staff report and in uh the green building plan directly.

When we were developing the target, um, we used we went through quite a lot of analysis, um, including support from the Pacific Northwest national labs to help us do some prototype models and regional analysis.

We also um hired Cadmus group to do models that talked about the costs and what different building types would look like.

Um, we also looked at additional analysis for actual properties from the District of Columbia that give us actual energy use and Alexandria using code and applic and submissions from applicants, whether it's at the building permit phase or through the DSUP process.

We have a few examples here.

Um, and I want to take a moment.

I know that we showed we have shared some of these examples with you previously.

There have been a few adjustments to this.

Um we had um some mistakes in unit counts and um in uh square footage previously.

None of the EUIs have changed in this, but we did change, we we did have some unit and square footage numbers that were wrong.

Uh the industry let us know, let us know of those.

So we um corrected those in there.

Um, these examples all are projects that are in Alexandria and all of the EUIs are based on um submissions from applicants.

Um, and the majority of these are at or near the 38 multifamily EUI target that we have set.

See here a couple of projects.

Um, uh the Montgomery Center project, um, the Eisenhower Block 20, it does not meet the 38 EUI recommendation.

It is one of the larger buildings, um, but its submission had it designed at a 40.1 EUI.

And then there are also um three projects in North Potomac Yard, including the BE building, which I believe this commission recently approved, um and then block 15 and block 19, all of which currently are designed to exceed the 38 EUI that staff is recommending for multifamily properties.

DC examples are interesting as well.

Um DC examples are actual energy use.

So with the Washington, Washington, DC has a benchmarking and disclosure policy.

So every year, every property over 10,000 square feet has to submit their benchmarking report through Energy Star Portfolio Manager.

And since 2023, that data is certified by a third party at their submission.

All of these examples are from the 2023 data benchmarking analysis.

You can see this is a variety of different types of building types, including some smaller projects with four and five stories, yeah, condos with the view condos there in the middle and a 24 EUI up to the Loom, which has 750 units and 750,000 square feet, and is at a 35 EUI.

If we look at all of the projects in DC, when we did our analysis, we limited those to projects that had been built since 2019.

So we're looking at the newest buildings and that are that are in compliance with the DC benchmarking law, meaning they had submitted and they had had their data verified.

And we looked at all of the buildings that were six plus stories.

Um their larger building stock.

The average EUI of all 28 of those buildings in DC was a 43.8.

If you take the average of the top 75%, so you drop the bottom quarter of performing buildings, you get an UI average of 38.8.

Um so well within the range that staff is recommending for the EUI for multifamily properties.

There are also other policies that are relevant to bring up here.

Um Montgomery County, Maryland has a building energy performance standard.

Um this applies to all buildings, not new construction, but existing buildings.

Um they have set for all buildings over 25,000 square feet by 2036.

Multifamily properties have to get to a 37 EUI.

Um Washington, DC also has a building performance standard.

Um theirs is a little bit different.

It works off of um works off both energy star score and some um GHG analysis, but generally right now, for their first improvement cycle, the performance path requires a 20% improvement in energy efficiency.

Um this is to say that when we build buildings, if we don't build efficient buildings, then we have to go back and fix them.

Um we only have the opportunity to build a building right the first time once.

Um, and that's what we want to do here.

And that's what this plan is intending to do is make sure that energy performance is is there at the outset.

So we don't have the problem that we have in Washington, DC, where we have extraordinarily inefficient buildings that need to then be regulated.

We also don't have the ability to regulate, like Washington, DC does for existing building stock.

Um, so we want to make sure that we're getting there now with new buildings.

It's also important to note um the new buildings institute, um, a nonprofit that focuses on new construction um codes.

Um, they have zero energy performance targets.

We bring this up understanding that this is far in excess of the EUI that we are recommending as staff.

Um, but the Energy and Climate Change Action Plan and the Environmental Action Plan both call for staff to present policies that give it us to net zero buildings by 2030.

Um in order to do that, these would be the EUIs recommended by the new buildings institute.

Um, and again, this is considerably lower than where we are, but also NBI has established these with an understanding of what is possible to build.

Um, so just putting that out there for that context of where they would need to be in order to achieve that 2030 goal.

So that's EUI.

Um, the other significant component is renewable energy.

Um, generating renewable energy is absolutely essential in order to have clean energy provided to our facilities in order to have clean energy and improve the reliability of our grid, making sure that we have the ability to generate energy on our buildings within the borders of Alexandria is valuable for this.

Um recommendation from staff in the green building plan is that we have a 3% requirement to produce energy on site.

Um so every building would have to require, we have to produce renewable energy, it's likely solar, um, on site to achieve 3% of what they anticipate their energy use being.

We would also recommend the creation of a clean energy fund.

Um, if properties can't or don't choose to install solar on their properties or renewable energy on their properties, they would pay into a fund.

The calculation is here of how they would do that with a benchmark price.

Um, and we recommend a cap of 150,000 on that fund.

Contributions to that fund would come to the city, and then the Office of Climate Action would recommend projects to renewable energy or energy efficiency projects to invest that money into.

So think investments in affordable housing projects or city facilities to put solar panels on those because the city also has renewable energy goals to achieve here, making sure that we're having those contributions have social impact to both create generate energy in Alexandria to mitigate the impact of new development, but also to make sure that we're reducing energy burden on either taxpayers by reducing the city's energy costs or on projects like affordable housing, where we'll see a significant benefit by improving affordability.

Uh the third major component is electrification.

This carries forward a lot of the work that has already been done in Alexandria.

The vast majority of residential projects, for instance, already have almost entirely electric units.

So most project, most residential units are almost entirely electric right now, with some exceptions.

This would just carry that forward and bring it into the master plan.

This would allow some exceptions for things, amenities like fireplaces and grills.

Our has happened through discussions with industry is that we had originally proposed exempting uh central laundry and hot water for hotels.

Um, this would also extend that to multifamily if they have that centralized laundry and hot water, um, just because those are not as easy to electrify um as other systems would be.

Um you often hear requests for exceptions for dedicated outdoor air systems.

This would provide that for now, um, allowing those systems and then, of course, emergency generators much easier uh for uh to have backup generation that is fossil fuels for those.

Finally, we have a few additional provisions.

Um, one thing to keep in mind is that this the 2019 policy uses um broader certifications that have a broader sustainability approach to them and aren't just focusing in the areas where we think we'll take the biggest swings to move the needle.

Um we did want to carry forward some of those provisions that we think are particularly important to meet the resilience requirements that we have in the city to mitigate the impact of development.

Um that includes making sure we have energy and water conservation, making sure we can meter the energy and water use, um, EV charging infrastructure, um, and making sure we have efficient appliances and indoor air quality testing to make sure that our homes and residences and office spaces are healthy.

Um there is also because adaptive reuse is the topic of the evening, um, there's also additional flexibility created in there for conversions because as was brought up in the last conversation, um, the embodied carbon, the benefit that is shown from that is absolutely valuable.

Um, and we want to acknowledge that there is value to that and that we don't have to mitigate as much impact when we're doing a conversion project.

So we're recognizing that by creating that additional flexibility here at the plan.

Ultimately, we know climate change is happening and climate changes here.

Um we it's hard to recognize how hot it is going to get when we're standing sitting in this room and it's a little bit chilly.

Um but it is getting hotter.

Um and we have to do something about that for our community's well-being.

Um, the green building plan is really designed to make sure that new developments contribute to the community.

Um, that as we're putting new developments together, that they are giving as much back to the community as they can.

Um they're not providing harm and they're not taking away from our ability to meet our climate action goals.

Um, this framework also sets it up to where through time we can adjust these down.

So if we see that we need to hit lower and lower EUIs to hit that net zero target, this gives us the ability to do that without wholesale improvements or changes in the way that we're regulating buildings.

Um, this is a significant change in the way that we look and regulate the properties and developments as they come in.

Um, but this gives us an incredible amount of flexibility as we move forward to make adjustments to that.

I believe that that's the end of my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Trade.

Are there any questions for staff?

Um, Commissioner Manner and then commission uh Vice Chair Kennedy.

Uh there was an applicant here tonight who converted an office building across from building.

I have an apartment.

And it bothers me so much because put a gym in the basement and the lights are on 24-7.

And that really tuned into that.

And then I realized that exterior lighting on either side of the front door is also on 24/7.

And it just strikes me like why can't we regulate and say that facilities like a gym that aren't used 24-7 or on motion detectors for lights.

And the applicant, I actually brought this up in a meeting that somebody didn't move around enough and the lights went off and she fell down and he was afraid to sue her or she'd sue him.

Uh but the exterior lighting.

Why aren't those on photosensors?

It doesn't make sense.

It's obviously raising the operating costs of the building.

But it also eats up energy necessarily.

I'm anyone who's ever lived with me knows that I throw nothing away.

And I just don't like waste.

And it just bothers me so much and it just seems like this is the opportunity to build this stuff in.

So I'm curious that that's going to be part of it.

So part of the I will say beauty, though you may not find it beautiful a part of the beauty of the green building plan is that it provides that encouragement to put those in without the requirement.

So going through and requiring each specific measure that could save energy and that would result in reductions in EUI is a lot of work.

We also have codes that already mandate some of those things.

So what this does is it puts that flexibility that opportunity in the hands of the designers and the developers to make the choices that will bring their EUI down.

It certainly encourages it.

The other benefit that the city has is that we have really talented staff like Dustin who can work directly with the developers if they come forward and say, you know, we're having trouble getting this building down to a 38 and we can say great here are some things that we want to look at here's some here are some suggestions that we would have as staff.

So it's general yes get down to our yes yeah by setting the UI target and then letting the developers designers get there they can make tradeoffs and choices that will have a lot in fact.

Yep.

Commissioner Keeney thank you Chair um thank you Mr.

Ryan and um actually before I start and in case we all get engaged and I forget to do it later I'd like to make a point of uh expressing appreciation to you and to Mr Smith and to uh all of your colleagues this has really been a fairly heroic effort um and I think that um uh a lot of us are concerned about how long things uh take sometimes and I'm among them but I think the other thing the corollary to that is that when things are very complex and very um difficult to reach consensus on uh it takes a tremendous amount of effort and ends up taking a fair amount you all have been sort of white hot core of that for uh a while and it's really very much appreciated even if uh there are a lot of us who don't uh make a point of uh breaking as well should so um I have a set of questions for you that is not anywhere near as long as the set of questions that that we uh worked on the other day um but there's still a couple of things that I was hoping to ask you about uh and the first one that just occurred to me while you were um making the presentation could we go back to the um the slide that has the uh NBI the new building institute um I think it was nearly perfect so when when you when you set this up you mentioned that our our current plans have uh have goals uh built into them to achieve net zero energy by a certain day and what what was that year that you said 2030.

2030 okay so here's my question I was gonna ask in another in another context that that's net zero energy assuming uh our all new all new construction throughout the city not differentiated by a public private reuse type or anything correct but the goal is to be at a hundred percent new construction being net zero by 2030 and that goal has been in there for for a while right yeah so my question is uh it it seems that uh it calendar just turned again and we're sitting here in 2026 getting ready to sign off on a plan that just took us two years of letter writing followed by two years of work to do and where in this plan is the piece that gets us to net zero energy for all new architecture so I mean we believe that this creates the framework to get us there um by focusing on the EU I and the renewable energy those those are the two factors I we could be at net zero with policy now to say you have to be at net zero and then it would require significant amounts of renewable energy to do that unless they directly went to unless developers made more efficient buildings.

So what we're hoping is that this brings energy into the beginning of the design discussion and that will get developers to start to understand what are the choices that they're making and how does it affect energy use to help us get them to start designing better buildings um to then we can achieve the net zero standard um by the 2030 deadline um it absolutely would require I mean either require a policy that just simply says achieve net zero um in 2030 or um the ramping down of UI as appropriate okay well I think that's I didn't didn't want to spend a lot of time on that because it's literally not in a plan and we have a gigantic plan that we have up here.

But I think it's a kind of for me, it's a sort of elephant in the room at this point.

Um we also have uh in the ECAP, we have a uh situation which is the one I had pulled out before, which is by FY2029, shall establish the legislative code, education project support incentives, verification infrastructure required to ensure that all new construction is carbon neutral by FY2030.

So we have we have a set of interlocking requirements here that are talking about achieving that zero energy carbon neutrality, which are related but not exactly the same thing.

Um and yet we have a plan that's that sets parameters that will not get us there as they're set now.

So I think this I think that's just something we we should acknowledge.

And I think it's something that a lot of us have been worrying about for the last five or ten years.

I think we're getting to the point where it's sort of it sort of requires a level of disbelief that's tough to maintain to say what we're just saying right now without acknowledging that the 2030 number is not real, or that we're accepting the fact that what we're doing is not yes.

But to be a little less on the negative side, this leads me to another issue that I wanted to ask you about that I think is uh mostly just logistical, but raises another issue, which is in the September draft of the plan, there was a section that talked about establishing development review.

And there was also a section that described how future updates would be made.

Um that's not in the current direct.

So when we talked about this other the other day, I honored the impression that you said that you sense that that was a sort of inadvertent omission.

We a couple of us still have it in our recommended modifications tonight to make sure those things are in there.

But that leads us the second of those, the future updates.

That article basically said that this plan will authorize the Office of Climate Action and the Climate Action Officer to make a biennial review of all these uh criteria and report and make recommendations to city council every two years.

So are we can we assume that we're gonna get from 38 EUI to the 25 EUI of the building institute, we're gonna get from 3% renewable energy requirements to something that actually achieves 100% on off-site.

Is that going to happen in the next two two-year review?

I mean, that relies on the planning commission and council um approving those.

So I can't say we are going to get there.

Certainly, staff's intent is to achieve the goals of the environmental action plan, which gets us to net zero buildings by 2030.

You just mentioned it requires planning commission and council to approve it, but also requires you to propose it.

Yes.

Okay.

So moving off.

Um, back to this question of the development, the the other item that was in there that authorizes you to make a development review process that translates everything in this plan into actionable consistent, replicable review process for projects.

So am I correct that those two, the development review and the periodic update segments are going to come are tended to come back into the uh we'll have to review those and and and make sure and and we'll take what the commission I can just foreshadow that uh the at least part of one of the motions tonight will include acknowledging that those were there, reinforcing how critically they important they are, and um hoping the planning commission will recommend that they okay, thank you.

Um to the clean energy fund, if I if I could.

So if if one primary objective of the plan is to create new buildings which generate renewable energy, which we have acknowledged in your presentation, and I think the mantra we've talked about for a long time, that was back in the letters that EPC and PC wrote a couple of years ago, and that you have in a slide here is basically electric, efficient, and renewable.

My understanding as we went through this entire thing was that all three of those things are critically important.

Um they all do different things, but they're all critically important part of this plan.

So if indeed one primary objective is to create buildings that generate that do actually generate renewable energy on site, which we have a vanishingly small number so far, um, why is this clean energy fund the option?

So there are a number of reasons for this.

Um the main is in the conversations we've had with the development community is that there are simply restrictions to site restrictions to putting renewable energy on buildings, whether it's the roof design doesn't allow for it or height restrictions or choices by the developer to not want to do that because they're using the roof for amenity space or other reasons.

Um our belief was that if we could take those clean energy fund contributions and still deploy those in the city, um, we're mitigating the impact that that development is creating.

So we're still meeting that requirement.

But we're also able to aggregate those together.

So 3% on a new market rate building here and 3% on another building there is not the same value as putting aggregating those together and putting it on a city facility or an affordable housing project at a higher rate where we can get a bigger impact in reducing energy burden as well as mitigating the impact of by having clean energy generated in Alexandria.

So giving that option also gives us the opportunity to have additional social impact from that.

So that's why that contribution is there.

Um because there's you know too much shading from nearby buildings or something like that.

We wanted to create an opportunity so we don't have to say, yeah, that doesn't make sense.

We're going to you know not require renewable energy, um, but we're still getting that contribution to the city, so we can still have renewable energy in Alexandria.

Yes, our recommendation is a cap uh not to exceed 150,000 for that contribution.

Correct.

Commissioner Dubay.

Um, just real quick, the only renewable energy you're speaking of here is solar, right?

I mean we don't limit it to solar.

Um you think wouldn't geothermal qualify for that?

So geothermal would not qualify as renewable energy.

Um it doesn't qualify.

We would strongly encourage it.

Um we have done it on the two school projects that are that have been done um and are already have a net zero requirement, have done geothermal, and we're planning geothermal for city hall.

Um so the city is absolutely encouraging that where it makes sense.

Um Pendleton House project um it also has geothermal.

Um that's a much smaller residential project, um, but it has geothermal um that they're putting in there as well.

So we we definitely encourage it.

So yeah, that's okay.

So um, just to that particular point, uh the the beauty of geothermal is really profound and we have integrated it and we use it a lot, it's very successful, but it is effectively an efficiency measure, not a generation measures that you've got to do.

Yes, it will absolutely want it, but it shows up in that category.

And I guess the um, so you mentioned sites where you sort of literally can't do it.

How big a percentage of the projects that you expect to see, or even if we were to go back and look at the projects that we've approved of in the last 10 years.

How many of them do you think really fall into the category that solar is not plausible because of siting or aperture?

Roof space is the one that came up the most, and the majority of projects we were told by developers they they would not have the room to feasibly put solar on the on the top of their space to hit uh the 3% or a larger space.

Whether that could be mitigated through different rooftop design, um, we we don't know.

And that's a conversation that would have to be had with the developers.

Um, but that's why we created the opportunity for the clean energy button.

You also mentioned that one of the reasons that it's just not plausible is the choice to not want to be.

Correct.

Okay.

Um so we have a fund and projects now happen elsewhere.

Uh who will who will define and design and execute these renewable energy projects that come out of the climate?

That'll likely be done uh in a partnership with city staff.

So the Office of Climate Action, Department of General Services, Recreation Parks and Cultural Activities, the Office of Housing and others would help identify projects that make sense and then initiate those projects.

So if it's on city facilities, our Department of General Services manages those projects.

Um, if it's on affordable housing projects, we'd partner with the housing um department to help identify and and make those projects move forward.

And and do you have any concern that this has a certain robbing Peter to pay poll kind of aspect that we what we we've just made a new um mandate to require renewable energy generation on new buildings?

This is a device by which that won't actually happen on those new buildings, but might go off into another pod to make something good happen on a city building.

And the positiveness of getting something with good social impact and uh renewable energy uh that's not on a private development project.

I appreciate that that's great.

Um is we know it's just the actual intent of this requirement is to generate renewable energy.

So I'll try to stay in the question mode a little bit more.

Um why is the contribution uh capped we created this cap to be in line with other contributions the developers make?

So it's it's similar to other contributions.

And how and how does it relate to the actual cost of solar so for a mid or small size project, they're not likely to hit that um cap, but for your larger projects, um the cost of that our estimates were in the 300 to 400,000 range um that it could cost some of the larger projects.

Um so it it would be considerably lower than the 3% requirement would cost if they were installing it on site.

You have a sense of offering a sort of a 150,000 dollar ticket out to avoid a three or four hundred thousand dollar installation on a project.

How many of the larger projects coming through might take it to I don't know?

I could guess that if a project sees it being cheaper to make a contribution of 150,000, they may.

Um, I think there's also value to the owner of putting the solar on their property because they reduce their operating costs and it makes the property more valuable and profitable and marketable.

Um so there's definitely value to putting solar on the pro on the property.

Um, but I also am confident that we could um have the we we could put the clean energy fund to good use um for the community.

Yeah, and again, I guess I can't avoid an observation.

That value proposition for solar, the affordability of it and the value of it and the contribution it makes to the resilience of uh the safety of our building for that value proposition has been there for the last five, ten, or fifteen or twenty years.

The development community has not chosen to take advantage of it.

And if I remember correctly, that reality is a big part of what drove the EPC and the PC to suggest that an actual requirement to do this would be something that would show up in the next date.

Um I have a question for you about uh public projects and how net zero energy is gonna work there.

You have a very intriguing line in the um uh that section basically mentions that to get to net zero, public energy, I'm sorry, public projects um on public projects, renewable energy will be produced either on site at the property or at another site owned by the applicant.

You have an example of how that would work or what kind of project that would be.

Yeah, I couple of really great examples.

Um so City Hall is a property that would have to meet the net zero requirement.

Um installing enough solar on City Hall and in order to achieve 100% of the energy use is not possible.

Um, even if we covered all of Market Square with solar panels, which I believe the community might have an issue with.

Um, we wouldn't be able to generate enough electricity um to cover the city hall's needs.

So um we could say in those cases we would exempt our properties from from meeting that requirement and then just do what is practical, and that number would be pretty low in the amount of solar that we could install.

Um instead, we would put solar panels on other city properties, properties that we own to make sure that we're getting the benefit that the community expects from public projects, which is contributing to renewable and clean energy being produced in Alexandria and reducing our overall um operating costs.

So we do that on other city facilities.

So that's an easy example of what's happening.

Um but Douglas MacArthur and um Minnie Howard are other great examples of the reasons we don't have solar panels on those buildings is because of unexpected um and outrageously high um interconnection costs levied by the utility.

Um and it's difficult to do at that level.

Um that the green building plans 3% requirement would never hit that level for any of the private projects, but it would be consistently hitting for public projects.

So this would allow them to move forward with solar projects rather than keeping installed.

Um, it's very interesting.

And I think it and it and it sounds it uh it's a great mechanism in a condition where the applicant where the person who is the entity that's trying to install the solar and has the limitation on facility that won't let them get to 100% and is operating under a mandate to get to 100%, um, happens to have properties elsewhere to be able to build.

So I think that's great for the city uh city projects.

But while we're on net zero, um let's not carry on on net zero trying to do uh to questions for you.

Um it's good.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Lanahan?

Uh yeah.

So again, I want to start with um compliments to the entire team for all the work.

And I appreciate the um example of us being able to disagree.

And I think in this case, um, especially for a few of us on this um dais, we really want sustainability is really important to us.

We know it is to you too.

So there's just gonna be some um nudging around the corners about how we get there and how we see some of these issues.

And so I'd like to follow up with this notion of um about renewable um uh energy on site uh construction of that on site.

And um it seems to me that in many of these points, what you've said is that renewable energy, especially the Dominion demand estimate, um, would imply that you really want to get the industry to begin to do um to contribute to that necessity, and that I think you acknowledge actually we had another conversation of which on Friday you acknowledged that the 150,000 was probably going to be an easy out for developers not to do that.

And so um I guess I'm I'm asking you about um how you think you're gonna get private industry and developers to do it, because I don't think I think the same argument's gonna happen in five years when potentially we have even fewer public buildings to put solar panels on.

So where is that leverage ever gonna be to get that to start?

I I look forward to the problem of having no more city or affordable housing projects to put solar panels on because we've covered them in solar panels.

I don't think that's going to, I don't think we're going to run into that problem anytime soon.

Um, but I think the important thing to remember is the provision here is not intended to get renewable energy on new developments.

It's to mitigate the impact of those new developments.

And we can do that by installing the renewable energy in Alexandria.

So whether it happens on a new building or it gets placed on an existing building, it's still mitigating that impact.

And that's the important part of this is that we're getting the renewable energy in Alexandria, um, that we're having that clean energy there.

Um I do think that it's a conversation that needs to be had with the development community to understand the value of this.

Why are we installing renewable energy and what is the value to that?

How does that provide more resilience?

I also think that as we have these conversations with the development community and as the reliability of the grid becomes more at risk, there will be that added incentive to make sure that their properties can continue to operate at least emergency services when the grid goes down.

Um so I think that is a conversation the development community will have to come to eventually, and they'll see the value in that.

Um, our requirement here though is our ability to mitigate the impact of the development, and that's why we have the clean energy fund.

So we can still make sure we're doing that in cases where it's not practical or feasible.

Still gonna okay.

So in that analysis, um, you think that 150,000 rather than having the full three, what we think is five percent should be installed, that that 150,000 is an effective way to see that happen.

Um, and and part of my question about that 150,000 is, and I've asked this repeatedly, um, if that goes into a pot of money, um, I'm not convinced that 150,000 of a PV array comes out at the other end.

I think by the time you put together an RFP and you find a contractor to do it and you install it and commission it, um, you end up with very little in comparison than having the actual building owner do it.

Um, and so um, so so again, I think the the answer it will just it it it'll happen.

I just want to hear more about how it's gonna happen.

Well, I think the other benefit of the clean energy fund is it allows us to aggregate multiple projects into a single project.

So it's not 150,000.

We could put four or five contributions together, and we only have to do one RFP, whereas developer is going to have to do an RFP for each.

The developer is gonna have to do those RFPs as well.

The developers gonna have to do a procurement process, they're gonna have to do the installation process, and all of those we have significant costs that aren't just the panels.

Um, we would be able to do that at one by aggregating multiple of those projects together.

But don't our don't developers do RFPs and build buildings and build PV arrays.

I mean, there are examples of developers in this city that have PV arrays on TC buildings.

Yes.

And and they also contract general contractors day in and day out, and architects and engineers.

And I'm not certain that um staff across Alexandria do it day in and day out the way developers do.

We absolutely do.

Um, we have a department of project implementation that is designed to implement projects specifically.

Um our Department of General Services are experts at procuring and implementing facilities projects.

Um so I'm confident that we have the talent in the city of Alexandria to do this.

Um, but certainly developers have the talent and ability to do it as well.

What a couple more questions.

Um have you heard from the development community that one of the issues is the cost and uh of the of the request?

Yes, certainly cost is a concern that has come up.

Have you have you had conversations with them about alternate financing, such as C-base?

I it's part of what we provide as the Office of Climate Action is those conversations on financing and other opportunities that are available.

We have not seen CPACE be particularly effective in Alexandria or be well used in Alexandria.

It's not it wasn't achieving lower interest rates or more attractive interest rates.

I think that is likely to change as financial markets shift a bit.

And we might see an increase in the use of C base.

And certainly with this policy where more projects would qualify for CPACE, we would see more use of it.

So you just um walked into uh answering part of my question, which is that if we don't require it of developers, then they're not going to seek seek alternate ways to finance it such as CPACE.

So if there's no need to use CPACE, it won't be used.

Well, CBase can also be used for energy efficiency.

So I think we'll see an increase in use of that because of the provisions of the green building policy.

So you could use CPACE for geothermal to install that on your property or other energy efficiency things.

Yes.

The other thing it does it still seems to me um that the the I agree with the emphasis on EUI, but I'm still not entirely convinced that there shouldn't be equal emphasis or or stick to the earlier version of the plan, which did not give the out of the cap that was significantly less than the installed cost.

Um so I think that shift um is disappointing in terms of outcome and and um encourage or um requiring uh installation and and and part of that for me is that um having you know been a licensed architect for 30 years, if you um make a requirement, um most um it and and it's uh a level playing field, um, the response is often to figure out how to get it done.

And um I think I think that is one of the reasons that that impetus is so important.

Um, and and why again, I think um that's a shortfall in this current uh option, this current version.

Commissioner Dube.

Yeah, a couple of questions, Ryan.

Um so the clean energy fund, is that is there an example of another jurisdiction that does a similar process, or is it something you guys over gonna be the Apex?

I I'm not aware of another jurisdiction in Virginia that does this.

Um this is this is a market leading policy approach um for the entirety of the green building plan.

Um but we the city takes contributions for things like this in numerous ways, whether it's affordable housing arts or others.

So the the execution of this is not something new to the city.

Okay.

Understood.

Um and back to Commissioner Lenohan's point about putting these things out to bid and and that process and the cost of that.

One of the things local government has that private developers don't is the availability of pre-bid contracts on maybe not the specific project, but there's a lot of times that I know in my previous slide we used contracts that had the um cooperative agreement in them that we could just ride that contract and do it.

Um cog does a number of those, not maybe not here, but in another a lot of other areas, they have contracts you can just ride the contract and you don't have to go through that process because it was already a public bid.

Um and that's certainly something that you could look into in Virginia, I think it is, has the whole listing of those.

And so that might help that piece of it.

The other the last thing, you know, if we implement this and we implement the other things in the additional requirements, I'm just concerned about your staff's capacity to keep up with all this.

I appreciate that.

Um Dustin's awesome.

Um, and he does a great job keeping up with development reviews now.

Um, this actually we believe that this plan helps us reduce the requirements on staff.

Um so by focusing in the narrow areas, we won't have as many conditions to manage.

Um, and it'll the the review process will be more streamlined.

And this is in line with um Director Stoddard's approach um with the planning and zoning department generally to expedite reviews and and reduce the amount of review time that's being done with the one-start process.

So we think this fits well with planning and zoning's approach to this, and we can keep going with this.

Um, and unless Dustin jumps in right now and says, absolutely no way this is going to be terrible.

I'm just gonna keep going with the fact that this is going to be easier for him.

Thank you.

I've got some other things, but I'll wait until after the public hearing.

That's okay.

Good.

If there are no further questions for staff, yes, Commissioner Lanahan.

I have one technical question.

Um, so the Cadmus report um uh referred to code, and you've referred to meeting code, and I just wanted to clarify is that the 2021 code, which is now almost five years old, or is it the 2024 code, um, which will of course push the requirements further?

Um so a couple of things on that.

I'll I'm gonna let Dustin correct me on this, but um the current code um for the commercial code, the Ashray 90.1, um, that uh Alexandria that Virginia is under is 2019.

Um so we've had them model 2019.

Um I believe they also modeled 2022, um, but 2019 did not come into effect until January of last year.

It was it started to be required.

Um so we're on the 2019 code and won't adopt the 2022 code as a state for another three years.

I thought it was 2021 and 2024, but maybe I was looking up building code and not energy code.

Yeah, that's so so we're talking just to clarify then, we're talking about meeting a code that's 2019, right?

That's that's uh not exactly the most ambitious.

So the um the 2021 Virginia Energy Conservation Code just went into effect earlier uh last year.

Right.

Um, and that code references Ashray ninety point one twenty nineteen as the standard for efficiency.

So again, just to be clear about what what we're targeting, um it is uh there there are other jurisdictions that have adopted more more recent codes and are more um definitely in the country there are they're not in Virginia.

Um Virginia is 2021, right?

But I'm just saying that that that if we keep rep saying well meeting code, it's not necessarily a right.

And we the green building the performance required under the green building plan exceeds the requirements under code.

I mean, there would not be a point in having the green building plan if we did not think it was going to get us more efficient buildings.

Uh so there's just reference to the cadmas um about meeting it was a 10 to 15 or 20 percent reduction in code, and I just want to to clarify that that if that cadmas plan was referencing the 2019 ash ray, that that's yes, that's that is also why staff is confident that the targets that we we have set are more than achievable because it is the the 2019 code is is is the was the reference point.

Okay, how about our public hearing?

Yes.

Our first speaker is Bill Pugh, followed by David Peabody, followed by Deborah Lulu.

Bill Pugh on what they did.

Um that's been done.

I think there's been good representation of members of the building industry in both the the work group also on the environmental policy commission.

So um I I really support this and hope you'll consider some of the comments that members have offered tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we uh we have a bit of a technical issue that we are resolving right now.

Um just I think just a moment.

Yes, actually, we can use that mic right there at the time.

Yes.

Okay, our next speaker is David Peabody, followed by Deborah Bolo.

You low, thank you.

Sorry.

All right, David Peabody, you are online.

Are you there, Mr.

Peabody?

I am here.

We hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, yes, we can.

Good.

Uh Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

I'm David Peabody.

I'm a longtime resident of Alexandria and an architect of high performance buildings.

I'm urging you tonight to stand by your earlier recommendation to council to strengthen the green building plan's residential EUR requirement from 38 to 30, going down to 23 in 2030.

The key question is what green building policy best protects Alexandria residents in a rapidly changing energy landscape.

Today rising energy demand, driven largely by data centers is pushing Virginia electricity costs sharply upward.

Projections show rates doubling over the next 10 to 15 years, meaning the buildings that you approve today will shape residents' monthly energy costs for decades.

Here's what that means in real terms.

A recently approved 93,000 square foot affordable multifamily building built to the minimum statewide energy code, 42 EUI, will cost a family of four about $37 more per month in energy than would a 30 EUI building.

As rates rise, that gap will grow to $75 a month for a 60% AMI family with roughly $1,500 of disposable income at months, and that can mean a choice between groceries or a prescription for a child.

Now compare that to the cost of preventing this problem.

Building that same project to 30 EUI adds about 3.5% conservatively to constructive to construction cost, or roughly 1.75% to the total project cost.

About a million dollars.

Of course it isn't.

These arguments are not new.

They have accompanied adoption of stronger energy standards in cities across the country.

But experience shows that development adapts.

Stricter energy standards have not shut down development in DC in Montgomery County, in Cambridge, Boston, or New York, where they are actually at the passive house level.

Others will follow me to elaborate on the equity implications of avoidable energy costs and the reasonableness of a 30 EUI standard.

So I urge you to stand firm for Alexandria's residents and to use the authority of this body to ensure that affordability in the city includes the cost of energy, not just the cost of rent.

Energy efficiency is social equity.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Deborah Bulow.

Followed by Sandra Liebowitz.

Is this the is this working?

No.

Now is that working?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Try to hear.

I will try to speak loudly.

Um, Madam Chair, uh, members of the planning commission.

My name is Deborah Belo.

I run a small architecture practice located next to City Hall called CEDAR.

We completed, I think the city's only passive house in Delray last year.

Um I'm here to talk to kind of follow on what David Peabody just said and to talk about getting stricter EUI standards than what is being proposed right now.

And I want to address specifically the costs related to lower EUI standards.

It's important that we separate what's genuinely uncertain about these costs and trying to achieve them from what's actually really well understood.

The cost figures that David decided for building high performance buildings are not theoretical.

They come from complete occupied multifamily projects that are already operating at energy performance levels well beyond what's being discussed here tonight.

My question would be for those who are worried about these costs.

Have they ever actually attempted to build to something like a 30 EUI rather than a 38 UI for multifamily housing?

Probably not.

These concerns are based on extrapolation rather than direct experience.

They're not insincere concerns, but they are speculative.

So it's important to understand what achieving a 30 EUI standard does not require.

And I'm speaking from boots on the ground here.

It doesn't require passive house standards, although I think it'd be amazing if we attempted to do that.

It doesn't require extreme construction techniques.

It doesn't require unfamiliar materials.

It doesn't require huge value ads.

It allows substantial flexibility and form.

It allows many varieties of envelope assemblies, and it allows a variety of mechanical systems.

The key is to come in early in design and plan it in.

As long as early planning is brought into the project through the early design process, it is an achievable goal.

And when they do this early in the design, it's manageable and it's a repeatable outcome.

It's not an experiment.

So if we are accepting claims of uncertainty and allow lower performance buildings, we're choosing to shift long-term energy risk to the resonance.

If we come in and require higher performance, we're asking developers to manage a modest one-time design and construction challenge, one that has been solved many times over in other locations and municipalities.

This isn't radical, it's evidence-based.

So it's entirely appropriate for this city to rely on demonstrated outcomes rather than speculative fears when setting standards that shape its housing stock for decades.

Because ultimately every point above the 30 EUI, and then ultimately a net zero building shows up in somebody's monthly utility bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sandra Libowitz, followed by Mora McDougall.

Followed by Ken Wire.

Good evening.

My name is Sandra Liebowitz.

I'm an Alexandria resident, long-time green building consultant and business owner, lead fellow and U.S.

Green Building Council member.

I am presenting some remarks prepared by USGBC, U.S.

Green Building Council, which is a nonprofit organization best known for the leadership in energy and environmental design or LEED green building rating system.

USGBC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the green building plan and urges the planning commission to consider our recommendations regarding lead certification before recommending the plan for city council approval.

First, we applaud the city's continued leadership through using green building certification through for public projects.

Because LEED version four and 4.1 will close for new registrations on June 30th this year.

We recommend the lead credit language in appendix two to be updated to the new lead version five language before the listed credits become outdated.

Second and most importantly, we recommend USGBC lead certification to be added to the list of market leading green building certifications in option two of the plan for the following reasons.

LEED has historically been a core component of Alexandria's green building policy and has a strong market familiarity in Northern Virginia with currently 147 lead certified buildings in Alexandria alone, totaling more than 24 million square feet.

LEED certification also remain remains a compliance pathway for public projects.

The discrepancy between public and private development requirements could cause market confusion for professionals who are accustomed to the lead rating system.

Secondly, lead version five, particularly at the platinum level, fully addresses Alexandria's energy efficiency, renewable energy, and electrification goals.

Lead version five puts decarbonization at the center of the rating system.

For the first time, all lead version five projects must undergo a carbon assessment that projects the building's direct and indirect carbon emissions over a 25-year horizon.

Additional lead version five energy and atmosphere uh credits provide a clear framework for energy efficiency.

All electric buildings that run on renewable energy.

Um, these credits are required for all lead V5 platinum projects and or could be explicitly directed through the green building policy.

Uh for these reasons, we believe lead certification should be added to the list of green building certifications in option two.

And since I'm out of time, I'll leave it at that.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Moira Moira McDougal, followed by Ken Wire.

Followed by Mary Catherine Gibbs.

Hello.

Um, my name is Maureen Marc Dougall.

Um, I'm here both personally as a resident of Alexandria and also on behalf of Grassroots Alexandria.

Um, thank you all for your consideration of the green building plan and also Ryan and his office.

Um, and I'm here to speak in support of a strong green building plan as well as advocate for strengthening it.

Um, grassroots are Alexandria strongly supports the establishment of the energy use intensity EUI as a core metric.

Um, and we support your own recommendation from last year of requiring multifamily residential buildings to achieve a 30 EUI.

Um I live in a multifamily residential building just in this past lease renewal.

Um I now have to pay a common area electricity fee.

It's just a flat fee.

There's no explanation for how it's calculated, what steps my building is doing to reduce energy usage.

Our gym lights are also on 24-7.

So I'm very sympathetic.

Um, you know, we also understand that 38 is a starting point.

And if that's where we have to start, at least it's starting somewhere.

We'd like for the city to commit to reviewing the EUI target and other metrics at least every two years with the goal of further EUI decreases.

Strengthening the EUI requirement now, however, would help us to meet the city's climate goals, as well as reducing the burden of climate change on residents, such as myself, for example, through lower utility bills and healthier indoor air quality.

We would further support the green building plan, spelling out definitions and citing specific standards rather than relying on those controlled by the federal government to help mitigate against a federal government that is moving away from addressing climate change.

Overall, we urge you to support a strong green building plan to support the health and well-being of Alexandrians now and in the future, as climate change becomes an even more present danger.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Ken Wire, followed by Mary Catherine Gibbs.

Mary Catherine Gibbs is our final speaker.

So good evening again, everyone.

I had the opportunity to participate in every green building policy in 2009, 2019 in this one.

And I do want to thank staff for all their collective efforts in moving this project forward.

Industry generally supports this plan.

The basic parameters of this plan to move towards an energy-based analysis for future development is the right call.

Um, I take I take exceptions to a couple points.

Um, Mr.

Kennig earlier talked about um developers choosing not to do it and sort of these offhand comments that we don't put enough thought into our projects.

I've been through this hundreds of times.

Your building code does not allow solar panels over top of HVAC units and stormwater green roofs.

You can't do it.

Every project looks at these policies you produce, and I give it to my clients, and you need to do this.

Up front, we do uh work with staff very early on.

There's nothing wrong.

It's a good idea to meet with Dustin and Ryan right out of the gates and come up with plans.

The issue we have is um viability and flexibility.

Bear with me for a second.

EUI by definition is an energy use per square footage.

You have a 10,000 square foot building with 10 families, it probably doesn't have a hard time reaching a third of EUI.

Same building, same HVAC equipment, same everything.

Well, let's double it.

Let's say it's a more intense development.

It begins to drift away from that 30 EUI as you put more people in the building.

It's just a fact.

So my many of my clients, it's not speculation, it's not fear.

We have clients that are doing EUI for themselves.

The smaller buildings on the waterfront, the townhouses, they can get very close, if not exceed the plans' recommendations.

The bigger buildings have problems with that.

If this is the city's desired um approach, it needs to be listed that this supersedes all other um city policies on architecture.

I recently had a project where we met with city staff.

We had a very efficient box, very small.

They cut it in half, moved it around, and added a 25% more sun exposure to our south.

That is exactly the opposite of what you're doing tonight.

So if this is the primary um initiative of the city, other policies need to bend to it.

Industry asks that we not change the content of the policy, not change the framework, but meet with staff early on.

We think a range of EUIs taking into account building occupancy.

Social equity is having people live in our city in density.

The issue I'm having across the board now with projects, people are preferring townhouse development.

Why?

It's easier, it's less risk, and you can't tell us not to do it.

It's permitted in almost every zone.

I worry that our industry will be affected because projects will look at these parameters and decide, you know what?

I'll just go ahead and do some townhouses.

This is not viable.

They're outstretching everyone else.

My final point prior city attorneys have determined time and time again that this is not in compliance with the Dillon rule.

It has been a green building policy for decades.

I request that the city attorney ask for an attorney general opinion on the viability of this legality, and that now there's a tax and energy production requirement on all due development.

I do not think it's legal.

I do not think it will withstand judicial review.

It is a good idea for the environment, but that doesn't mean it's a legal parameter permitted under the Dillon rule.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mary Catherine Gibbs, and we actually do have two more speakers.

Um, Mary Catherine Gibbs will be followed by Stephen Wolves and Scott Marstow.

Good evening, Mary Catherine Gibbs.

I'm also with the law firm of Wire Guild, but I'm here on behalf of my client, Paradigm Development Company.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but Paradigm Development Company is the second largest taxpayer in the city of Alexandria.

They own over six high-rise multifamily buildings in close proximity to Metro.

And so they have built a lot and relied a lot on uh work here in this city.

Um, you have examples of their block 20 building in your list of comparable uh EUIs.

Uh it there were several different versions of their studies.

We actually told Dustin earlier on that their EUI was actually 45.

And when they submitted their second energy um study, or it was a draft was the first one, they got to 40.1.

But they're still over 38.

Nothing that they've done in the city is anywhere close to 38.

Um, and they're very concerned that specifically that you are disincentivizing high density development in the city of Alexandria because EUIs in the high density buildings are much harder to achieve that you're listing here.

You have no difference between the standard for multifamily general multi-family high-rise.

Those are the same standards.

That does not make sense in paradigm view.

But you're disincentivizing high density development.

And we have a housing crisis in Alexandria.

We have a housing crisis in the region.

We have a certain number of housing units we are supposed to build every year according to the COG requirements.

This policy is going to disincentivize larger scale developments.

As Ken just said, it's easy to meet on townhouse developments.

It's easy to meet on single family developments.

It's easy to meet on smaller developments.

It's not on high-rise developments.

So you're gonna you're really going to exacerbate your housing crisis here in Alexandria.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Stephen Walls.

Followed by Scott, our final speaker, Scott Barstow.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the um the commission.

I'm Steve Walls, the resident of Alexandria.

I'm here speaking both for myself as well as on behalf of the Alexandria hub of the excuse me, um, Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions.

Um, we, along with Build Up Future, have submitted written comments.

So I'll just take an opportunity to highlight a couple of these in my comments tonight.

We're very concerned that Alexandria implement a green building plan consistent with the council's declaration of climate emergency and one that helps us meet the climate change commitments that have been that have been made.

We strongly support your June 23rd, 2025 recommendation that the maximum EUI for multifamily buildings should be at 30 and 2025 and have a process to go down through 23 and 2030.

You are faced with the basic question when considering this plan.

Why should we have more sustainable and energy efficient buildings in Alexandria?

You've heard tonight about the higher costs families will be burdened with when living in inefficient buildings.

This can make an otherwise affordable home unaffordable, contrary to the city's housing out of the goals.

This is particularly true for low-income households.

A recent U.S.

Census Bureau Household Plus survey found that in April 2024, nearly 37% of low and moderate income households could not pay their full energy bill.

This will only increase over time as we've heard as we see the higher future electric costs and natural gas rates go up.

Analysts project rates may double over the next decade.

That at that pace, a $37 monthly difference that we heard about earlier would be $75 per month within 10 years.

That's a lot for people to swallow.

Some might argue also that higher standards threaten the ability to develop new properties today.

I think that there's room within the plan to account for some of the unique conditions in such as the high-rise buildings.

But they are also looking at business allowing asking for business as usual practices while locking the families in these buildings into decades of rising avoidable costs.

There's plenty of evidence that building a better building is both technically and economically possible.

We've heard about the uh the the experience across in DC.

Um, although I think looking at the 75th percentage point as a target for where buildings were built is contrary to what a green building policy ought to do.

We ought to be looking at making better buildings and looking at the 25th percentile and not the 75th percentile of what we've seen.

And so we think that uh uh the 30 uh UI standard gets us to that point.

It's entirely appropriate for Alexander to rely on demonstrated outcomes as we've seen rather than speculative fears when setting standards that will shape our housing stock for decades.

The buildings we approve must be um protect residents from high energy costs and not settle them.

So we hope that you will um commit to recommending a strong green building policy to the city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Scott Barstow.

Good evening.

Good evening, Chair McMaine and members of the planning commission.

My name is Scott Barstow, and I live at 801 North Pitt Street.

I'd like to associate myself with remarks made by David Peabody and Steve Walls, and I hope you saw the letter that the organizations were a part of, Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions and Build Our Future submitted for this hearing, which Steve just referenced.

Instead of reiterating those comments, I want to share quotes from Ashray's 2022 Advanced Energy Design Guide for Net Zero Multifamily Buildings, which for our region specifies that buildings have EUIs in the low 20s, including buildings that are up to 39 stories high.

Quote, zero energy multifamily building can provide increased resilience and utility cost stability and contribute to reduced or eliminated utility costs for tenants and property owners.

The majority of zero energy multifamily projects also eliminate combustion appliances within the units, which improves indoor air quality significantly and results in healthier homes.

Beyond the energy savings and health benefits, more and more families are looking for housing that reduces their climate impacts.

Zero energy homes provide a means to demonstrate and live a commitment to sustainability and can attract higher rental rates.

This guide demonstrates that zero energy multifamily buildings are attainable and provides design teams with strategies for achieving energy savings goals that are financially feasible, operational, operationally workable, and readily achievable.

Investing in a zero energy building is one of the most impactful things an owner can do to improve communities, protect natural resources, and mitigate climate change.

This commitment can also provide market differentiation and a possible competitive advantage.

And from the guides principles for success, quote.

Successful zero energy projects have buy-in and commitment from all stakeholders, including the owner, design team, and contractor, all of whom support the zero energy goal with the attitude that it can be achieved.

From the outset, address head-on those who believe that a zero energy building will automatically cost more.

Complicated cutting-edge technologies are not necessarily required in zero energy buildings.

In fact, simplifying a building systems increases a building's chances of being optimally constructed and operated.

In comparison to a traditional project process, a project with a zero energy goal requires that the owner maintain the focus on zero energy and comfort goals during all planning, design, and operation decisions.

I'm not a builder or architect, but I've talked with builders and architects of high performing buildings and repeatedly heard the same message.

With a focus on energy performance from the start, it can be done.

I urge planning commission to approve a strong green building plan for Alexandria that is consistent with our claim to be an eco city.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

Uh move to close the public hearing.

Second.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Hanig and a second by Commissioner Manor to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 70.

That brings us to commissioner discussion.

Madam Chairman.

Go for it.

I would just like to make a process uh suggestion, actually.

Yes.

Um actually I have a question.

Uh Holly and I have worked on a memo that was distributed.

Um I saw that it was distributed digitally, but I don't see it in the hard copy packet.

I didn't get it in the hard copy.

Okay.

We the last section of that is going to form the basis of an eight part motion that we've got, and we did that specifically.

Yeah, isn't did you print that out for yourself?

Did you print that out for yourself?

Madam Chair.

I can bring it up on the screen if you like.

Oh, with that the other thing I can um that would be great, actually.

You can just bring it up if it's up on one of the screens.

Yeah, I'll bring it up on my screen.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that doesn't actually have to come up now, but that would be great.

Also, I don't know, Christina, if this is reasonable.

I have it set up right here.

I can email it as a PDF to everybody right now who's on the dais, and then people could bring it up on their screen if they choose to.

I mean, we have it that is being brought up on the screen here so that everyone can reference it there that we can look at it.

Okay.

So my suggestion, um uh Chair McMahon would be um that uh all commissioners have an opportunity to go ahead and talk about the things that they that are on their mind about this, and then at the point that we've had as uh a comprehensive general discussion where everyone has had a chance to put their ideas in play.

Um I would suggest that um I would be available to make a motion that references the proposed modifications that Holly and I have been working on, and then have that analyzed on its merits as an actual motion.

But I'd really like I'm I'm tired of listening to myself.

Um and I have a tendency to run on.

So at this point, I'm extremely interested in understanding what everyone else thinks about uh this particular challenge in front of us.

Commissioner Dubai, would you like to kick it off?

Uh I might as well.

Um so I sent out a memo this afternoon.

I hope you had a chance to look at it.

Um I did a lot of background research on EV charging, particular, um, how it's going to relate to the proposed plan.

And in my detailed research, then I failed to get this out in timely fashion.

So that's never really a culpa.

So I do want to have a discussion, and I'm not sure, you know, in the memo that I put out, I wanted to make a motion to include some changes to the EV charging in particular.

Um, and after discussion with our attorney and and some other members, I'm not sure I'm gonna push forward with that, although I do feel strongly that we do need to make some changes to that.

If you look at the proposed plan on page 20 starting on 22, um it talks about the electric vehicle vehicle charging infrastructure, and it specifically talks about providing EV chargers for at least five percent in the multi-unit in particular.

Um I certainly support having that EV structure or having those done.

I also would support it to provide our back up a little bit and maybe provide all of the infrastructure necessary for those, including on the next page, the multi-unit residential conversions, not specifically putting them in place, but to at least get all the infrastructure ready.

And then at the time of installation, have the fire official provide the input as to exactly where, especially in underground garages, where these particular units should be located.

And I understand that's not in the code, it's not in the fire code, it's not in the building code.

Um, but I think if we're pushing envelope on all this, we need to push it for this too.

Um that having this is my opinion, having uh multi-bank electric vehicle charging stations in underground parking garages is a significant hazard to the people that live there because the code has not caught up to the technology, and it will not probably catch up to it for another five to 10 years.

I believe we can be proactive and make some changes to where the stations are located, especially in the underground parking garages.

Um keeping them away from public access or the the normal in and out of these buildings for the people that live there.

There's things we can do.

Um, and I'm not going to get into the technical details of the sprinkler systems.

The legacy garages have sprinkler systems that have 15 to 25 gallon per minute um sprinkler heads.

And that's categorized that that is 15 to 25 gallons per minute based on the BTUs.

I'm glad you put that in there.

The BTUs is an interesting thing.

I've studied for decades.

Um who came up with British thermal units.

Maybe you can educate me on this, right?

But that's that's that's the number, right?

That I mean, that's what's used, and that 15 to 25 gallon per minute in a legacy building in a typical gasoline vehicle fire that that's going to contain it.

In a EV vehicle fire, you're gonna need twice that um, if not more.

And then not to um not to mention the tox toxicity of the vehicle that's burning, it the ventilation systems for those legacy garages is not going to be able to get it out of there.

Um, there's a lot that goes into this.

So I would just urge the commission and the city to engage with the fire official.

And I've talked to the fire marshal and the and the new chief, and they're all on board with it, to make sure that these installations are done in areas that limit the exposure to the occupants of the building.

Um to limit the use of the the fast charging specifically in those in those enclosed parking garages because they're even more uh of an issue.

Um so I think I'm just gonna leave it at that because I don't know where I can make a motion now after talking to our attorney to fit this in here, other than ask that we put some language in these particular page 22, 23, and 24.

Um some language that allows the fire official to make recommendations on where these are located, especially in these underground garages.

And I've rambled on quite a bit and probably made zero sense, but that's my feeling I'm taking you know a little bit of time, but I'm good.

Thank you.

You're good.

And I just want to maybe put it back to staff for a second to talk to us a little bit about conversations you've had thus far with other groups, maybe including the fire department on EV charging in garages and where that conversation is today.

Sure.

So we have not had specific conversations with the fire department on the development of this plan.

Um, I do think you know, and certainly Christina or Bonnie can weigh in on if my statement isn't accurate, but I do think that we could certainly seek recommendations from them for specific developments.

Um, whether or not the development would be held to that, I'm not sure.

Um yeah, I I think if you're if you have language that you would like to suggest we add or you know, some framing of this requests that we can make to the fire department staff.

Um we we can we can see what we can do.

Yeah, in the memo I I sent out again two o'clock this afternoon.

Um there is some language there, especially um items one and two.

Um two in particular, it says specified location, quantity, and type of EV charge equipment shall be subject to reboot review and approval by the fire official who may or may not limit density and restrict placement in enclosed or below grade garages.

Um I think what we can they don't they don't have a code, yeah.

They wouldn't have a code to go back on to say this is required because it's not.

Um unfortunately.

I think what makes sense is for us to either commit here or put in the language to say that we will consult with the fire department on this um and to make sure that placement of this is uh gets reviewed or or consulted um to make sure that we're having that conversation with the fire department.

We do work with the fire department, the EV planner for the city is is closely um working with the fire department on lots of things related to electric vehicles.

So we can we can put that in here, I think, to say that we'll have that consultation with the fire department.

Um I think the concern is saying there's an explicit authority um that may not be there, but we we can put a review and consultation in there, I think is is acceptable.

Okay, thank you.

And and just to follow up a little bit, I have talked to some of the council about adopting a stricter policy on the chargers in general, not just for the EVs, but for the scooters and the e-bikes and all the lithium-ion batteries that um are everywhere.

So including all across our diet.

So there needs to be, and I know Arlington has has done something on that specifically to e-bikes, but um, I want to see us do more, and I'll continue to push that.

And that's my spiel.

Madam Chairman.

Yes.

Um, could I could I uh bring a question or two or follow up on what you mentioned?

Uh several things.

Once um uh thank you very much for this memo.

Um I think it's uh it's really great.

It's a it's a piece of the puzzle that as Holly and I have been working on, our recommendations we're not really conversant with and we didn't really touch.

It's really critical.

I think this memo is brilliant.

The setup explains it for those of us who are not uh expert in the field, and your recommendations clearly come from a level of experience and um expertise that are really valuable, and I think get right to the point where some role of this is eminently usable to the to the conundrum of how we incorporate it tonight.

I uh I I would very much support finding a way to make this uh to make to reference this in whatever we do so that it's formally part of that.

And one thing that I can see is that uh wordsmithing the text of the plan isn't we've we spent a lot of time and we have like three lines and we'll probably argue about them all night.

And this is pretty complex.

Um, and and as uh Commissioner Du Bay is saying, this language doesn't map onto the language you guys have already.

What I think is really critical here is if we uh or the opportunity for this is if we succeed in having the um mandate that OCA translate this plan into a development review process that has specificity to it that will be used to evaluate projects.

That what we could say is basically planning commission tonight, something along the lines of we recommend that the information in this particular part of the memo, items one to seven, uh form the sort of basis of reference for uh OCA to consult with the relevant authorities in the course of making the development review process.

Then this can 20% of this can disappear, or three lines of this can turn out to be in the actual document that controls what actually happens with the buildings.

Uh and if I don't know how if that passes muster, but what that ends up doing is this bit of text um gets referenced in whatever council is seeing, but we're not proposing that it specifically change things.

We're just supposed proposing that it perform the that it form the basis of an initial consultation, and then the the point about getting the relevant authorities to consult so that OCA, who also haven't really delved into how this works out, would be able to take advantage of this work.

Is any of that coherent enough to uh I think what I'm hearing you say is that you're um wanting to suggest that what the takeaway from his memo is is that you're suggesting that there's a there's a policy that OCA creates to um implement the the plan and as part of that review process would um integrate a review by the fire official.

And it I would say that it's it's in the review process.

It's a it's a typical thing to have multiple departments reviewing something.

So that's not um something that we're not familiar with and something that's not already in our in our project review process.

And I think there's another couple of things that that you've mentioned here, Robert, is that we're in front of the the regulators, right?

So that's the problem throughout how we try to adapt to climate changes throughout all the building things that we're talking about, and it's clearly here, and it's a conundrum for the reason you just said you're expert in all those things.

If you're in front of the code, you don't have the authority to do anything.

How are we going to do it?

Well, we got to figure that out.

And you have made it very valuable and specific set of things that may not fall under a code, but could be incorporated in this development review process in enough in a way that they have enough authority to actually make the changes work.

So I'm a big proponent that we put some sort of simple uh sentence on this that references that'll go into that multi-party thing that's very common, which is therefore reasonable for us to do, but that also carries this text out of tonight's meeting and into that next level of discussion.

But we're also putting it in something that OCA is going to work on, not something that has to be wordsmith before it's the homework assignment.

Not for me.

The guy, the team across the aisle.

Well, I think well, I could have, I mean, you I'm just being silly.

But no, I think it raises a good point.

You all have just acknowledged that you actually haven't addressed this in the plan.

We I didn't hear anybody, I didn't hear you saying that you don't think it should be addressed in the plan.

And what I'm suggesting is you don't address it in the plan that you're trying to get votes on two weeks from now, but that you work it in uh to what you're going to be doing in the development view review process, which sounds like it'll happen naturally anyway, but that you take advantage of Commissioner Dubay's leadership in putting this out and just have this as part of what you're looking at the first lending at the beginning.

Sorry, I kind of ran on there, but you're your point here, yeah.

Um my objective there is just that when we make a motion that at the end we have a way to attach that, attach this material so that it gets referenced formally in the motion that we make.

That's all that much.

Okay.

I I have a question for you guys.

Are there requirements now that new construction have EV charging?

Uh through conditions we have we have conditions for EV charging and EV ready infrastructure.

Okay, because I had a condo on the north end new building, and I had a charger in my parking space, which is fantastic.

And I believe there is a right to charge law in Virginia that if you have a parking spot, you have the right to have charging installed in it.

Um so if you have a condo, you can ask your condo.

Yeah, we don't have to have it, and it was the right kind.

Why they have to make them proprietary?

I don't understand at all.

And then trying to get the right adapter is the whole crazy thing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I'll go ahead and talk a little bit about my um my perceptions here.

Um I want to I want to acknowledge this is gonna get old, but all the work that everyone has put in to this.

Um, and I want to include my fellow commissioners on this, both um Vice Chair Kenig and Commissioner Lanahan have put countless hours into thinking in depth about these issues um in a way that I I have not been able to at a level of professional um scrutiny that I would not be able to bring to it.

So um once again, I appreciate being on a commission that has such diverse experience, and so we can all bring these different perspectives to the table.

Um where I come down on your proposal tonight is that it doesn't look like the letter that we wrote you in June.

And a lot of thought went into the letter we wrote you in June.

And that came out of a letter that we wrote in combination with the EPC in February of 2023.

And prior to that, there was a letter we wrote in combination with EPC and Transportation Commission in 2022.

Um, so obviously we've heard a story tonight of all the work that has gone into getting us to where we are today, but also the there's an undercurrent of we're not getting there.

And so um I think I I would support the modifications, modifications that we can discuss tonight um that bring the package, the plan as we would recommend for approval closer to what the planning commission has already recommended for approval.

Um, and so there are tweaks, and I know that um Vice Chair Kenig has started through um uh a line of questioning that leads to the the memo that he and Commissioner Lenahan have already distributed.

So it's on the record for community members who have who may have or haven't seen it yet.

Um all of all of us have received it, but essentially it outlines several points um and several of which are fully consistent with the letter we wrote in June.

And and from that perspective, that's where I want to be with the thing that we push forward to council.

I want to be in the place where Planning Commission is saying nothing about our assessment of what it will take to get to success in fulfilling the goals of the plans we've already adopted.

Nothing has changed.

So I understand the pressure staff is under to listen to all the stakeholders and perhaps find a happy medium.

But I don't, I don't find that my assessment for some of those key items has changed.

But I'm also not a developer.

So I respect the hesitancy and the challenges that they have brought to us and their fear because I don't want high-rise developer partners like Paradigm to stop building.

I don't want that to happen.

But I'm not convinced it will happen.

And I think I would not be, I would be doing us a disservice to say I'm afraid of stepping forward because those developments might stop tomorrow if we if we do.

That doesn't put us in the correct place for leading the community forward in this endeavor.

And so I also want to point out related to that that I think Alexandria is a leader in making things easier for development.

And we heard a little bit of like concern about that earlier tonight, where community members sometimes look at us as with which with much skepticism that we are making it too easy for a project to happen.

And we are making the process too fast and not enough scrutiny as I look at our director.

And in my opinion, we planning as the planning commission are constantly looking at how do we support staff in creating efficiencies where they can happen.

And you've described how this plan can let you experience some efficiencies.

And that's an efficiency.

We do this in a lot of things.

We did we did some of it tonight.

We've done it in hearings and hearings past.

So I consider Alexandria well walking the walk in terms of trying to find ways to make things easier for development.

And then when we come upon the challenge that is green building, it's not going away.

So we can't make this easier.

All we can do is say we'll be there with them.

Like we're going into this together.

We want the development, we want it to be green.

We want to make it as easy as possible.

We want to simplify the requirements.

So I consider this in it together, but also with a strong emphasis that we we have to move it forward.

And some of some of the items that we've talked about tonight don't quite do that.

I think there may be people in the community that are still climate skeptical.

Most Alexandrians, maybe based on how we vote and who's leading us, maybe fully convinced, but perhaps not everybody.

So we will face these challenges, but we face them in a fair, safer way and healthier way for all of our community members if we commit to what it costs to make these design choices today.

Um so that affordability and equity piece, those those go together and they relate to resilience.

Um I know we talked a little bit about CPACE earlier, and maybe that tool isn't working great right now in terms of how people make this pencil, but ultimately resilient buildings make a lot of things more affordable over the long term for the community.

There's nothing worse for a city's finances than an emergency, right?

Then an emergency where we have a heat emergency and a brownout combined and a bunch of people going to the hospital and your grandmother passing away because she didn't have AC in her house because we didn't have the and then the the unit couldn't keep itself cool enough for the three days that you didn't have power during that 100-degree heat day that you showed us.

Like these things um have to come have to come together where we're creating resilience on a lot of fronts, and the built environment is the most is probably the most important piece in terms of resilience.

We can talk on another day about the transportation network and things that have to do with resilience in that line.

But um, the buildings last longer, they make our residents less vulnerable to threats, they require less energy to operate, they put less strain on the grid.

They they can generate some of their own power.

They could ideally store it on site.

These are all features that come together to create a more resilient community.

Um and again, I'm I'm quite concerned that even in 2019 when we were when we worked on the green building policy policy when it was a policy last, um we didn't have data centers on the on the radar.

This wasn't even a thing.

We were concerned about other stuff, but we didn't have this sort of clear and present danger of completely running out of electricity because this other thing that we all really want.

And I probably everyone here has tried an AI prompt at least once, and you've maybe read some of the statistics about how much power it uses to create the information it's providing us.

That desire isn't gonna go away, right?

Our kids are gonna be using AI.

So we've got to figure out how all this stuff goes together and how it goes together when data centers are built in our backyard.

Um and then again, resilience leaps back to economics because I really hope that we can come to a recommendation that makes this a stronger plan, but also that when council sees that recommendation, they understand that we're not trying to take a tough bet on the economics of green building, but we're in fact saying the long-term best bet, like when you put all your money in a mutual fund and it's diversified and you let it sit for a like the long-term bet is this.

Everything else is a short-term bet.

So that's a lot of generalities.

Um, I'm I was gonna let um Commissioner Lanahan and Commissioner Vice Chair Koenig go into the specifics because I think the memo that we received outlines details, all of which I'm fully supportive.

Well, all of but one I'm fully supportive of, and one I'd like to talk a little bit more about, which is the elimination of the clean energy fund option.

Um my concern with fully eliminating it is a bit of an unintended consequence of then getting development projects that will come to us and say they can't possibly do it, and then we don't get it at all because we don't have a way for them to pay for not doing it.

And ultimately, when it comes through as a DSUP, council can approve it without without um without the the renewable on there.

Um, I would propose as an alternative for discussion and consideration the elimination of the cap so that the tool stays in the plan.

There is no cap that makes it economically ridiculous for anyone to put um renewable on a site, and we see what happens.

And um staff review the plan in two years' time and make an adjustment.

If we see nothing come through with renewable, we do an assessment and maybe some focus groups about what's going on with that.

And if we have not figured out how to implement the fund or to to feasibly use that money in a timely fashion so it doesn't sit and depreciate in an account and become worth nothing in a few years, like we talk about it and we address it, but I'm I'm a little concerned, but maybe willing to be convinced.

I'm concerned about completely eliminating it from the document.

That's that's where I stand on on that one detail.

I I'd like to take a step back for a minute and talk again about um the the on on site renewable construction.

And um the the metaphor that I often use, um, which won't seem related, but to me it is, um, is the catalytic converter in cars.

1975, Detroit said it was impossible to do it.

We don't think about it today, and we have lower cancer rates because we don't have lead coming out of our cars.

I think again and again we see patterns in which there's a group that says this is impossible.

Even even and and I'll get to the fact that I'm I'm a realist about all these things.

Um ADA, 1919 in the 1990s, you know, everyone had to start thinking about what is it like to get in and out of a building on a wheelchair, what's the ramp?

And we have architects have memorized it.

We know, you know, where you put the the door handle and how much space you need around it.

So I think what I'm um not seeing here is the understanding that there has to be a paradigm shift.

And we um I I don't accept that you can say, oh, we'll just put all of the PV on public buildings instead of on private buildings.

I think we just have to get everyone used to the idea that you're building envelope and your building has to be at a very rigorous EUI, and that has been done, that's been proven.

And you can put a PV array relatively easily on your roof, you can put it over a green roof, you can put it in all sorts of different ways onto a building.

And um, that's just the way developers start thinking about how they build a building.

It's just part of what they do.

I'm not saying it'll work for every building.

I agree that there can be exceptions, but um, we're just not gonna get there unless it's a requirement, unless it becomes automatic in the way it has for many other things.

And I'll point to another another example in in 2020, USGBC's lead requirements were something that we still frowned on.

VOCs were still in paints.

Again, we don't even think about it anymore.

Now, having said that, I don't think this is simple.

I mean, I'm looking around the room with three architects on this dais, and to change the way you do buildings and design them, to do have new wall sections with you know new ways of insulating and all that stuff, it is not easy.

It's gonna take a lot of time, it's gonna be very challenging.

People are gonna feel the pain of having to do it, but um it it happens, and and I think that demand has to be there in requirements by um planning and by our government before people are gonna do it.

And they don't have to look far.

Um, across the river, we have a lot of those very things, and admittedly the rigor, the the uh the ability to require it may be different, but the ability to do it has been proven.

And so um I'm I'm adamant that it is our role in this instance to say there is no way we get to any of the 2030 requirements without a more rigorous EUI level set and without on-site renewable requirements that really require the development community to start doing it.

Um and and again, I I um appreciate um Commissioner Dubai's comments about you can make it automatic.

That's not there yet.

And so to get it to be automatic from a contractor um will take years, and I think the development community can do it now.

Um so I don't want to wait for those alternate mechanisms.

Um, so that's why I um and I do hear you about the um I I mean I think the impulse to eliminate the cap was the strength of the idea that this just has to start happening, and it's not gonna happen unless we take a pretty um rigorous stance about it.

So I'll leave it to the rest of the commissioners commissioners to weigh in.

Yeah, Commissioner Ramirez.

Um I I would just add to that that um commissioner Lenahan and your capture of these various steps, right?

That we've experienced in some of our lifetimes that we have consistently found no matter what humans um humans uh human adaptability.

It's it's a human trait, right?

Um as designers, as um as as a human being, we are always um adapting to those constraints that are put around us.

Um and I I do feel that sentiment of the the um clean energy fund um that perhaps it can be calculated as a percentage that there is not a cap.

Um, yes, it seems like it may be a fairly reachable goal at 150,000, and instead perhaps then we put it at a percentage instead.

And so then that maybe hopefully that will encourage more developers to investigate uh renewable on-site renewable energy that they can build into their projects.

Um, you know, I yeah, and I I totally agree, you know.

Umce and again, we find that there are these architectural constraints, and we're used to, you know, we we get those projects, whereas you know, or not get those projects, but like I think we've talked about those analogies of when you are given no constraints, nobody knows how to design.

What do you do?

Um, you have too many constraints.

That's true.

Like suddenly everything's kind of locked down.

Um, there's no movement.

Um, and I think somewhere, like we're we're trying to find a happy medium somewhere in between.

Um, I can appreciate that kind of struggle.

Uh but given given the reality of um our environment today, um, given the reality of new technology that has come online that has seemingly overnight become the go-to.

It is standard, um, and the the energy consumption that it requires and the fact that our markets haven't yet caught up to understand how to temper it.

Um I can only think that for us to put further constraints, tighter constraints on our green building policy would be, I would say uh um it it's it's something that we should do.

Um it would be the responsible thing to do.

And perhaps who knows, maybe that that can help to establish a standard for the region to stay under then that Virginia can look towards as well.

Um, and then the uh the two-year um period uh that you're outlining for um for the re-evaluation.

I think that's a a healthy timeline just to see whether or not see what the results are um during during a couple of years.

Usually that's the a period of like feasibility studies of market analyses of you know financial um uh uh structuring um for developments um before you start thinking about like you know what that concept design looks like um and what those constraints, what the effects of those constraints are in that financial modeling.

So that that can give us a pretty good real-time evaluation of whether or not this is a good policy to carry forward, or if we have to be if we have to uh revise it.

Thank you.

Any other anyone else wanna go next?

No, commissioner or vice chair canick, would you like to take it from here?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Um Chair McMahon.

Um so what I'd what I'd like to do if I could beg your indulgences that um this uh we have a couple we have some setup background information at the beginning of this before we actually get to the recommendations, and I was hoping to just walk through that real quickly as well.

And if I could ask um the OCA team to potentially bring up the slide that had just the DC um BEPS um examples on it.

Perfect.

Um, thanks.

Um it's it's weird to have a giant telecultural but I still would like to sort of guess it's you.

Actually, this whole idea like it's really weird.

Yeah, well, the things where it's when we're talking, it's it's time different.

So I'm not sure I can even look at it and talk at the same time.

But but now that we've digressed us for a moment, um, and and I think you Ryan, you made the point when we started this appreciation for staff's ability to just sort of set up that now.

This is uh this is the this is council chambers for the foreseeable future.

Um and it's it's really a comfortable functional uh space for the work that we're doing.

And I think there's a a lot about the nature of the conversation we've had tonight that's actually more comfortable and more extensive than it often is when we're sitting up behind all that fortressable wood, not meant to be in any way anything other than appreciation of how nice it was to be able to be in that chamber as an appointed member from from council.

But I think this is a great situation, and it's got a lot of uh a lot of uh IT.

So um I wanted to start by saying we we have three pieces here references and overview, and then the modifications and discussion, and then we tried to make the specific set of text at the very end that really is lining out this and that, so it would be usable to whatever extent we want to take part of it.

And I would like to just kind of um go through that a little bit.

So as we started looking at this, and I looked back through the thousands of documents we've got, which a lot have been referenced tonight.

The ones that turned out to be critical for me, the 2019 resolution of the Alexandria City Council to declare a climate emergency.

Now, to me, this is a foundational document.

I would I either was in the room or I imagined I was in the room, or I watched when council voted for that.

And it's I and I don't know of any other resolution of emergency in the 40 years that I've lived here.

So I took this seriously, and I and and it's also not just a kind of, hey, climate emergency is a thing, let's have a resolution.

It's an intense document, and for those of you all haven't looked at it recently, it makes a case that's absolutely no holds barred.

This is a fundamental existential threat to the well-being of our community.

It's on us.

Business as usual will not work.

We got to be creative, we got to think outside the box, we got to do stuff, we got to try new things.

And to me, that's been in the back of my mind the whole time.

And it fights, frankly, a lot with the way we have always done things, or we did things for the first 20 years I was here, which is it's heavily consensus-driven, everybody is very respectful.

I think that's a magic and important part of the way we do things, but it also had a tendency to have a thousand layers to it, and we were convinced that you know you would present something, and if 60% of the people thought it was the right thing, but 40% didn't, you had to go back and take it off the docket and work on it some more because until you got to 98% consensus, you couldn't go forward.

So we had a tendency to go a little bit far that way.

And I think that's one of the things that has to sort of disappear immediately.

So I like to think about that.

I wanted to put that on the record now tonight to say that I think that's the direction that I feel as an appointee of council to be working toward.

The second is the Environmental Action Plan 2040 and the ECAP plan.

And again, we talked about that a little bit earlier.

Uh I I have a concern about the way this whole process is going and the relative influence of the different voices to recognize the thing that we started with, which is for me the elephant in the room, is we're not anywhere near getting anywhere near these requirements.

And we set them in 2015, and we said 2030 because of course we can get to it by then, plus we can do something now that only gets us an inch there and spend another five years.

Well, we're the third or fourth time now doing that.

We're approving something two minutes before 2030 that's not going to get us anywhere near.

One example that just occurs to me is this next one sort of progress of development since the green building policy in 2019.

Okay, well, in 2019, first of all, we had no Office of Climate Action and Department of Planning and Zoning was trying to kind of come to grips with this.

And back then, before we wrote letters saying we need to update the green building policy, we wrote letters saying we need an office of climate action.

We don't need just someone who's three levels down in TENS who's supposed to be doing something about sustainability.

And and and to the point that everyone has made here, we're the kind of community that really took a while and all that, but we worked and worked and worked, and now we have incredibly capable people who have who have a mandate, and we're really trying to um uh to do this.

But at that, at that task force, there the suggestion was made early on uh by basically the planning commission representative and the EPC representative that we should think about net zero energy as requirement.

And it didn't survive the first five minutes.

So we spent all the rest of time working, well, we'll let's make a net zero energy requirement for the public sector, because the private sector is literally just crushed us before we got out of the first meeting.

And then the city will do it, and the city will show that this is possible, and the city will pay the it will invest the effort to make the to get the learning curve and do these projects, and then say three or five years from now, we can expand that so that the private sector will do net zero energy, which I think is was absolutely kind of explicit in any in any of these planned things that say all the buildings in the city are going to become net zero energy by 2030.

I don't know how that magically happens if the if the private sector never becomes part of that because we're the the city is four percent of that.

And yet here we are looking at a plan where there's no text in here that even vaguely waves at the private sector doing net zero.

So I think that's that's that's the cautionary side of this from my point of view.

That's the piece that tells me we're still embedded in business as usual at a level that is going to cause us serious harm, more harm when we get down.

The people coming after us are going to suffer more because we're not getting on it now.

And I should stop a little bit, move on here.

So 2023 um uh levels, uh letters we wrote this, that's all fine.

So as a result, the analysis that we tried to put together here is based upon whether or not our analysis of the screen billing plan is whether or not this plan will require each new building in Alexandria to embody these four characteristics.

It it's electric, it operates without burning fossil fuel on site.

Okay, we've made huge progress there.

I think one of the things that we have when OCA isn't sort of listening to us whine about things or me whine about things, is a recognition that we've gotten nominally electric through the natural process of the market, right?

We're down to these last little bits of things, some of which are more significant than others, but we have nominally electric buildings now.

And we didn't have to mandate that.

That's one where every the market kind of brought it brought it about.

And now we can sort of say, let's let's just say no combustion on site, and let's just make a list of the only five things that are left, and then let's give OCA the power to look at it every two years and come back and every second year take one of those things off the list.

I think that's that's the good news part.

Second is efficient, it utilizes energy to current industry standard best practice.

I think that what that term to me, that's the that's the term that we're arguing about, and that's the term where we have 50 different versions of what's um what?

But I think that's what we're trying to get to, and that's where our argument about what the right EUI number is.

Renewable, it generates electricity on site.

And I think that if if I have any frustration in this whole process, it's the fact that 40 years ago, we whenever it was and we started this technology, and we said, if we well, let me back up.

If we had an issue that said, how are we going to solve this thing?

Well, it would be wonderful if instead of having to burn coal somewhere and stick it in a wire and make it go 100 miles and come into your house and then go out to your appliances.

What if you just look up at the sky and kind of take that energy?

It's like, okay, well, now we have technology and have had it for 20, 30, 40 years.

You put the glass on the roof, the sun shines on the glass, it goes into the wire, it comes down, it runs your coffee maker.

And it's like that's magic.

And and and a lot of people have already adapted that, a lot of people are using it.

And we're still arguing, even though it's affordable and proven, whether we can just make it as standard as water coolers or air conditioners in our buildings.

It's just, and we're finally getting there with this plan, depending on how we do it.

And clean, uh, we know that the result of all this is that we get emissions down.

So I'm really sorry, I get a little excited here.

If if if if this plan fosters success in this endeavor, then people will live and work over the coming decades in new buildings which are healthier and safer, significantly less expensive to energize, and more resilient in the face of escalating climate change impacts.

That's what we're trying to do.

That's what I think we're all trying to do.

And and this draft plan makes three critically important process improvements by one introducing energy use intensity as a metric of performance.

I think this is this is something we've all worked.

This is the big this is a big achievement, and it's absolutely critical.

Two, establishing an on-site renewable energy requirement.

And to me, this is equivalently important.

This is one of my main problems with the project is we are focused like a laser on EUI, and then we're simultaneously finally saying you will do renewable, and in the next sentence we say, and these are the five ways you don't have to do it.

And I think that's uh an absolutely almost fatal flaw that we need to address.

So if we do, so we introduce those three, the I'm sorry, we do that, we introduce energy intensity as a metric of performance.

We establish on-site renewable requirement.

And the third piece, which didn't occur to me until the other day, but I think is at this level are these last two pieces that we talked about that accidentally fell out of the plan since September, which is instituting a biennial review of the standards in the policy.

I mean, I think that's something we that we've talked about a lot.

You all have it in the plan.

We're explicitly, I recommend very strongly that we explicitly make sure that that goes back in there, because we're now at the point where we're making these technical judgments and these arguments we're having about EUI.

It's gonna make a huge difference whether we pick 30 or 38.

If it 20, if five years from now, it's still whatever that number is, and then we decide that that number isn't good anymore, and we write letters for two years, and then we make a task group for two years, and then in 2050, we turned it into whatever this number we do tonight is minus five.

Then we're now making the kind of moves where that process just won't work.

So we so this is I think this mechanism is good.

This is also the mechanism why what what we wrote in in June to do 30 and 2025 and then movement down.

So we talked a lot about that.

What if we can just put in this plan something that ratchets it and shows you where you're going to be in 2030?

Well, that clearly didn't get in here either.

And actually, after talking to Ryan and Dustin about it and thinking about it, I think the two-year thing is key.

And also, I I will confess that there are times when I mean Ryan said, Well, we'll get the plan, and then I'll just come back every couple of years and tweak those numbers.

And I went, that's never going to happen.

We're still we're getting a full-on barrage of opposition about doing this.

I don't, with all due respect, there's no possibility that somebody, even with the right authority and a mandate is going to be able to just sort of write a letter and take the EUI down.

But if it comes into the policy this way and it's acknowledged and the authority to do the review every two years without having to put it in the work plan, and that the uh climate action officer is charged with coming back to council every second year and making a recommendation, that's a tool that I would believe in.

That's the kind of tool that I think that can work.

Um, so we do all those things, we're doing positive things.

However, if if we make all that process improvement, and then we simultaneously set inadequate performance targets that do not produce meaningful progress in energy efficiency or renewable energy.

I think we've we've only done half of what we need to do, and we've set up a beautiful new process that's gonna that's basically going to shepherd the status quo until we get the thing together again enough to put real numbers on it two or five or 10 years from now.

That's why I think this numbers fight is important.

So to the actual things that we're suggesting.

If you could slide that a little um farther, um, yeah, and look at number, um, not quite that far.

Oh, yes, that one, that's good.

Thank you.

So the first thing energy use intensity.

I think our suggestion at this point is just go ahead and turn that number into 30 for the reasons that I mentioned before.

The the the matrix isn't set up to have multiple numbers, none of the other categories have numbers for five years out.

We just forget the 23, and we work on making sure that we get the um that we get the um review.

And uh while we're here, the other point there is just the best example I can think of is you know, here's six buildings in the back end of the of the plan.

There are actually 13 examples from this category that you all had pulled together.

Um, so buildings in our region are regularly built to this standard, and we're talking about 30 EUI at this point.

So we have those 13 buildings that have actually been used as a reference, they range from 24 to 37.

And these buildings are indistinguishable in form factor and character and scale and technology from what we build in Alexandria.

So, my point there is those different um penestration and glazing proportions, different massing configurations, different levels of height.

So, all everything that I'm hearing from the development community that says that that's just sort of a bridge too far, is something I think that we should not accept as a reason for not making this um this a reasonable, uh, a doable number.

Um, on the renewable energy, um, so the plan says 3%.

I think some of the early material that I actually mean, at one end we have net zero energy for public buildings where we're gonna get to 100%.

We come to the private sector and we have this sort of de minimis number of three percent.

Um, and I haven't we haven't delved into this, but whether if you're in a 200 unit building and you got 3% on the on the roof when the power goes down, can you even charge everybody's cell phone?

I don't know.

But I think we at least bump that number up, which is what we had decided to do in uh in June.

And I think again, this this requirement to actually generate on-site renewable energy in the in our case at least equal to 5%.

It's absolutely fundamental.

I know I've made this litany before, and I don't know, and I don't get tired of doing it, and I've tired of people are tired of hearing it.

But I've been on this commission for 10 years, and I have seen countless, I would say at least dozens of buildings that look a lot like this that have flat roofs that are gonna go out and stare at the sky, and they're represented as solar ready, and the only thing solar ready about them is that they already have a flat roof, and that there's a conduit for a wire, and there's enough space in the basement for a panel.

And none of those buildings, to my knowledge, of however many they've been have ever turned out to be solar active after that.

So I really think that that whole exercise was just a a re a way for us all to say the word solar a few times.

I'm not really not kidding me here, you know, say the word solar a few times while we approve things that then had gone off and have not have generated an iota.

So we have already 10 years worth of new buildings that do not have the ability to become resilient.

So I think if we were serious about this new requirement and it was applied consistently to every project, the city would finally begin to assemble an inventory of buildings with functional photovoltaic infrastructure and active clean energy generation on site.

And all the benefits that we know that come from that, we're distributing power right to where we need it.

We're helping the grid, we're diversifying, and those buildings would then be set up so that as the cost of battery technology on site falls, they can come out five or 10 years later when it's affordable, plug the battery in, go off grid, and be truly resilient.

If we don't actually make that renewable happen on that building, then when the battery gets affordable, they'll go, well, that's great.

Let's go ahead and do our solar now, and it'll never happen, and we'll be forever behind the curve.

I think also if this requirement was applied consistently to every project, the resistance of the development community to installing solar would become would be overcome by experience.

And local subcontractor and workforce capacity would expand, which is something we talk about all the time.

Ryan talks about it eloquently all the time.

It's a fundamentally important thing that once we get going with all this stuff, how are we going to build it if we don't have the people to do it?

Well, we do it by everybody going out and doing the first building and everybody and the subcontractors getting their first job, and then the new guys breaking off from one company, go out and hire some more people to do some more work.

None of that has happened over the last 10 years, naturally, from the developers doing it their own way of saying, no, I can't quite get to it.

A little too tough to do right now.

I really do have to learn how to stop shopping.

I apologize for that.

So the last point I'd like to make here, and uh and Mr.

Wire referred to it here in a kind of on ongoing back and forth that we've had for a long time, that he resents being told again and again to put um PV on a roof because it just doesn't go.

And my point is well, if you design the roof so it goes, then it goes.

And if you design a roof like you don't have any idea about doing PV, and you cover it with a random set of um uh mechanical equipment, and you don't look at how you put all things together, then and you get a bunch of spaces that are about twice as big as this desk in four different places on the roof, yeah, you're not gonna get a PV array.

So I think the solar, my suggestion, and this isn't in the plan, but my suggestion publicly to you guys now as you go forward is take and the and the planning and zoning team now and the and the conditions that go into the SUP and set some basic design criteria to make to take an integrated approach to roof design that would facilitate functional solar arrays.

And this whole thing about well, you can't put it over a green roof and all that, yeah.

If we've got something in the code now that prevents that, just go fix it.

The the fundamental reality of putting people and uh green roof technology and building systems and and electric generation on the roof is just a design issue like getting the windows in the building or the garage to work.

This is, you know.

So why can't we just make a simple and this is my other point is without a simple little requirement that says, if you're this type of, for instance, this type of building, you should be able to go up on your roof if you have this kind of form factor and get 50% of the clear area for a solar array.

So that's what we're gonna expect to see.

And if you can't get it, you tell us why.

But without that, all we've ever gotten, and I've looked at again at least dozens of them, roof plans where the stuff is strewn all over everywhere, and there's a phrase that basically says, Well, we're gonna put solar on there later.

The guys who are real ambitious, go in those areas where they haven't already put something and put a little dotted box and say PV future.

And it's about again, enough or not nearly enough.

So and this is back to the point we're talking about before.

If we don't make some sort of requirement or set a standard, they're not gonna, it's not gonna happen.

So the clean energy fund, I'll just make my case for eliminating it, and then we can move on to making the deal that we may need to make.

So my problem with the the, and the reason that I've that we've written here to eliminate the proposed clean energy fund.

The clean energy fund would significantly inhibit realization of the renewable energy goals of the plan.

I think the way it's written, um, it would do that.

And as I said before, we we set the requirement, and then we immediately give you three ways out of it.

Um, it would be a very attractive option for applicants to avoid building renewable capacities simply because they don't want to.

Again, that elicited kind of a sharp reaction tonight, but I've heard it.

Simply heard it.

Um, it not always formally, but it's kind of I don't want to do it, and you can't make me do it, is what it comes down to.

And it's true.

We can't, we don't have a requirement.

Now we're trying to make a requirement.

We should actually follow through with it enough to get some.

Umfering such an easy way out would demonstrate a disconcerting lack of confidence in the legitimacy of our new renewable energy requirement.

And that is my point is that we turn right around and say, actually, you know, don't worry about it.

Here's you know, here's you know, and again, just put some money in over here and you don't have to do it.

And I'm not going to be here for very long, but everybody who's coming after me on the planning commission can do what I got to do for 10 years and just watch flat roof buildings go by without any energy on them unless we make this happen.

The 150 uh KCAP is so low that most, if not all larger projects would choose not to install solar on site.

So if we end up with this regime, and then and two years down the road, we've got you know five different townhouse developments that have solar on five percent of the units, and we don't have a single square inch of solar on all our 200 unit residential buildings.

I think that's a failure.

And I think that's a that's a serious um risks risk.

Yeah, so developers would continue to build solar-ready buildings that do not generate renewable energy.

And this is the other piece of that equation, which I think I'm I'm I'm gonna be very interested to see how council reacts to this because the fund that gets made, contributions would accumulate and the city would be tasked with locating, scoping, designing, and executing projects to utilize the funds.

And as we've talked about a little bit before, and it's come up in some of our other discussions.

We just we just determined that that's not a particularly good mechanism that we've used for certain things and plans over the last 10 years and taken it out.

And the point that you've made, Commissioner Lin had many times in this case is that uh uh a hundred thousand dollars of a fee and a contribution goes into this fund, and the other end we're gonna get $92 worth of PV somewhere sometime.

And I'm and I'm that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but why would we in so and the last piece of this is that if we if we do that, it can be expected that at the end of the process, the amount of clean energy generated per dollar collected would be discernibly lower than if each applicant had simply designed and built some solar on their project to begin with.

I'm trying, I'm I'm done at this point.

And I think that on the on the clean energy fund, then I accept the the chair's logic that unfortunately, if we eliminate it, we don't have another mechanism that will effectively offer some kind of relief because it is true that not every single project.

I I really don't accept the idea that the default is sort of well, every developer's gonna come in and go, I kind of can't do solar on my building.

It's like, well, your building is a 10,000-foot footprint standing out here staring at the sky, exactly what is it that prevents that from uh happening?

And I would be comfortable when we get to the voting on this to remove the part that says eliminate the fund and change that to eliminate the 150,000 cap.

And then I think we can trust the team to kind of go back and and address the other uh concern that you've had um from the beginning of how to address that kind of diminution of the money by it's sitting and getting reused and all that.

And if the if the calculated cost of doing the installation is 100,000 bucks, the fee should be 150,000 bucks or some number like that to uh to uh to affect that.

Um then the last pieces here electrification small projects net zero energy.

I think uh you don't need me to whine about those.

I think we could go straight to the text um of the proposal and we can explain them as we go through.

And if anybody still has the stamina to um have me make a motion and go through them.

Yeah.

Um just for clarification, this would apply to conversions as well.

Yeah, just new construction.

The plan has a specific provision in there for flexibility for conversions.

Um so we would some of the provisions of the green building plan would apply to them, but they were there is increased flexibility for things like solar and UI for those conversions.

Okay, thanks.

Um I'd love to hear.

Well, I just want to acknowledge that I really appreciated the um arguments you gave Commissioner Lenahan for sticking to your guns on the clean energy fund and this idea that ultimately what we're looking for is buildings to start building renewable energy.

Um we're looping it back to the fact that this is part of resilience, right?

I mean, we want to lower we we want to and we can lower the energy use intensity of a building, but but beyond that, that other piece of our diversification of our little energy portfolio is ensuring that we have something growing here in Alexandria and on these buildings and dispersed across buildings.

Um, and I also have long been compelled by the idea that we know there will be a devaluation of a fund like that.

Like it's not we're not gonna get out of it what we put into it.

But I really love to hear other commissioners' thoughts on that item and any other items in this list, if anyone has hesitation on them, because I just I need some more perspectives, Commissioner Brown.

And listening to uh the vice chair's presentation, which I had already read in detail before, my mind started to wander, and the wandering was directed at the fact that uh actually my the great grandfather of my wife was a chief engineer in the city of San Francisco long time ago, long before my time.

And uh I was thinking about what happened when the San Francisco earthquake hit in 1906, and imagined that I was working for this man as a I don't know, a building a building code inspector, and was was wandering the city and seeing all these four and six storied buildings had crumbled to the earth.

Uh and there started to be a lot of con a lot of controversy about what to do upon rebuilding the city.

We should strengthen the resilience of these buildings from earthquakes.

But then there were the other people on the other side, the building people saying these buildings stood for years, and this was just a once in a once in a lifetime or maybe even two lifetime event, which is not going to recur.

Uh we would be disincentivized if I can borrow a word from uh Ms.

Gibbs earlier tonight to rebuild our buildings if we had to strengthen their resiliency.

And then there were others that said, well, why don't we just have a resiliency building fund, which can be applied selectively and in appropriate places.

Um I I'm just completely persuaded by the arguments the uh the the detailed arguments made by uh uh commissioner Lenahan and the vice chair that this is the sensible way to proceed because uh what happened in San Francisco was that they forgot about all of this dense disincentivization stuff and changed the building code and buildings there, some of them built after that earthquake still stand today.

Uh and the the urgency of now is to my mind reinforced by everything that I've heard from the vice chair and and commissioner Lennihan.

And it also it also reflects to me if this summary that we got from the staff at the end, which says number two, the green building plan is designed to ensure developments do not negatively impact the resiliency of our community.

Well, I think those builders in San Francisco that wanted to rebuild their homes, their their buildings without added uh resiliency could say, well, we just want to rebuild them in a way that does not negatively impact the existing resiliency.

Well, that's an extremely low bar, and I've I completely commend uh the arguments uh for raising the bar.

That's all I need to say.

Thank you.

Commissioner Dubai.

I think um one final thought from me.

I I've gotten quite an education over the last six or eight months on this particular subject.

Um and I appreciate the vice chair and and Commissioner Lenahan and everybody else's your synopsis, Chair was excellent of why we need to do something like this, and I fully support the letter that we wrote in July or June with all those recommendations, and I support what the vice chair's getting ready to put forward, I believe.

And I certainly appreciate Commissioner Brown's history lesson about the um earthquake resiliency with the rebuilding of the structures.

And it also brought to mind that in the 1700s that the city of Alexander was all wood buildings, and then after two or three fires that burn half the city to the ground, they decided that wasn't such a good idea.

So now we're where we are.

Um diversity that we bring to this job.

Right, right.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And I just I support these changes, and I hope we can uh do it unanimously.

That's my final thought.

All right.

May I hear a move?

Oh, I think that's a one of hand.

So what one of the buildings that I worked on uh at my previous um job was a net zero energy building, and and we had to drive the EUI down to 12.

And for that building, we did a sewer heat exchange, we did a huge PVRA over a green roof.

We did a fight hydroponic photo remediation wall, all sorts of things based on that client wanting that.

And this is this is a very different request.

So solar panels on a roof are easy.

That we we know how to do them.

It's just it's just we just have to convince people that it becomes common practice, and then we can let these other sort of bleeding leading edge things then feed back into the processes.

Like we are we already have you know the the more common use of geothermal, right?

Those are the things that we also want to subsequently see.

So we have other targets.

Um I I just don't I think it's a very reasonable request what we're making.

Commissioner Ramirez.

And one additional little thought about this.

As you were talking about the EUI at 12.

Um, I I think one thing we have to recognize as well is the market conditions right now.

I mean, it's the the products that are available out there for us to tap in and make our buildings so energy efficient, right?

It's it's just a matter of supply and demand.

So the more that we do it, the more we established a baseline at a higher baseline, the more suppliers there may be, the more innovation there may be the prices will go down because the demand will be higher.

So let's set that bar at where we should have it, so that in that way we can kind of spur that along to really preserve our communities as best we can.

Um, you know, it's just thinking about the market conditions, like, yeah, there might not be as many providers of certain um products or technologies now, but um we've we've seen how much technology can change.

Um we should probably integrate that kind of innovation into our buildings as well.

Thank you.

I'm ready for a motion.

Um chairman, I'm I'm happy to make the motion and just walk through this text to make sure I know everybody's seen it.

Um but um I'm also if I could direct a question to um Commissioner Lenahan for a moment, and and you also is at this point then do we have enough consensus to just sort of decide what we want to do with the clean energy fund?

Propose it as you have proposed it.

Sorry, make your motion as you have proposed it, please.

Oh my goodness.

Okay.

Um thank you.

We've got some some desire to speak over there from our attorney.

Vice Chair Kenning, I did want to remind you that this does need a motion or a vote to initiate before the I'm gonna do the initiation first and then we can talk through that.

Um I just have a question back then.

If the motion is made as it's written now, um, and we have some dissent, then do we resubmit this the motion?

If a member of the commission does wants to make an amendment to the motion, okay.

Then they can propose that amendment, and we'll see what happens after the motion.

All or nothing over that one item.

Lost my little uh my cheat sheet on what the number for this is.

Oh you have the um it's um 203 years, thank you.

Okay.

Um thank you.

So I move to initiate um approval of the uh master plan amendment 2025-00004.

All right, I have a motion by Vice Chair Kennig and a second by Commissioner Manor to initiate this master plan amendment.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries seven zero.

Thank you.

Um and it's all up here.

Yeah.

Um I have another piece of count.

Um so I move to adopt the resolution approving master plan amendment 2025-00004 for the green building plan based on the staff report and the discussion at the hearing, and including the document entitled Modifications which Planning Commission recommends City Council Adopt, dated January 4th, 2025, which is this section of our document here.

So shall I just run through them and so the first one energy use intensity?

The format is it shows where it is in the plan, and then the bolded italics are new.

The cross-through is all it's the traditional convention.

So on energy use intensity, it changes only 38 to 30.

There are two different categories of multi resin multi-unit residential.

So there's two things there.

Can you go ahead and just cite the location?

Okay.

Uh so number one energy use intensity, table two, site EUI by property type page 18.

Quote, multi-unit multi-unit residential high rise EUI 38 to become 30 and multi-unit residential other EUI 38 to become 30.

Number two, renewable energy is in the renewable energy option one category on page 19.

And the line currently reads generate at least 3%, change that to 5% of the project's anticipated total energy, annual energy use with on-site renewable energy.

Number three, the clean energy fund, which is in renewable energy options two and three on page 19 and 20.

Delete the following, including the associated text paragraphs, steps, and formulae.

And that is two dash option two, contribute to the city of energy, city of Alexandria's Clean Energy Fund based on the formula below, and also delete the following, including the associated text.

Number three, option number three, any combination of option one and option two.

Um so that effectively eliminates option number two, which is the use of the clean energy fund.

Uh number four, electrification, which is in the electrification section, page 20.

Add a second sentence that says, quote, on-site combustion is prohibited unless included in permitted combustion uses.

And the reason we've suggested that is that in the plan it has the permitted combustion uses list that we saw on the slide.

And so it the plan is permitting certain combustion uses, but there's no place where it prohibits the others.

And so I think you need a uh a line that says pro on-site combustion is prohibited unless otherwise allowed, essentially.

Um, so that's what that's doing.

Uh small projects, residential projects with four or fewer units or projects under um delete 25,000 and insert 10,000 square feet gross square foot gross floor area are exempt from options one, two, and three.

And it's been a long night.

And if anybody would like to know about that one or has a perspective on it, we could talk about it.

And if we're comfortable, I'll just roll on.

Just keep going.

Um net zero energy.

In this case, um, select and include an industry recognized net zero energy standard for public projects in the development review process, which is item seven, to be created by the Office of Climate Action.

So there's no actual new language for the plan here.

It's just an instruction that when OCA does its um its mandated preparation of uh Greenville uh of uh review process for submissions that it incorporates in that an actual industry approved net zero energy standard, which we have never had since 2019, and we in my opinion desperately need now.

And then seven and seven and eight are these two excuse me, um, bits of text that were in the September uh draft that disappeared, and the instruction is simply to add quote the city's Office of Climate Action is directed to create a process for reviewing development submissions and periodically updating the green building plan's application in the city's development process administratively and as necessary to accommodate swift, accurate and effective submission review and green building plan implementations.

And director, if I haven't lost your attention completely.

Our conversation the other day where we were talking about hey, how do we turn this plan into a checklist for development review because we weren't seeing it?

It's because it was in there and then it disappeared.

And I I think that this all we do is reinsert that and it addresses your observation, which is OCA has the authority to take this plan and turn it into a mechanism for development review.

And without that text right there, there's nothing in the plan that says what will be the development review.

So long explanation for just putting something back that I don't think anybody's arguing about.

And then the future updates, uh, this was text that was also in the previous version to add back the Office of Climate Action will at least every two years review the standards set in this policy, particularly energy use intensity, renewable energy, and permitted combustion uses, and recommend any changes to city council.

And full disclosure, I added permitted combustion uses, which wasn't in there before.

Um, but I think uh, and I meant to have the discussion before that to me falls exactly in the category, and I'd be happy if you guys weighed in on that.

That if you're gonna do a two-year review and it's going to include energy use intensity and renewable energy, is it legitimate to have you look at explicitly permitted combustion uses at the same time?

Yeah, we can do that as well.

Okay, great.

Um so that's that's what we're proposing.

And if I could, Commissioner Du Bay, are you comfortable if we try to add your reference?

Um I've uh been doing so much other yaking that I didn't really.

I I think if we could add, if we could say I haven't, it's not here, but add an item number nine that says um include um in quotes EV charging and life safety, unquote, um, the EV charging and life safety section of Commissioner Dubai's um uh memo here.

Um somehow to the to the process of creating the development review process that will be done by OCA or something to that.

Is that far enough along for I think it's clear enough direction to staff as to what is intended to be incorporated?

And are you comfortable with that?

Okay, we have one complete motion.

Do we have a second?

All right, we have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Dubay.

Did you want to have that second?

No, okay.

All right.

Um does anyone want to discuss the motion?

Revise the motion.

Does anyone have an issues with the motion?

Let us vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

I opposed motion carries seven zero.

I know you guys are stunned, and now you have you're like, Do we leave?

Do we live here now?

You're actually just frozen in place, yeah.

Yep.

That's it.

Um, I've lost my agenda.

It was can someone tell me what what happened next time.

Oh, beautiful.

Okay.

Uh uh November 6th and December 2nd.

Yes, thank you.

We have received the meeting minutes for November 6th and December 2nd.

What did you say?

Um I sent to staff a minor edit to the minutes of November 6th, which was just to um the copy of revised condition language that we had done in the action, didn't paste over entirely correctly.

It was like missing the strike throughs.

It had the underlines, but it didn't have the strike throughs, so you can imagine how that read.

Um, and I just double-checked it with the council's action docket, so I knew it it all went through the right way there.

It just the formatting didn't show up right.

So they've got that.

It's a minor technical fix.

Um did anyone see anything else that they wish to change on either set of minutes?

Okay.

Would someone like to make a motion?

And I think you can make it together if you like.

Yes.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from November six and December.

Second second.

Okay.

Um, I have a motion by Commissioner Ramirez to approve both sets of minutes and a second by Commissioner Lenahan.

And a second by Commissioner Lenahan.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries six zero.

Vice Chair Candy just stepped out for the record.

That's why he's not on that boat.

Yep.

Six is enough.

And that brings us to Commissioner comment.

Is it directors and director's report?

Let's let's give Paul some time.

Please, Director Stoddard, give us the report.

Thank you, Chair.

The always happy to provide a report.

And I want to actually actually start by echoing something Mr.

Freed said, and that is thanking General Services and ITS for getting this space ready.

It's no small feat.