Oh, well, gotta figure out the right.

All right.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to our January legislative meeting.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Councilman McGearing.

Here.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman L.

Newby.

Here.

Councilwoman Green.

Here.

Councilman McPike.

Okay, and Councilman McPike and Councilman Chapman will be joining us shortly.

Madam Clerk, next item.

Consideration of closed executive session to discuss plans to protect public safety as it relates to relates to terrorist activity or specific cybersecurity threats.

Aye, any opposed?

The eyes have it.

Okay, Councilman Al Nubi.

Madam Mayor, I move that City Council reconvene in open session.

There has been a motion by Councilman Alnubi and a second by Councilman Chapman to reconvene it um in open session.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, the ayes have it.

Uh Councilman Alnubi.

Madam Mayor, I move that the city council adopt the resolution regarding the closed executive session that was previous previously circulated to the council.

Okay, there has been a motion and a second to adopt the resolution that was previously circulated to the council.

Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Alnubi.

Aye.

Councilman Chapman.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

Okay.

Well, good evening, everyone.

And thank you so much for joining us for our first legislative meeting of twenty twenty six.

As you can see, we are in a new location.

Um and while we are very excited about the new space, we also recognize uh there may be some growing pains.

So we hope that you will have patience with us.

Uh this is our first meeting, as I said, we have a number of different things to get through, but what will not change is our commitment to making sure that it is an effective, efficient, and thoughtful meeting.

So we thank you and we appreciate your patience.

Before we do the pledge, I did want to acknowledge that we have several young men from Troop 135, which is sponsored by the Del Ray Citizens Association.

They are here working on their citizenship in the community badge and have to observe a discussion on a public issue and then um take a side based on the argument.

So um we welcome the troupe.

We thank you for joining us, and we hope that it is a very informative meeting.

With that, we will um actually, Madam Clerk, next item moment of silence and pledge of allegiance.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

Um so for proclamations, they uh the practice that we're going to use is I will ask one of our council members to read the proclamation.

He or she will then come to the front over here on my right hand side.

If you are joining us for the proclamation, we've asked that we only have one to two representatives, just given the space constraints.

And so if you are those representatives, we ask that you come to the front so that we're able to give you the proclamation and to take a picture.

Anyone else who's here, I will acknowledge at the end um at the end.

And so with that, um, Councilman Al Nubi is going to read our mentoring month proclamation.

And there should be a microphone, yes.

And I believe you we have two guests.

Um, you're in the front of the right.

Yeah, go on the front.

All right, sorry.

Patience with us as we adapt to the case.

The first one, I'm gonna read the proclamation and then we're gonna move it and approve it.

Um whereas in 2006, marking its 20th anniversary, the Alexandria Mentoring Partnership was conceived by visionary local leaders and brought to life by a team of city government staff in collaboration with the Alexandria City Public Schools and key nonprofit partners.

And whereas high quality mentoring is proven is a proven catalyst for positive youth development.

And whereas?

For two decades, the Alexandria Mentoring Partnership has championed the vision that every young person who desires a mentor will have access to one, and that high quality mentors and mentoring programs are available throughout our community.

And whereas the Alexandria Mentoring Partnership supports those wishing to start new mentoring programs and those wishing to enhance existing programs.

And whereas the partnership profoundly offers Caring University Care U, a free learning institute for youth and adults who care about them, fostering social and emotional development and the culture of caring across Alexandria.

And whereas the City of Alexandria remains deeply committed to investing in growth, quality, and profound positive impact of mentoring experience for youth, our dedicated mentors, and all partner mentoring programs.

Now, therefore, I, Abdul Nubi, on behalf of Alia Gaskins, mayor of City of Alexandria, Virginia, and on behalf of the Alexandria City Council to hereby proclaim the month of January as Alexandria Mentoring Month in the City of Alexandria.

And I call on this call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

In witness whereof, I hereon to set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Alexandria to be affixed on this 13th day of January 2026.

So I will pass the mic to you all to introduce yourselves.

Sure.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Gaskins and members of council.

My name is Maddie Nance, and I'm the Alexandria Mentoring Partnership Coordinator.

And I am Kirsten Villovan, the AMP Strategic Communications and Outreach Americor Vista member who will be completing my year of service with the city next month.

We greatly appreciate the city's continued support for youth mentoring initiatives, which were proudly featured in the Department of Recreation Parks and Cultural Activities Winter 2026 program guide titled Mentorship Matters.

Today, 20 years since its establishment in 2006, AMP proudly serves over 700 Alexandria youth mentees and over 500 volunteer adult mentors by providing quality programming and support across the city.

AMP's work would not be possible without AMP program partner staff, some of whom are here today, as well as three grant-funded part-time mentor support staff, many city departments, community-based organizations, schools, families, and the volunteer mentors who show up week after week.

Their commitment demonstrates what is possible when a community comes together to support its young people.

Mentoring provides a space for youth to feel supported, valued, and empowered to succeed.

Mentoring is also proven to increase youth self self-esteem, confidence, mental health, sense of belonging, communication skills, and academic performance while decreasing risk factors associated with crime, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and gang affiliation.

We are grateful for City Council's continued support of the Alexandria Mentoring Partnership and our vision that every child in Alexandria who needs a mentor has one.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for everything you do.

Thank you for being here and everyone who's here with you this evening.

And with that, Madam Mayor, I move to approve the proclamation.

Okay, there has been a motion by Councilman Alnubi and a second by Councilman Chapman to approve the proclamation, recognizing January as mentoring month.

Is there any discussion?

Well, I just want to take a minute to say thank you to our amazing team that coordinates the mentoring partnership.

Thank you to all of you in the community who may be a mentor already.

And for those of you who might have an interest in mentoring, we hope that you'll reach out.

There's no shortage of great opportunities and partnerships that we can build together.

And I think the more we lean in and find ways to care and support each other, the better community will be.

So with that, there has been a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

All right, the ayes have it.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, next item.

Mayor Gaskins and Councilman Chapman.

Okay.

Um I will begin.

Last night, uh, we had the work group meeting at the ARHA headquarters.

We got updates on several important projects, beginning with Samuel Madden North.

Samuel Madden North is expected to be completed in the fall of 2027.

Great news, it is on time and on budget.

I think another interesting stat that was stayed with that was stated was that 83% of the hours that have already been worked on this project have been done by those who qualify for section who qualify for section three, which is minority and disadvantaged workers.

And it was interesting to hear that actually a number of the jobs on the project have actually gone to ARHA residents.

And so I think it's really important that as we think about development, how are we also creating jobs and opportunities for our local residents?

We also got an update on Samuel Madden South.

Samuel Madden South has a total of 36 units on the property.

To date, they have successfully relocated uh 26 individuals as they prepare for the demolition of that project and are currently working with the other 10.

We also had an update on LaDre.

Uh LaDre, all but one person has been relocated, and they are in the process of finalizing a housing agreement for that one person.

The big um thing that they are working on with that project is really working to close the finance gap in order to be able to move forward with the renovation of LaDre.

And on that, I know we had some questions on kind of is a renovation possible.

I know it circulated to the council and we can circulate again, but they did um send us the physical needs assessment that was construct uh conducted as well as the other assessments that they've done related to the structural integrity of of the building.

And then the final update that we received was on the aid.

There are 133 total homes at the elite.

Currently 107 are occupied.

Of that 107, 95 are new residents who have moved over from the LaDre, and they are now working on marketing the other units in order to be able to get a fully leased building.

With that, I'll turn it over to Councilman Chapman.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I would just add uh one of the things that we talked about that will be pumping up in future meetings is uh about our Hawt's pipeline pipeline of development.

Um and so we're gonna get some um updates from the board uh on what that pipeline looks like.

I think that'll also help uh the city kind of understand funding needs and funding avenues uh as we look to move further or ARHA looks to move further uh with that development.

Uh one of the other pieces and conversation that we have for a future meeting is how some of the conversations around Duke Street and the Duke Street planning process are gonna integrate uh with some of the sites that are along the Duke Street corridor as well.

Uh and so I look forward to those as well.

Madam Clerk, next committee Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, Mayor Gaskins.

Hey, the big update from NVTA is that we had our organizational meeting at which we elected a new chair and vice chair.

Uh Phyllis Randall, the chair of Loudon County will continue as the chair, and then Mayor Davis Younger will be our vice chair.

I think many people are familiar with uh Dave Snyder from Falls Church, who has been our vice chair for a while.

Uh Dave will continue in other leadership positions, serving as the chair of the policy commission as well as the finance commission.

Other than that, we had some discussion around the various bills that I know we've talked about here um multiple times, like S Day 28 and others that impact transportation funding during this session.

Madam McClerk, next committee.

Legislative subcommittee, Mayor Gaskins and Councilman McPike.

Okay, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague to start, Councilman McPike.

Yes, uh the most fun uh thing to do on Friday evenings.

Uh the legislative subcommittee uh began its work for this year uh with a consideration of a roster of um about a hundred and thirty bills uh flagged by our staff for consideration for the city to take a position on.

Uh the mayor and I uh made a few very minor adjustments to the list, uh adding some items to watch to make sure that they were some bills were adjusted over the course of the legislative session to something we could adjust, we could support, and noting one or two that the staff had had questions about for support.

These will be coming in a group uh before the council uh at large when we have um uh uh consideration on more of these items.

We're still in the filing period for bills right now.

It closes today in advance of the swearing in of the General Assembly tomorrow.

So we're looking forward to uh looking at more bills this week and having at the next council meeting a uh a list of bills for the council to to join us in taking a position on and communicating that down to Richmond.

And the only thing that I would add is of the 178 bills that were reviewed so far, 24 are direct items that are in our legislative package or within uh the council priorities.

And it's my understanding from staff that the majority of those are related to our housing priorities.

So I think it's a really exciting time for some of the work that we've wanted to move.

Madam Clerk, next committee.

Commission on aging, Councilman Aguirre.

Okay.

Um we will keep going and come back.

Madam Clerk, next committee.

Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, Councilman Ageary and Vice Mayor Bagley.

Okay, I'm gonna turn it to the Vice Mayor.

The red is on.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so good evening.

Yes, the Northern Virginia Transportation Committee met Gosh, it feels like it was just last night, but it was last Thursday.

Um, and uh the entire first hour of the meeting was sort of taken up with um honoring and um bidding goodbye to many long-term members.

Um we started with um Delegate Sickles, who has become or will become shortly after being confirmed the Secretary of Finance.

Um he has been a longtime member of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and also has been a huge um uh crafter of the bills, um the transportation bills that are going to be dealt with um in Richmond this session.

So we talked a bit, we fed him and his long career of service um to the body.

Um and we also then later in the evening talked about how we were going to handle um that bill continuing to be carried and moving forward.

Um we also spent um a nice amount of time um feding actually our former council member Paul Smedberg, who has served on the board of WMATA uh for an extended period of time um after his service um to the city of Alexandria during that whole 20-year period, uh he was on NBTC.

Paul served as the chair of the WAMATA board and um helped sort of uh during its its turnaround, honestly.

He was a part of hiring of Randy Clark and um the reinvestment in um the new trains, in the new fair gates, in um tap and go, and um a lot of the exciting changes that have happened.

And so um we commented and thanked him for his long service to NVTC.

Um and I was able to just speak on behalf of Alexandria and and his service to us as well.

We um also acknowledged uh the work of uh Senator Ebon, who also serves on MVTC and was prepared to carry the Senate side transportation related bills this year.

Senator Ebon has taken um effective uh February 18th.

He'll be taking um a position in the new um cannabis authority um in Richmond.

And so again, we spoke at length um to Adam's uh 15 year, 20 year career.

Uh 21 year.

21 year career um in the General Assembly and um the work he had done and the the proponent he'd been for transportation.

Um we also welcome um Roshna Sizemore Heiser, who is the new representative um in the Braddock district for Fairfax, and she'll be serving on NVTC, and we welcomed her to join us.

Um then uh somewhat awkwardly to to acknowledge myself here, um there was uh there was a uh unanimous vote that I became the chair of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission.

Um, but uh and so I took over uh the the chair role um from Dave Snyder, who the mayor recently spoke about.

Um Dave Snyder, I then had the opportunity to um fet council member Snyder, who has a 31-year tenure um serving on the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission.

He had been chair four times in that period of time, and so I was very lucky to spend the last year as vice chair sitting next to him and watching how it's done.

And so we were able to say many nice things about him and his tenure.

I will be joined in the executive committee by Matt Laterno of Loudoun County as vice chair and Maureen Coffey of Arlington County as Secretary Treasurer.

So um very excited um to sort of put Alexandria at the front of Northern Virginia Transportation Commission in a year that will have huge impacts for how we fund transportation in the Commonwealth.

There are um several bills uh that will move forward um that we hope will um substantially help fund those efforts and by doing so actually create and alleviate some monies to fund other things like education potentially.

Um the other smaller items um after we got through all of that feding and organizational changes is um we did approve the VRE budget.

Um there was uh actually a flat budget, which I just want to repeat and note is fairly impressive in these very challenging budget times.

And we also got an overview um on sort of what's being called the big bill, which um addresses a lot of potential changes to the tax code and in what we can tax, how much we can tax, and where it gets directed, and then a smaller transit focused bill.

So we'll be following those um and going to VTA Day in Richmond on January 26th.

I'm not sure if Madam Clerk, next committee.

Local emergency planning committee, Councilman Al Newby.

Councilman Al Newby.

All right, so um the local emergency planning committee met last week.

Um we have several vacancies, so we discussed the vacancies.

So if anybody's listening and interested, uh we have four board member um vacancies.

We also have um a vacancy for a citizen representative representing a community group.

We have vacancies for a broadcast and media groups um representatives.

So any broadcasting media orgs out there who want to appoint someone to the committee.

We also have two vacant positions for representatives of facilities of facilities within the City of Alexandria.

So these are some vacancies, so if people are out there interested, please reach out.

We also talked about the goals and the priorities for 2026, and one of those is to attend the P L E PC meeting for one of the jurisdictions around us.

We also talked about revamping the VDQ list for the tier two facilities that we have.

And that is it, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman O'Nubi.

Okay, Madam Clerk, next item.

City Council General Updates.

Okay.

Do any of my colleagues have general updates?

Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just um wanted to make sure that everyone knows that the city's Martin Luther King Jr.

program is going to be this Thursday at the Masonic Temple at 5.30.

And it's always a wonderful time honoring the legacy of uh Dr.

King.

Lots of performances and reflections.

It gets better and better every year.

So we hope that you can attend.

That's Thursday, 5:30 p.m.

at the Masonic Temple.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Green.

Are there other updates?

Okay.

I will go quickly.

I first just wanted to give a quick thank you to staff in RPCA, the CMO's office, OCCE, and Visit Alexandria, as well as I'm sure there are probably other departments involved for your partnership with our partners at first night and the opportunity to do fireworks on the waterfront for New Year's Eve.

It was a really exciting event.

I think we had record turnout.

Um something that I hope to be able to rec to replicate in the future.

Other things I wanted to share a leadership update with my colleagues.

As of next week, I will be stepping into the role of vice chair for the Council of Governments.

As many of you know, the Council of Governments is really the regional body that we work with to coordinate in jurisdictions in Northern Virginia, DC, and Maryland on everything from transportation to housing to climate policy.

So really excited to work with other mayors and local leaders on some great idea sharing and best practices to bring to our city.

And then I will also be stepping into the role of vice chair for the Mayor's Alliance to End Hunger.

This is a coalition of over 550 mayors from across the country that is really focused on how do we end hunger and food insecurity in our communities.

And as part of stepping into the vice chair role in a couple weeks, I'll be announcing we are going to receive a grant to be able to do some additional work through DCHS and some partnerships with groups like Alive.

So thank you.

And then lastly wanted to announce one other event tomorrow.

So before you go to the 53rd annual MLK program, our young people at ACHS are going to be doing a poetry slam at 2 p.m.

It's called Standing in Our Shoes and will be a series of poem and poems and cultural expressions about their experiences in our community.

Madam Clerk, next item.

City managers oral report, state of the economy.

Okay.

Mr.

Manager.

Great.

Do we have a Mad the clicker?

So Mayor and Council, this continues the monthly uh reporting uh about the state of the economy and provides um a little bit on the uh national economic indicators as well as uh the local indicators and I do want to touch base tonight on our budget calendar uh so that the public understands where we're headed.

Uh but on the national level, again on uh unemployment.

Our unemployment uh rate did edge down to about 4.4 percent in December from a revised of uh 4.5 percent.

Uh this still marks the highest level since October 2021.

So our unemployment is still up.

Um the inflation did decrease to 2.7 percent in November, which is down slightly from the previous month, which was around 3 percent in September, if you recall, uh, but it's still above the Federal Reserve target of about 2 percent.

On the jobs, uh again, I uh this this is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Uh we had about 50,000 jobs in December, um, slowing from 56,000 in November.

Um the unemployment continued trends upward in uh food service, health care and social assistance, while retail trades lost jobs as well as the Federal Government jobs changed a little bit in December.

However, Federal government employment is down 277,000 or 9 percent since January.

And that's based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Again, I this is just a graphic depiction of the chart as you can see, really on from December to December, so you can see the pattern continues to edge upward, which is the wrong trend.

Same thing on the inflation, you know, it it bumps around a little bit, but it's still hovering above again what the Federal Reserve really was hoping uh to achieve.

Um then in terms of uh employment, uh you can see that you know we're really not growing our job base much at all.

Um that 50,000, you know, historically over a period of years is one of the lowest numbers you're gonna see.

On the local side, um wanted to highlight um based on the data that you have uh from uh multiple listing service uh locally, our real estate sales are down slightly from the previous year, about 11 percent.

Our active lift liftings are down from last month, but at 293 is still higher than uh the 196 that we had in November of 2024.

Um the average fixed-year mortgage still hovers around 6.25 percent.

Um average days on the market did increase a little bit, if you recall, they this has been edging up uh really since probably the early summer, um, and now it's up to uh uh 32 days.

That's still very strong.

This is a very strong residential market, uh, but there are signs that it is weakening.

And then the average sales price again used to be closer to 100 percent.

Um that's dropped to about almost 97.6 percent.

Also, I mean, this is again a graphic depiction, as you can see.

Um, you know, it's some decent news, but it's it's uh uh it's it's showing some weakening in our residential uh real estate market.

It's also showing uh continued uncertainty, both in the job placement as well as inflation and our unemployment numbers are up.

So a couple key takeaways that I would like to share with you before we do the budget calendar.

Uh continued uncertainty, primarily related to some of the Federal Administration policies and practices.

Um that uncertainty is manifested itself particularly in the money markets, the capital markets that uh really fuel much of our economy.

Uh some of the the stock market and things like that.

I'm not an expert in that, but that's being driven by some artificial intelligence, some machine learning uh product and companies that are still in the infancy stages of building products.

And that people particularly are concerned about their financial well-being and their job prospects or job uh security.

And that that to me is one of the key elements because that's where locally we'll see uh less spending on uh disposable income and things like that.

If people are frankly worried about their stability and dipping into their savings for increases related to groceries and things like that that we have all experienced.

Uh so again, I probably this is a similar trend that you've seen literally since the the first time we did this in September, where there's just still a lot of uncertainty and we don't see much movement in the market upward in a positive way at this point.

But we also don't see it dropping off dramatically.

And I think that's that's really where that uncertainty.

People are frankly staying on the sidelines in where they're going to invest and trying to be fairly protective of both opportunities and business growth.

And that's where we have a very strong small business uh environment here, and and that's one of the things that you know could could be tempered quite quite easily with the margins that that are operating.

So again, that's sort of the message that we have on the economy.

Um what I did want to share is is shifting into uh our budget season.

This budget has been a continuous one uh with our budget office.

Um notice there's eight work sessions here, and this is this is all will be publicized on our city website.

But I wanted to give the public an early read.

Um on uh Tuesday uh February 24th.

On Tuesday, February 24th, the presentation of the proposed budget would be in front of the City Council.

There's eight work sessions then that essentially occur almost weekly, along with 16 total additional meetings in front of formal meetings with the council as it relates to things like tax rate, different types of hearings, your ad delete, deadlines, things like that.

And then ultimately addressing budget adoption at the end of April.

This doesn't include the schedule doesn't include all of the public opportunities to comment about the budget and and where we would do, much like last year, we did videos, we did presentations, we did formal presentations, we did neighborhood presentations, we did pop-ups.

We'll do the range of those things again this year to try to make sure that we get as much information and feedback and input and engagement from the public as we can as the budget gets adopted.

So kind of my takeaway on the economy is it's still sluggish, it's still uncertain.

We have to be very cautious.

Most people are very worried about uh their own job prospects and their own stability.

And then as we go into the budget, you know, there's a lot of opportunities for people to uh provide input to us.

Thank you, Mr.

Manager.

Are there questions for my colleagues for the manager?

Okay.

Um, we appreciate the update.

I guess I would just echo what the manager said.

Um I think we've been doing these so that we're all aware as a community, the context at which we are shaping and creating the budget.

And so when the public schedule um comes out, I would just encourage you.

We're probably going to be here.

So would encourage you to come back here and join us for this conversation.

Um Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Sorry for the delay in uh asking this.

But for the manager, what um my wife calling from another country.

Um I'm busy.

Yeah, I'm busy.

Um the the thing I'd love to see next time we present the budget calendar.

I know we've been working with our school system to kind of show that joint calendar.

And so if we can get that out to the public to let them know that one, we've been working together and kind of understanding uh if they if they um are following what the schools are doing or following what they're what we're doing, they can kind of understand how that's all working together.

That's great.

Yeah, I think we have that, so we'll go ahead and put this and we'll put that on to the city website.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Clerk, next item.

Action docky roll call consent items nine through eighteen.

Okay.

I need to pull sixteen, and there has been a request to pull 15.

Are there any 10J?

I'm sorry.

10J.

T and J.

No.

T and J.

T.

10.

10.

Sorry.

Okay.

So we're going to pull 10.

Um J.

15 and 16.

Is there anything else that needs to be removed?

Okay.

If not, I'd entertain a motion.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Thank you.

I um I move to approve items nine through ten.

Aye, and uh 11 through 14 and 17 and 18.

Second.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, there has been a motion and a second.

This is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Councilman Gary.

Aye.

Councilman Chapman.

Aye.

Councilman Al Nuby.

Aye.

Councilman McPyke.

Aye.

Okay.

The ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, item 10J.

Uncontested appointments for boards, commissions, and committees.

Visit Alexandria Board of Governors, one Alexandria City Manager or David Knee.

Okay.

Is there there was a request to re-advertise this one at a later date?

Is there a motion to do so?

So move.

Okay.

There has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman to re-advertise at a later date.

The visit Alexandria's Board of Governors, Alexandria City Manager or Designee position.

This is a roll call vote.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilman McPike.

Councilman Chapman.

Mayor Gaskins.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Chapman.

Scott.

Sorry.

Councilman L.

Newby.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

All right.

The ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, item 15.

Introduction in first reading consideration and passage on first reading of an ordinance to initiate and establish the process to grant an agreement for the lease management and operation of the torpedo factory art center.

Okay.

At this time we are joined by interim test director and deputy city manager Emily Baker, as well as Julian, our public private partnerships director.

Or actually, let me start with Vice Mayor Bagley, who requested to pull this one.

Yeah, no, I am thank you.

I asked to um to pull this item off consent, not for my lack of support and consent for this item, but because um this is an area issue that obviously has gotten a lot of um public engagement over the years, and I wanted to make sure we had an opportunity before the public hearing coming up in two weeks for staff to just briefly you know give an overview on what this item is, what this what it contains and what its intentions are.

And if y'all wouldn't mind doing that, and then if there's any questions.

Thank you.

Certainly um, Madam Mayor.

Well for you is a solicitation uh for council consideration that is um targeting the um part interested parties and uh the operations and management of the Torpedo Factory Arts Center.

This is consistent with guidance we have received from the city council, from stakeholders such as the Torpedo Factory Um stakeholder group, artists um in residents in the build artists in the building, community members, businesses in in the area, to move forward with a different governance model.

Um this solicitation has been prepared with maximum flexibility.

Um we had received we had put out an RFI as you may recall to get some interest, and we want to write this solicitation in a way that um allows interested parties to come to us and tell us what they would vision you know, what they would what their vision is here based on what um all the feedback that we've included in this that we've received in the past.

It is uh because we are uh dealing with city owned property, we are dealing with both city and state code requirements in putting the solicitation together.

So it is rather dry and technical, and there are a number of steps that have need to be met in order to move forward with this.

So tonight is the first step.

We will then um bring this solicitation to a public hearing on January 24th.

Following um if council were to vote to move forward with it, we would then advertise it for 60 days.

Um the proposals will be due at the end of March.

We would evaluate those and bring back a recommendation to council um later in the spring.

So um, as I said that we we have included in there all of the feedback and solicitation that we have received over the years because we feel it's important for anyone who wants to respond to um to have access to that information.

Uh Vice Mayor Bagley.

Uh thank you.

I want to yeah, thank you for the sort of walking through the history of how we got here as well.

There was first an RFI issued to just get a feel for you know what the feedback was broadly, what the kind of interest was, and then we incorporated that.

We we talked um some more, and now um legal has gotten involved, and we've drafted this very technical sort of document.

I mean, I'll admit when I looked it over, um, you know, I I sort of had to remind myself that um this is very focused on a procurement process essentially.

Um and what I want to point um those interested, you know, anybody interested who's washing um that there's a lot of love and a lot of history, and that's actually buried in this RFP as well, and that um when you dig into it and and should the public dig into it, you will see reference to the feedback from stakeholder groups, you will see the history of the building, you will see the art that has been produced and displayed in that building, um, the events, the weddings, the you know, the meetings that have all taken place there.

Um and so though you know 30 pages, a lot of them are sort of technical and have to do with building specs and such.

Um, you know, there is um real opportunity here for I think inspired um respondents to come to us with with a vision and and and something that is reflective of our goals here as a community and from what the stakeholders have expressed.

And so we've linked to those in the RFP, and I just wanted to highlight that and and pull it aside here, and obviously um tonight what I'd like to do is oh I lost the language, but um, I do want to move um to tonight is the introduction first reading consideration.

I do want to move forward um to public hearing.

Um, and I'm supportive that um we have a process, it's moving along.

We're gonna get feedback and um I'm optimistic for hopefully a second to this motion and to move forward to two weeks from now.

Okay, there has been a motion and a second by Vice Mayor Bag uh motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and a second by Councilwoman Green.

Is there any additional discussion?

Okay, Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Councilman Ageary, Councilman Chapman, Councilman L.

Newby.

Aye.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, uh, next item.

Introduction and first reading consideration, passage of an ordinance to amend the franchise agreement awarded to the Tall Ship Providence Foundation to dock a replica historic tall ship at Waterfront Park Welcome.

Okay.

I pulled this item because I need to make a statement for the record and turn my gavel over to the Vice Mayor for a second.

To avoid an appearance and appearance of impropriety and due to my employment with Monday's Child, located at 127 South Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia, which is a business owned and operated by Mara and Patrick Burchette, who also had an interest in stake in the tall ship providence.

As such, I have a potential personal interest in this transaction and will recuse myself from participating or voting on this transaction.

And with that, I will turn it over to the vice mayor to get us through this item.

Thank you, Mayor Gaskins.

Does any of my colleagues need a presentation on this matter?

With that, I would entertain a motion.

So move.

Second.

There's been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman to approve the introduction first reading and the passage of the ordinance to amend the franchise agreement.

This is a roll call vote.

Madam Clerk, if you could call the roll.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

Councilman Chapman.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Aguirre.

Councilman El Newby.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

I won't return the gap.

Barely had time to miss me.

Madam Clerk, next item.

Consideration of a resolution adopting ALX Ford, a strategic framework for economic growth.

Okay.

At this time, I'm going to welcome Stephanie Landrum to the front to talk a little bit about this item from the Alexandria Economic Development Partnership.

And a whole team.

Do you want to introduce your team?

I'm sorry.

I was going to say you in 2026, you get our full firepower here.

New Year.

New Year.

New materials here.

Good evening, and uh thank you for having us.

We're here to bring forward Alex Forward, hopefully for the final time in its draft and conceptual format and move into implementation.

As the mayor mentioned, I am excited to be sharing this presentation, but really from the city manager down through this front row.

This is the core team who's been working for three calendar years.

It spans three calendar years, but the total project started in November of 24.

So this has been quite a extensive process.

And as everyone knows, this is the next.

Let me get my things here right.

Tonight's action, we're requesting that you consider a resolution adopting the framework and the plan.

And in the simplest sense, and certainly from a timely perspective, as you're about to really dive into budget, we need to make more money as a city.

And the easiest way for us to do that is to grow the economy.

And there are many, many ways that we can do that.

And this framework endeavors to outline all of those ways and help prioritize the types of tasks and work that we can do as a city to accomplish that growth.

Everyone, I think, in this room probably has heard this before, but the last time we took on a plan like this was more than 15 years ago, and the world has changed.

And so this framework reflects the changes in the economy, the changes in the world, the changes in the way that people do business.

And so the hope and the goal of uh implementation of this plan, which will be immediate but also will be lasting uh five plus years, is that we will attract more business investment, that we will grow and diversify our tax base, all of that while preserving what makes Alexandria so special and great.

So with that, I'll just uh acknowledge as I said, the city manager and I have been sort of the leads on this project figuratively.

Um the the real work has been done by Julian Gonzalez and Mary and Mark Hes and Liz Bolton on our team.

Um and then, as you know, there have been a variety of inputs from the community from our various um counterparts in various city departments, but also nonprofits organizations, which you'll see a little bit about.

So uh this next slide will look a little bit familiar to you.

This has outlined all of the engagement to date.

We've added here at the bottom since we released the plan in November.

Uh six letters of support and 35 individuals and organizations who've provided comments and suggestions.

The great news is that the feedback didn't require any changes to the draft plan.

It was all positive reinforcement, some tweaks on the edges here and there.

It didn't require anything other than some really small language changes to make things a little bit more broader and comprehensive.

Um all of those uh feedback and comments were included in the docket item if anyone's interested.

This is also a growing list.

I think when we talked to you in November, we shared the slide, and there were some questions about people who are potentially missing.

You'll see here that we've started to add other people.

And I think the analogy we used back in November is that this is a little bit like a snowball, and we're gonna pick up more people as we go along.

Um so we've added the Arts Alliance, we've added Alexandria Soccer Association, we've added Act for Alexandria because there's a role for them and many of the nonprofits in the city.

And so I think you would expect from us as we come back over the over the years to see many other partners.

Um the next steps for us are really to take those partners and empower them.

Assuming you uh pass this resolution, the plan will be uh will be official, and those partners on that that last slide and others who will get identified will really turn into doers.

Um they you can imagine that groups like AEDP will be transitioning from sort of being the lead here to being an implementation partner, much like uh city departments, much like agencies that are involved in workforce, um, arts entertainment, et cetera.

And all of us together will be working on the implementation and bringing back to you in a coordinated fashion our progress over the coming years.

Uh the goal is for us to meet regularly in implementation groups for the next six months.

We've set out a um uh some reporting structures in tableau, we have spreadsheets, we have um opportunities to come back to you on maybe a quarterly basis to to show our progress.

We're working on uh a number of formats by which we can show you progress, but you will also um expect to see some asks in the budget, not just this year, but in future years.

Um think about menus related to these Alex Forward framework.

So um we're excited to be at this point.

I will um pause here on this last slide, which really is just a summary of where we've been.

And uh if you have any questions, the team is happy to answer them, but really see this as the closing or at the 99-yard line of what has been a long game, and we're excited to be here.

For some of us, it's it's too early for football references.

Sorry, sorry, I've done last night.

Um there questions or comments from my colleagues.

Okay, well, what I will just say is how excited I am to see this plan come to life.

And I just want to thank you and the team, and I know there are many staff here as well as um online and um who have been a part of this process as well as a lot of community groups who have engaged.

I think at the end of the day, I just want to echo something that you said earlier, which is given our economic uncertainty and the challenges we face, we have to find ways to generate new revenue.

And so I think this is really important to be able to not just to deliver the services that we already deliver, but hopefully to improve to continue to invest in our staff and our workforce and continue to just do more great things as a city.

I'd also say just making sure that our businesses that are also facing a lot of pressure right now are able to stay open and stay in this community.

So I'm really excited for this plan, and I look forward to um one of my colleagues putting forth a motion.

Uh Councilman Oh uh sorry, I hear I thought I heard a voice.

Never mind.

Councilman Chapman.

Um love to go ahead and put a motion on the table.

Um, but I did want to address something or ask a question in the resolution um in the in the uh now therefore be it resolved section um number two.

Um one of the things I just wanted to hopefully make clear as the city managers authorized to coordinate with AEDP and relevant city departments.

Is it possible to also add community partners?

Um, because I think what you just said in terms of AEDP kind of moving to the side and allowing some community partners to kind of be in there.

I just want to make that very clear that these community partners aren't just gonna be working with ADP, they'll also be working with the manager as well.

And so hopefully community partners that we've listed here certainly understand their role and and their relationships in this as well.

Um but with that, I would go ahead and put a motion forward to approve uh the resolution with uh those changes.

Thank you.

Okay.

There has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilman Green to approve the resolution with the stated changes as uh previously discussed.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman McGuire.

Councilman El Newby.

Aye.

Councilman McPyke.

Aye.

All right.

The ayes have it.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Clerk, next item.

Public hearing on the fiscal impact study of the tentative collective bargaining agreement with the Alexandria chapter of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association in consideration of a resolution indicating City Council's good faith commitment to the appropriate funding that's necessary to implement the agreement.

Okay.

Um before we begin, this is our first of three collective bargaining agreements that we will discuss tonight.

Just so that folks have a better understanding of the process, what we'll do is I'll turn it over to our Chief Labor um Chief Labor Relations Officer to give a brief presentation.

At that time, if there are speakers, we'll go to speakers for the public hearing.

If there are no speakers, then we'll come back and um I'll invite our labor union partners to say a few words, and then um I will give a few remarks and then we will vote as a counsel.

After that, we are going to attempt to do a formal signing.

So um just so that folks are ready and thinking of it, Councilman Agiri will lead us.

He will walk over here, walk past there, come here, sign, and then walk around until we get through everybody.

With that, let me turn it over to Ernie.

Mayor Gaskins, Vice Mayor Bagley, members of the council, I'm Ernesto Tamayo, the Chief Labor Relations Officer, and I'm joined tonight by my colleagues from the Office of Management and Budget, the City Attorney's Office, and the City Manager's Office.

As you're aware, the city recently completed negotiations with representatives for the bargaining units in the Alexandria Fire Department, the Alexandria Police Department, and the administrative and technical employees from various departments across the city.

At this time and after tonight's public hearings, staff recommends that council take action in the form of a vote to appropriate funding necessary to carry out the collective bargaining obligations in the agreements negotiated between the city and its bargaining units.

The agreement with the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Alexandria chapter, is a product of a constructive and robust collective bargaining uh process that recognizes the value of women and men in uniform while also serving the long-term interest of the residents we represent.

By providing stability, fairness, and clarity, uh this agreement supports both workforce recruitment and retention and the continued delivery of quality city services from the Alexandria Police Department and the City writ large.

With that, Madam Mayor, turn it back to you.

Okay, Madam Clerk, are there any speakers for this item?

Okay, well, then with that, I'm gonna turn it over to our labor partners to introduce themselves and to say a few words.

All right, my name is Damon Minix.

I'm the president of the local chapter of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association.

And my name is Will Bedford, and I represent the members of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association and the bargaining committee and the bargaining unit.

It's been an honor to be a part of this process this year, and we're looking forward to the final result.

Well, before you go before we go to a vote, I just wanted to quickly say a few words on behalf of the council as we with our first agreement, but also as we enter into our other two.

I can honestly say in serving with my colleagues that this has been a team and a council that has been unwavering in our support for labor and a recognition that collective bargaining and this process is vital to our city and to our community.

And I've been thinking a lot about why that is.

And for me, um I think it's really because at the end of the day, this is about people and the people who serve our city.

We want to make sure that this is a place you want to work and that we are investing in you in the same way that you invest in us each and every day.

And so while tonight I know if you read the staff report, much of it is about wages and benefits, which is critical and important.

It's also a lot about the power of um the collective voice of our workers and making sure that we are creating uh the workplace that everyone and every member of your uh department I think deserves.

And so while I recognize these processes are not easy and a lot of time and countless hours um and maybe headaches has gone into it.

I'm really excited about the point that we are at now.

And I think that every one of these agreements really moves us forward um to the workplace that I think um we know Alexandria is capable of creating.

So thank you all for your engagement in this process.

I also want to take a minute because I think um sometimes we think these things just happen, and there are a lot of people who put a lot of work into this particular agreement.

And so I want to take um first from the management side.

And then from the labor side, I want to make sure that we also thank not only William Thetford, Thomas Ground, Beatriz Regal, Melissa Ruby, Damon Minut, who we addressed earlier, um Robert Schatzel, Tara May, Jeff Harrington, and Andrea Morgan.

With that, I will ask if um one of my colleagues is propening.

I thought we could do it all the same.

Oh we never opened it.

I messed a step.

Told you, bear with us.

Um can we open the public hearing?

And there are no speakers.

And there are no speakers.

Okay, there's been a motion to close the public hearing.

And a second um by Councilman Chapman.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, the public hearing is closed.

With that, is there a motion um on the agreement?

Uh Councilman Chapman.

So I move to approve the agreement.

Um, it is uh public hearing.

Madam Mayor, I'll go ahead and um make sure I read this right.

Uh move to approve the fiscal impact study on the tentative collective bargaining agreement with uh Alexander chapter of the Southern States Benevolent Soci police benevolent society, excuse me, benevolent association, uh, and the consideration of a resolution indicating City Council's good faith commitment uh to the appropriate funding necessary to implement the agreement.

Second.

Okay.

There has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilwoman Green uh to approve the public hearing on the fiscal impact study of the tentative collective bargaining agreement with the Alexandria chapter of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association and consideration of a resolution indicating city council's good faith commitment to appropriate the funding necessary to implement that agreement.

Um is there any additional discussion by the council?

Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Chapman.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Aye.

Councilman Ageary.

Aye.

Councilman El Nuby.

Aye.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

All right.

With that, the ayes have it, and is unanimously passed.

And we are going to begin our signing of the agreement.

Yes, we'll all just follow?

Okay.

I think I'm left.

Okay.

Okay, good.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought it was an accident.

These are way better.

Thank you.

And before we close this agreement, I did want to invite uh President Minnox to say a few closing remarks.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Let me just start by saying how thankful and humbled I am by the members of my organization that uh chose us to represent them.

And I'd like to thank our council that is present here that helped us through this situation.

We really do appreciate the process that we went through, the professionalism displayed by staff uh during these negotiations were sometimes difficult.

And I'd like to thank council uh mainly for showing their commitment to labor, but more specifically to the officers, sergeants, and lieutenants that we represent.

Uh by virtue of ratifying this collective bargaining agreement, we're addressing uh a very important uh issues to the membership.

Uh the importance of this contract was shown by our membership.

We had a unanimous vote to ratify by our members.

Uh the contract creates conditions that will help us compete with uh the struggles that law enforcement is facing nationwide with recruiting and retention.

Um we would like to just finish it by how grateful I am to the city, city manager, to council for showing your commitment, and I look forward to working with y'all in the future.

Thank you.

We are grateful for you, and we are excited for our continued work together.

So thank you so much for your time.

Congratulations.

Okay, Madam Clerk, next item.

Public hearing on the fiscal impact study of the tentative collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 2141 in consideration of a resolution indicating City Council's good faith commitment to appropriate appropriate the funding necessary to implement the agreement.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um with that, I'm going to turn it over to Ernesto to get uh again to begin.

As you're aware, the city also recently concluded negotiations with employees of the Alexandria Fire Department.

Uh we are proud to share that this agreement helps to ensure stability, readiness, and continuity of critical city services.

And similar to the APD agreement, represents the city's commitment to continued recruitment, retention, and operational effectiveness effectiveness with the fire department and across the city.

With that, staff recommends that the council take action in the form of a vote to commit to appropriate funding necessary to carry out the collective bargaining obligations in the agreement uh negotiated between the city and the International Association of Firefighters, local 2141.

Madam Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any speakers?

Okay.

Seeing that there are no speakers, can I have a motion?

Well, I should have done this differently.

Can someone open the public hearing, please?

Madam Mayor.

Yes, Vice Mayor.

Uh move to open the public hearing.

Second.

Okay.

There has been a motion and a second to open the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

The ayes have it.

Yes.

Councilman and Gary.

Okay.

Thank you.

There has been a motion and a second to close the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

With that, I want to turn it over to our partners from to our our labor partners to begin to introduce themselves and to give a few remarks.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and uh members of council.

Josh Turner, the president of local 2141, the Alexander Firefighters representing the city's firefighters, paramedics, and fire marshals.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Dylan Kempton.

I'm the Secretary Treasurer of the Local 2141.

Thank you both for being here.

I know that there's a number of your colleagues in the audience as well.

But I hope you know how much we value you, how much we're grateful for you, and um for all of your work, ideas and thoughtfulness throughout this process.

With that, is there a motion?

All right, um Councilman El Nuby.

Madam Mayor, I move to approve the fiscal impact study of the tentative collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 2141 and adopt a resolution indicating the city's council the city council's good faith commitment to appropriate the funding necessary to implement the agreement.

Okay.

There has been a motion by Councilman El Nubi and a second by Councilman Chapman.

Is there any further discussion?

All right.

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Al Nuby.

Aye.

Councilman Chapman.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Ice Mayor Bagley.

Hi.

Councilman Geary.

Hi.

Councilwoman Green.

Hi.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

The eyes have it.

It's unanimous.

Okay.

Before I did you want to make closing remarks?

Okay.

Well, before I give it to Mr.

Turner to make closing remarks, I did want to make sure that I go back and recognize all of the staff involved in this agreement.

We have Julio Munoz, Felipe Hernandez, Frank Doyle, Michael Cross, Ramiro, Galvez, Alyssa Williamson, Jody Kendall, Megan Roberts, Emily Eckert, Ernesto Tamayo, and Alethear Purdeau.

And on the labor side, we have Charlie Donahue, Alex Lee, Tony Tiz Tizol, David Eason, Dylan Kempton, John Silverwood, Josh Turner, Marcel Boyd, Megan Easley, Sean Europe, Samantha McClayton, and Reed Koloff.

Mr.

Turner.

I uh it has been my honor to be able to represent our firefighters and to work with you all for a long time now and our paramedics and our fire marshals.

Um I just have to applaud the team that's behind me.

I mean, A, they had to deal with me for 11 months, which is not a, you know, my wife will tell you it's not an easy task in the in the beginning.

Uh and I just appreciate their work and their effort, and also on the city side, uh, you know, Ernie and Alethe and Megan and Jan and uh everybody on their team.

They've been very easy to work with, and and we've we've enjoyed this process, which can sometimes be ups and downs and all over the place, but uh I really am appreciative of it.

Uh I'd be remiss if I didn't do this on the record and thank my wife, who is putting two kids to bed right now again by herself.

Uh there is no chance I'd be able to do this without her.

Um, but I think most importantly I want to thank you all as well.

Um this agreement is a huge deal for the firefighters in this city.

Uh reducing our work week further and getting it closer to a more equitable work week, which we know uh is going to affect their well-being, which directly relates to the service delivery of the of the city.

Um I have to thank the fire chief, Chief Hernandez, who is from the day he's walked in here noticed that's a problem and worked with us to implement some changes to make things happen.

I appreciate City Manager Perid John being a part of that process, and uh I just thank you all for your commitment to us.

And uh we we appreciate your commitment, and you you said it earlier, uh, Madam Mayor, but your commitment to labor has shown through these processes.

So thank you.

Well, we thank you.

I know this is your second time going through this with us.

Um we we thank you just for the way that you and the team have approached this process.

We're grateful for you, and we appreciate you as well.

And we give a shout out and we thank your wife as well.

Uh all of the spousers and partners who um sacrifice every day to allow each of you to do the jobs that you do.

So thank you and congratulations again.

Okay, Madam Clerk, next item.

Public hearing on the fiscal impact study of the tenant of collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of State, County, and municipal employees in consideration of a resolution indicating the city council's good faith commitment to appropriate the funding necessary to implement the agreement.

All right.

I'm gonna start as we did with the other agreements with our chief labor uh relations officer.

Thank you, Mayor Gaskins and members of the City Council.

The final agreement for this evening includes employees in the administrative and technical bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and municipal employees, district council 20, local 3001.

This group of employees represents the city's largest bargaining unit uh thus far, and the agreement negotiated between the union and the city leadership reflects the city's understanding that the employees of the administrative and technical bargaining unit are a vital part of all city operations.

Our agreement will help ensure that we work to enhance continuity of vital services and day-to-day responsiveness to the community.

In closing, staff recommends that you that the council take action in the form of a vote to commit to appropriate funding to carry out the collective bargaining obligations in the agreement negotiated between the city and ASME.

Thank you, Mr.

Tamayo.

Um let me next uh turn it over to our our guests to introduce themselves.

Greetings, I'm just on the greetings, Jacity McIntosh Wright, uh Chief of Staff for District Council 20 Ask me.

Greetings.

My name is Tara Brown, benefits program specialist with the City of Alexandria.

Um I'm standing in on behalf of so this is impromptu for me.

Um President Anthony Pistone asked me local chapter 3001.

Thank you so much for being with us tonight.

Uh with that, I'm gonna ask if one of my colleagues will uh put forth a motion to open the public hearing.

So move.

All right.

There has been a motion by Councilman Chapman and a second by Councilwoman Green to open the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

Madam Mayor.

Yes, Councilman.

All right.

There's been a motion by Councilman Geary and a second by Councilman Chapman to close the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

Madam Mayor.

Uh yeah.

Councilman Gary.

Move to approve item 22.

All right.

There has been a motion to approve item 22 and a second by Councilman Chapman.

Is there any discussion?

I just want to say quickly, for folks who don't know, um, this is actually our largest bargaining unit within the city.

There's probably not a division that you touch within our community that is not represented by this union.

And that is finance, RPCA, planning and zoning, DCHS, ITS, General Services, Tests, Code, DEC, Historic Alexandria, as well as the administrative staff in our police and fire departments.

And so thank you for the work that you do every single day in each of those departments to help our city run.

You interface with so many of our residents, and we're grateful for the ways that you've shown up every single day for our community, and that you showed up and worked with us in good faith throughout the this process.

We're really excited.

And this is the first agreement that we have with our admin and technical staff.

So, yeah, that is.

And I apologize if I said that terribly wrong.

Um Jorge Ruez, Hathi Reed, Greg Yusim, Catherine Key, and Kadeira Coley, as well as our city manager, Jim Parjan.

And so with that, there has been a motion and a second.

Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman AGRI.

Mayor Gaskins.

Hi.

Vicemor Bagley.

Hi.

Councilman El Nuby.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman McPyke.

Aye.

And we will come sign.

Congratulations.

Okay.

And with that, I want to invite Miss Brown to give a flu closing remarks.

Okay.

I've been working with the city of Alexandria for over twenty three years.

And I want to thank um our director, Kate Garvey.

Um from the day that I met her, she's always had an open door policy, and that means a lot with leadership.

I want to thank everyone who sat at the table.

I speak on behalf of the whole department.

And it is large, that we are working hard, oftentimes overworked and underpaid.

We work in the job of a lot of us are working a job of two people.

But we do it because it's our passion and we want to service our community.

Um it was a job that I didn't think I would.

It wasn't something that I thought would be my career, but I love it.

And I want to thank Aliyah, um Alethia gas um Alethea, I'm sorry.

And Ernie and everyone who said at the other side of the table because they made it easy for us.

They made it very easy to negotiate.

Um we were transparent and we spoke truth.

And like the words of great Martin Luther King, um, silence is injustice.

And I just want to thank God because for us to be here today and to sit at this table before you guys is just a blessing.

I just want to close by saying thank you for your passion.

It clearly shows in your smile and the joy that is radiating from you right now.

I also want to say thank you for building your career with us.

And a 23 years is a long time, but I hope you we have you for many, many more years to go.

I know um it has not always been easy, but I thank you for sticking with us.

And I hope um you know that we know we still have more work to do.

And so this is progress and a great step in the right direction.

But we look forward to your partnership and the work with everyone who is on the team to continue building um building a better future that keeps more people here for 20 and 30 years.

So thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Um with that, Madam Clerk, next item.

BAR 2025-037 Sierra OHAD, 301 King Street, and 108 North Fairfax Street, City Hall and Market Square Renovation, public hearing and consideration of an appeal of the Board of Architectural Review, November 19th, 2025, decision to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 301 King Street and 108 North Fairfax Street.

Okay.

Um so thank you first to everyone who's here tonight.

Thank you again for your patience.

We're trying some different things as we are in this new space.

Uh this is the first uh appeal that we are hearing in in this space, and it is a unique one at that.

What I um just so that we have a sense of the flow, um, what I'm first going to do is turn it over to city staff who will give a presentation.

At that point, I will then actually turn um to uh one of our legal representatives to just give kind of a basis and a reminder of the legal basis for um the appeal and why we're able to hear this tonight.

Then I will go to the applicant.

The applicant will present.

At that time, I will then go to we have a representative of the BAR who will speak, and then we will go to the public hearing.

After the pub public hearing, and the speakers will close the public hearing and then we'll be able to ask um questions of any of the presenters as counsel uh deliberates.

So with that, Ms.

Cocky, you want to kick us off.

Thank you very much.

Have a good evening good evening.

Uh my name is Bill Conkey.

I am the historic preservation architect.

I think you just said that, but to formally formally introduce myself.

So we are discussing the BAR appeal of the uh City Hall project.

Uh I'm gonna run through some things here tonight.

I'm gonna be I'm gonna do a brief presentation as you as you noted.

We've got a lot of people here to talk tonight, and you probably would like to hear more from them than from me, so I will be brief, um just kind of present the project and get it get you started.

Um we'll go through the scope of the project, uh project history in terms of um uh the uh the review of the project, and then we'll finish up with some recommendations from staff um and then pass it along.

So this is the um this is the appeal of the BR decision granting uh certificate of appropriateness uh for the uh with with conditions for 301 King Street City Hall.

Um the action will be to affirm reverse or modify uh decision of the BAR, and then we're gonna go through some of the key elements of the renovation project here in just a minute.

So we'll start with this one.

Um obviously one of the key tenets of historic preservation is to preserve historic structures.

Uh it's right there in the name.

So um I wanted to start with that.

And so we uh one of the first things that they're the that the applicant is gonna be doing is doing a careful restoration of the uh old part of the building which is faces Cameron Street and then is the U shape.

Um this is gonna be uh an extensive restoration.

We're looking at replacing windows, um, the roof.

Uh we're excited about we have some old photographs of the roof, and we and it actually had some pretty um interesting uh patterns in the roof, so we're gonna be able to get those back.

We're gonna be able to open up some windows that were maybe closed.

We're gonna be able to return window configurations.

Sorry about that.

There we go.

There we go.

Sorry about that.

Um we're gonna be able to return the building to its to its real glory, and I'm very excited about that as from preservation standpoint.

Probably one of the biggest can changes that we're making to the building is on the south elevation, the market square facing elevation.

Um I know we'll talk more about that, so I'm not gonna get too deep into the weeds on this, but just understand the scope of the work here.

Uh the applicant will be uh installing uh fully full height glazed hyphens between the 1961 edition and the historic part.

Um the idea here is to let the original historic building kind of read as as it once was.

Um and then modifications to the center of the south elevation here.

Um basically we're creating a um uh uh uh a new entrance portal um and then um adding to adding adding some elements to the central center of the building to give it some prominence.

So it's it's uh it's a kind of a simple building right now, and there's not a lot of interest in that middle section.

So the um the applicant is proposing to do to add some pilasters um and and an entablature on the on the lower section um to try to give give it some more prominence.

Um there will be there will be a fifth floor edition.

Um there is currently a fifth floor edition.

There are a bunch of fifth floor uh elements up there.

Uh elevator overruns, mechanical equipment, things like that that are that are not particularly well done.

If you go up there, I think we've all gotten used to them until you realize what they are.

But um so there will be there will be a new fifth floor edition that will incorporate all those elements.

A lot of those elements are not needed anymore because of modern technology.

You don't have to have as extensive equipment.

So we'll lose a lot of that, gain some space.

Um and a key feature of that from uh design standpoint is that um the exterior skin of that fifth floor, um fifth floor addition will be meant to sort of mimic um the slate roofs.

So when you look up from the ground, if you see it, you'll kind of see it blending into the slate roofs.

That was the design intent.

Oh, there we go.

Um when we get to the market square, the BAR's purview really has to do with the structures in Market Square.

Um, and so that's why I I put these two photos up here or uh renderings up here.

There really are three new substantial structures that are being proposed.

Um one is on the far left.

You can see the uh the uh elevator and stair lobby uh enclosure from coming up from the from the garage below that will be glazed on the um side facing the street and then brick on this side.

And then there's uh uh a shade structure there that you see um that will be uh that will be accommodating a stage.

Um so that one is for the stage.

The one on the right there is another shade structure on axis with this kind of kind of above where the uh where you drive into the parking garage now, that's where that is right now.

Um project history.

Uh this project's been around for a while, as we all know.

Um we had two concept reviews uh prior to the um approvals from um uh for the all the rest of this rest of the zoning stuff.

Then it came back for certificate of appropriateness and permit to demolish.

Um we had October 16th, we had a permit to demolish was approved.

Um and the certificate of appropriateness was deferred for additional study.

October 22nd, it uh we the BAR held a work session to continue to study it to look at some design evolutions, give more feedback and in a um in a less formal manner.

Um then following that November 5th came to the board uh again for a certificate of appropriateness, and at that time the board continued it to the next available hearing, which was November 19th, uh, which is when the BAR voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions, and and that should be in your packets tonight.

Um these are uh summarized version of the staff recommendations.

Um the the full language of them is in uh staff report.

Um, but just to go through these very quickly.

Uh the first one will be that the design will be consistent with the presented materials and submitted materials for the November 5th uh slash 19th.

I say fifth slash 19th because it was continued from the fifth to nineteenth.

Uh the restoration materials will um match historic materials.

This is uh uh this is something that we do a lot when we have um restoration.

This is something that has to happen in the field, has to happen um during construction.

So uh start preservation staff will work on that.

Um the exterior of the fifth floor will be similar to the adjacent slate roofs, as I said, and that the glazing will be minimally visible uh from the ground level.

Um this is so this this was uh came up during our discussions.

And that the market square structures detailing will be consistent with submission and presentation materials.

Uh just clarifying what that isn't, and again, the full language of this is in my staff report.

And finally, the ground floor entry details will be consistent with the submission materials as well.

So again, uh this is for more language of that in my in my staff report, but we're just trying to capture um some of these elements.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Uh thank you for your presentation.

Before I go to um Deputy City Attorney Brown, I can you just go back to the project history.

I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page about the the timeline.

So I guess said another way.

Help me make sure I'm correct.

So the city submitted an application.

Yes.

The application had different options in it or things that they wanted the BAR to consider.

The BAR then reviewed those options at multiple dates as sort of listed on the slides here.

They then um did not accept necessarily any of those options as like submitted in its original form, but instead they were able to sort of um how should I say I guess um utilize pieces and parts of those different options in order to put forth a certificate of approval that they felt they could approve and a set of conditions that they felt were necessary.

Is that kind of a quick concept?

At the November 19th hearing um when they approved the certificate of appropriateness.

Um it was not that what was approved in in the motion is not um one of the specific options that was listed.

Um it is a sort of conglomeration of things.

Um yes, that's an accurate statement.

Okay.

And so part of what brings us here tonight is not that the BAR can't do that, but it's more so that the um applicant, as stated in their appeal, does not agree with um, I guess three uh three um three items as outlined as in their appeal based on that conglomeration or that structure of pieces and parts.

Correct.

Just want to make sure that we are all it was a lot.

I mean, there's a lot of I appreciate such a thorough staff report, but it was a lot of different things to get there.

Um before I go to the applicant, let me bring up um Deputy City Attorney Brown.

We did receive some questions.

Yes, let's test the podium.

We have not yet used that before.

Um we did receive um some questions about whether or not an appeal could even be brought.

So before I go to the applicant, can you just talk a little bit about sort of your office's determination about this this process and what we're about to go into next?

Thank you, Madam Caracas.

This is a great test before the public hearing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Can everyone hear me now?

Is this better?

Okay.

Uh I'll try my best.

Um good evening, Mayor and uh members of council.

Um tonight's hearing is an appeal of a BAR decision.

Um it it is under um the uh zoning ordinance.

Uh there is language that allows an appeal either on a petition or on um a writing signed by the city manager, and in this case um the applicant made the appeal, um, which we determined to be um a valid appeal under the zoning ordinance um language.

Um did you also want to um did you want to you had mentioned earlier, did you want to know about the standards that you all are going to be looking at and applying this evening?

Yeah, okay.

Um so per the zoning ordinance, the um the council is applying the same standards that the BAR did in making its decision.

Um these standards are outlined in the ordinance under um section 10105.

It's the series of criteria that are f the analyzed in the staff report that you all have.

Um and at the conclusion then of the public hearing, um, council can affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part um the decision of the BAR, and the outcome, the result of that decision is then a grant or a denial of the certificate of appropriateness that was requested.

Thank you.

Yep.

With that, I will go to the applicant.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I know the staff is pulling up on our presentation as well.

I'm supposed to be able to do that.

Oh, yes.

Um got a precedent, it has to turn red, Mr.

McPyke.

There you go.

Thank you.

I don't know who set this room up.

So Madam Mayor and members of the council, I appreciate your time on this consideration.

Um is Jeremy McPike.

I serve as the director of General Services.

Sitting to my right is Bonnie Brown serving as counsel uh to general services for this case.

And I'm presenting as the appealance case on behalf of the city manager regarding the appeal of the Board of Architectural Review, November 19th, 2025 decision.

Under the zoning ordinance, an appeal of a BAR decision may be initiated by either the city manager or by a petition signed by at least 25 property owners within the applicable historic district.

Here the appeal was initiated by the city manager and filed with city clerk on December 2nd, 2025 within the required 14-day period.

And so with that, um Madam Mayor, members of council, I also have a few slides to go through, which is sort of the material important of why we're here today.

Why are we going through the discussions and the appeal process?

First, a little bit of background.

I don't think there's any question that it meet would meet those standards.

Other important elements we'll get into in just a moment, in terms of the project timeline, the review of the design elements, uh, the BAR actions, and finally uh what we're requesting this evening.

So you're familiar with with this timeline, uh, Madam Mayor and Council.

We've been very engaged in the communities for the last year and a half, uh, almost 70 different engagements across the community, um, much of which the design elements have been formed by those discussions over the last year and a half uh fully with um getting to the design submissions and process, and of course, we started this process of moving the last city employees out this week, uh moving towards demolition here within the next month.

So some major project milestones.

Uh you saw the slide earlier, uh, sort of the design concepts and process we've been through uh starting from April and working collaboratively.

And I think I want to take a moment to say that the design submitted at the end was a result of different points of collaboration with both the community and BAR through these multiple dates.

So both in terms of the hyphens and detailing the pulling back of the fifth floor uh to minimize its impacts, all of those results of the discussions with BAR.

And so it's not something that we've put forward and not modify and adjusted.

This has been a continued collaborative process throughout, uh including including the additional brick details uh at the entryway and the multiple options that we presented were a result of feedback from different BAR members.

Um so I do want to celebrate some of those and celebrate the successes that we have had together in working in collaboration, including I think a really good window standard that you'll see that I think has applicability to many other uh old town homes that have high performance windows, which is something that I know we've all been searching for for a great bit of time.

So I do want to take a moment in this process to celebrate.

Um with that, I will get into what we had submitted, which is the South Facade option 4A uh without chimneys.

And we know there's been discussion in BAR and others, the community, why chimneys, why not chimneys, and we're about to jump into that.

But this is the predominant image that we've shown in the community through our uh dozens and dozens of interactions of uh the image both of the plaza and of the infill of City Hall.

And so to be clear uh of the early discussion of the application for demolition, we're preserving all the 1871 structure for anyone tuning in just now.

Uh it's really is about the facade and the 60s infill.

That center portion is a non-contributing, it's non-historic center as well as the plaza itself.

So if anybody's tuning in, that is what the elements of demolition are are about.

So one of the key things, and I think one of my earlier presentations to you noted that since the 60s structure was built, council is debating it just a few years later.

Uh and here we are 60 years later, having the same sort of struggles with the visual prominence.

And we think that we've identified some key ways to delineate and separate the 1871 structure from the 60s infill through this design and help to celebrate the Lord Trope Tower, the clock tower, and the Mason's Tower behind it, uh, without introducing new sort of fake and false uh instruments and chimneys that really serve as a different backdrop to those elements and start to distract that those key elements of the historic structure.

The reason why we're doing this and part of what those design guidelines around two really key elements from a national historic standard, uh, and this is the Secretary of Interior Standards.

So number three states that each property shall be recognized as its physical records of its time, place, and use, and that changes that create false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken.

And number then number nine is the new additions, exterior alterations, new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.

And the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

These are really key tenets to what we're trying to do.

Both the hyphen separate the 1871 structure from the 60s infill, but don't over decorate.

And that's what they're saying here.

You to bring in the elements of the 1871 and start to introduce confusions of what which building is historic and which is not, becomes a problem based on historic standards.

That is the crux of the appeal that you hear here tonight.

I think for the majority, we probably have agreed with BAR and accepted and collaborated on 98% of the rest of it, but this is the core tenet of what you'll see.

And so the center portion of the south facade imposed a number of conditions.

The final design of the center portion shall be option four B, uh, which is a different option, as you heard from uh the planning and zoning staff earlier.

Uh it was sort of the motion was an amalgamation of different options and concepts and studies.

And so 4B in the in the report, and they impose six additional conditions on 4B involving pile esters and tablatures, ground floor arched entryways, and doors and chimneys and vertical planes.

So there's a number of different features that they're we're picking up essentially from other historic structures and the 1871 structure to fit into sort of amalgamated concept, if you were.

So this is what we've proposed and are asking of city council.

It's more defined entry.

Uh right now, as you know, you have one sort of subtle door.

Uh we have now three larger entry doors.

Uh there's clear cueing of where that entry is, both through the market square design as well as the entry itself.

Uh we made a list of the actual motions, just so you have the record of what the BAR motions were and what sort of our response is to each one of those.

And we can get into each of the details, but it but essentially a lot of those are already consistent with what we've submitted and both in the pilasters materiality.

Uh there's elements that we can continue to collaborate with historic uh staff on, uh, such as the embracing the entablature and in classical proportions.

Uh, we think our submission already does that, but if there's additional detailing uh as we work out the final coursework, we're happy to do that.

Um I think the the staff's recommendation would do that, in fact.

The ground floor entryway uh number three uh at the center entrance should be arched and may include a keystone and stone water tables and options to redo their overall mass at the first floor cornice and molding.

This condition is really what gets us into a little bit of trouble with the historic national standards.

Um it would have to reduce our entryway to seven feet.

It would also push our roof line up two feet.

Um they've also introduced uh the chimneys into this, and so they're again they're fake chimneys, uh, they're non-functioning, it's decorative elements and and sort of mimicking a period of which it is not, uh, which again violates the Secretary of Interior Standards.

And we'll get to really why that's important here in just a moment.

Uh number four of this motion was the center pavilion made of wood or bronze uh cladding uh and not be aluminum or storefront.

Uh our submission was aluminum framed uh and entry in high performance uh coded anodized.

We think that we meet that standard, it's materiality, but the visual and performance is equal to the standard.

Um but adding divided lights and muttons in a colonial style, however, would violate again the interior secretary standards number three.

Again, you're mimicking a colonical period of which this 60s infill is not.

And again, number five is the chimney addition, and again, these are fake chimneys, they're non-functional chimneys, and again would violate the interior secretary standards number three.

Number six, uh the first floor extension to minimize.

I think that's something we're happy to continue to coordinate, as I think the planning uh and zoning staff recommendation would do, and coordinate the actual details of the entry uh way in and protrusions, and happy to continue on that.

On the fifth floor, um this is uh the proposal, and we've drawn this back and make sure to minimize uh street view points as well as glass, and I think we've met what the standard is.

The issue with what the BAR proposed was uh including lighting along the fifth floor is not approved, and so they disallowed any gliding.

We have to make we have to meet code.

We have to make, we have, as you see in the slide, we have a small patios as an outside portion of this.

We have to have entryways that would meet this standard.

Uh Mr.

Pike, one second.

I just want to say, so as we're adjusting to a new room, it's a little smaller space, and so it's very hard with the um if there are other discussions going on, so I would just ask if everyone can please um try and keep comments to a minimum just so we can we can hear everything that's going on.

Sorry to write Mr.

Pike.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So again, to highlight the just the one issue for the fifth floor, the the the motion uh essentially eliminating lighting.

Uh what we're proposing, we need lighting for code.

We we're we're proposing we want to make sure we meet basics, life safety issues.

Um, and so I wanted to highlight that as one of the issues with that was a condition in the BAR approval, which is really problematic.

Uh for uh the proposed market square uh design itself, uh these are the elements with the shade structure.

Uh you'll see we've uh the seating there as well on the right side uh shown without a stage structure as well.

Uh but the motions themselves.

Uh you'll see the condition included design for shade structure, interior seating that shall be generally conformed to the design presented, and we're happy to continue to do that.

But it also had six additional conditions, which I'll touch base on.

First, the applicant study integral integration of the stage canopy, and that's something that we're happy to continue to work with historic preservation staff in consistent with planning and zoning's recommendation tonight.

Um, this shade structure and terror seating shall be complementary and use the same architectural style.

Uh and we will continue to work with historic preservation staff on those elements.

Uh and again, number three, the stage canopy shall be tall enough to accommodate a temporary stage and authorized to be taller than 14 feet.

And we're happy to continue to work on those elements and integration uh making sure that the stage and the elevator flow together.

Uh number four included incorporated uh elements from the 1871 building into the stage canopy.

Uh this becomes a little bit problematic for reasons I stated earlier of incorporating design styles from the 1871 into other structures.

And so we do um have an issue with that of creating a false sense of history.

Number five, uh the terrace seating beneath the SAID structure.

Uh we propose potentially removing that shade structure and will continue to work with the historic preservation staff.

And number six, all conduit uh and piping shall be enclosed and not exposed, and we're happy to continue to work with historic preservation staff on those elements.

No issues.

So on the GLAF hyphens, um, again, just briefly to go touch base.

This is an important element.

The motion was to one, the glazing shall be unobtrusive, so that such as the hyphen receipt and a third design element of this of the south facade.

We think the condition is a little unclear.

We think we've met the design.

We've been very detailed about the work we've done to present this and make sure to minimize uh both its setback as well as appearance and minimizing what uh how it appears both in daytime and nighttime.

And then number two, the canopy roof uh at the fire exit to be minimized.

We've already also done it's a little unclear, but we've also already done that to reduce and capture that.

Uh it's already set fairly far back, uh, but we'll could continue uh to work with historic preservation on staff uh staff with that, Madam Mayor.

So this is sort of one of the key points.

We took what the BAR motion was and we are have been discussions with the Department of Historic Resources in Virginia, who also administer the Virginia Tax Credit Program.

We submitted the concepts of the motion and architecturally what it would mean to the project.

Um they took a look at at those concepts and provided feedback to us.

And I quote from the response, uh we have concerns that an approved design for the South Lith elevation, new construction will not meet requirements of standards three and nine that I've previously stated.

Uh they go on to say unfortunately this would be in conflict with these two standards referenced above.

Uh in essence, the state would not approve this project should the city decide to move forward with a tax credit application process.

Um this is a part of a one of our design overall goals.

Um because of the different natures introduced, which are mimicking historic standards and historic styles of which is not this period, it would be in direct conflict with both all these standards and put in a significant burden to the design.

This is the significant tenant after the BAR meeting.

We pursued this to get additional feedback because this is one of the venues we're also pursuing, Madam Mayor.

And so we are asking planning uh city council to adopt planning and zoning staff recommendations.

Happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

At this time, are there questions from my colleagues for um the applicant?

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Uh thank you.

Thanks for the presentation and just for the general services.

I I am very much enjoying this design in the room.

I'm finding it much easier to follow along.

So I just wanted to like express my appreciation of that at this point in the night.

Um thing I I was hoping you could just go back to is why the Secretary of Interior Interior Standard is sort of our frame of reference here.

And are there any other examples sort of within the city or with other projects where that has been our our guidepost?

Yeah, th thank you.

There are many projects that probably stand alone unto themselves.

We have a context where we are having an 1871 structure preserved, rightly so, but then a new uh the 60s sort of redesigned and enveloped.

I'm not sure if all of them have pursued historic tax credit process, but there's real implications to it and I know monetary value is not a consideration in terms of BAR review.

However, there there are significant monetary considerations involved in millions of dollars in terms of whether a credit application is approved or not.

Uh and following those standards is in imperative also to applicants such as myself on behalf of the city manager and city council of city government at this point.

Um I guess just to make sure I'm tracking.

So is it that in order to apply for the tax credits or to be competitive in other applications, those are the standards that are used in that process?

Yes, Madam Air, that's correct.

These are the standards that would have to be met.

And we've received that feedback from historic preservation staff at DHR in Virginia that said this would not qualify.

These are major issues.

Okay.

Um Thanks, Mayor Bagley.

Um, I appreciate that.

And I think the the follow-up that that sort of triggered for me is but those aren't it those aren't arbitrary, I take it.

I mean, they had the Secretary of Interior has chosen to make this tie to funding for reasons that that they uh philosophical, artistic, cultural, historical.

But I don't want to presume that.

So can I kind of put that back to you?

I I appreciate your saying we want to follow this primarily for the financial impact, but they established, I assume, these standards for reasons that are meant to honor you know history, architecture, time frame.

Thank you for that question, and Madam Mary.

Yes, the standards were developed because of practices long ago of tearing down really critical structures and then modifications and add-ons, which really deterred for the overall character of some really important famous architects.

CLUS is one of them.

We have one of those with the 1871 structure.

There's all sorts of examples between Eastern Market, Smithsonian.

There's all up and down we have this gem here, and I think what those standards do is preserve that fabric without overtaking it.

What's being proposed, and I think the conflict is overtaking something that was architecturally really important and valuable from the original design we have that wraps around this building.

And we start to have elements that compete and mimic different periods.

And that's why the Secretary of Interior has those standards is to say this is of its time and place.

And once you start to sort of blend those lines, you start to really take away from something that's really uh a neat architectural gem that we have.

Um before I bring up our BAR representative, I did have a question.

It's very interesting for the city staff in this um uh Mr.

Conkey.

Yes, yeah, there were a number of it in the applicant's uh presentation where they went through and said kind of their recommendation is to work with city staff or to work with staff.

I guess can you just speak to is that like a common and customary practice that is followed in these types of applications?

And if so, is there a limit to how many items you you need to have very specific versus how many you can go back and work through.

It is quite common uh for applicants to continue to work with staff as projects develop.

Um I mentioned earlier on some of the stuff really just has to happen during construction.

Um I was talking about matching some of the historic uh materials that has to happen during construction.

Some of the some of what we're talking about here and what I think uh Mr.

McPike has talked about is development, continued development of design.

Um and that is also quite common.

Uh we what we look for as staff is we look for some direction uh from the board as to what they're trying to achieve, um so we understand what they're trying to achieve, um and then we make sure that we we check against that.

So that's our check our checkpoint is um the board says um I want this to do this, and we will allow staff to continue to work with you because the goal here is we don't want applicants to keep coming back and back and back and back and back.

And so when we get into that that fine level of detail, um staff uh the app the board has empowered staff in the in the past to allow to work through those details and just just to to smooth things out to make that make this this process a little bit more clean.

Um so in terms of is there a limit of number of them?

It's not really a limit of number of them.

I think um staff would become uncomfortable if um if it was too broad, if we if if we didn't have a good understanding of what we were being asked to do.

Um again, I do when we look for um work with staff, it's uh I working with the board, I typically ask for some level of specificity so I understand again what the goalposts are so that I make sure that I'm doing what they ask me to do.

Um limit uh in terms of number.

Um it's just you know, if they say if someone were to someone were to come in and say work with staff on the design of an L of a new addition that they haven't given to us yet, the scope is far too broad.

So I think that's my answer.

Okay.

So there can be multiple elements as long as there's kind of clear guidance as to the path that we're we're trying to get through.

That's correct.

And then one last question I and I apologize if I missed this.

Um, did the city staff's recommendation take a position on um 4A or 4B?

Uh staff feels that 4A and 4B both meet the design uh guideline uh design standards, so we're comfortable with either one.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um with that, then I'm going to bring up our BAR representative to go through and walk us through the process that the BAR went through and sort of their uh rationale for um the conditions that they set forth.

Uh thank you, uh Mayor Gaskins.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes.

So uh at some point I'm going to go through the conditions just as the uh applicant did.

I've got hard copies of the actual um conditions of approval.

Would that be helpful for you to look at them?

I've got I've got copies for all of you.

I'm gonna be going through them.

Yes.

If you can, yes, if you can hand those to the manager, and then what we'll this is our first test.

We have to make sure that they're also available to the public, any document.

So we'll pass, we'll figure out the staff to get that too, and we'll kind of test this process.

And it's also in the public record because it was entered into the record as a part of the BAR approval, so it exists out there somewhere.

So just for reference, it is it is actually attached to the staff report for this hearing.

Perfect.

But it I learned if if it's a new document, we've got to figure out a printer in here.

So you didn't test us.

Thank you for introducing something.

I'm just trying to make my life easier.

Uh, so thank you for having us.

I I do have uh some remarks prepared, but I would like to address a couple of the things that have just come up just to to clarify some points.

The first point is the Department of Interior standards do not apply to the Board of Architectural Review.

We have a whole city ordinance that sets forth standards, which was actually correctly cited by the applicant.

The Department of Interior Standards don't have any bearing on construction in our city.

I can't speak to the grant process, but also this is not a topic that the board has been asked to review at any point.

The first I've heard of this was the tiny text that I saw on there.

I'm not even clear which of the conditions that the applicant claims would violate this arbitrary standard that is not compelling or binding on the City of Alexandria.

So just to orient everyone, we have an ordinance.

And when the applicant um when the appellant listed quote unquote the standard in these slides, the appellant listed the very first of nine criterion that the Board of Architectural Review is actually required to consider.

It's a duty that we have as a board appointed by you to apply the law that it exists.

So it's true that overall architectural design form and style are the first of nine elements in Section 10-105 of the City Code.

But there are nine, there are eight more that follow, and it goes into great detail about all of the things that we have to consider.

And I will just tell you that we have worked really diligently and in good faith to come to a resolution.

The final point that I'd like to raise before I go into my prepared mark remarks is that this is not some kind of Franken motion, right?

I think it's been characterized by the appellant that we have pulled elements from different areas to create some novel design.

Each of these conditions is a discrete condition unrelated to the others that we had previously discussed with the appellant.

And in fact, in many cases, they deliberately asked us to come to a decision on this.

And it is unclear to the board why when we have answered a question that we've been asked, suddenly it's inadequate.

Um the reason why I sent you out copies um of what you already have in your file is because on the third page of the approval, you will see some of the options here before you.

There were six, actually.

This is from the city's own application.

Option 4B is one of the options that the city presented to the board.

This was not a creation of the board.

This was not an amalgamation created by the board.

The board worked very hard to approve something that the city itself asked us to approve.

Why is it called an option?

So I just want to orient you.

This is not something the board has come up with.

This is something that the board is responding to the applicant.

Okay, so now I'll go into my prepared remarks.

My name is Andy Scott, and I am the chair of the Board of Architectural Review.

It's a real pleasure to be here tonight.

And I am here to explain the board's conditional approval of the City Hall renovation project to clarify why the conditions imposed were appropriate, lawful, and consistent with the board's responsibilities under the zoning ordinance.

Before addressing these specific conditions, I do want to emphasize that the board and the city have worked collaboratively on this project for more than seven months.

The board, both as a body and among its individual members, met with the city and the architect many, many times, participated in work sessions, and provided consistent feedback focused on the design.

Throughout this process, the board understood the monumental importance of this project for the people of Alexandria and approached the project in good faith with the goal of helping it succeed within the historic district guidelines.

As an applicant, the city has been a good partner with the BAR in getting to this point.

It is also worth noting and just putting this into context, the board has supported the city in all of its major and most controversial requests in relation to this project.

The board has already approved the demolition of Market Square and portions of the 1961 addition to the city hall, including the arcade.

In spite of significant public pushback, the board has also supported the applicant in its request to add a substantial fifth floor addition to the building.

And against the overwhelming majority of public input and even some reservations of members on the board, the board approved the construction of these modern glass hyphens that connect the 1961 building to the 19 uh to the 1871 building.

All of these are the major elements of the design.

The board has approved and endorsed all of them.

What we are talking now are sm about now are smaller details.

The certificate of appropriateness that we issued acknowledges, celebrates, and approves the vast majority of the applicant's design.

The remaining details, those addressed in the conditions of approval, are relatively minor, but they are important in the context of architectural design.

Now, under the zoning ordinance, the board is required to address issues large and small.

That's the ordinance that I just referenced.

Building size, architectural character, and scale are important, but they're just as important as details like windows, doors, elements of architectural significance, and many other aspects of design.

And the board has spent many, many hours over many months considering all of the aspects of this application.

What you are considering here today is the appeal of a unanimous approval of the applicant's submission with a relatively small number of conditions that address issues that fall into one of only three categories.

One, options the applicant itself asked us to choose from.

Two, unresolved design details that we didn't have enough information on at the time of the application, or three, matters of particular importance to historic preservation.

At the November 5th hearing, which was the first time we saw this final application in its product, the page that I've excered from on the on the conditional approval, that comes from the final request from November 5th.

This is when we saw all of these different options for the first time.

And as the applicant said, this was a result of much work that they done, but this is what the city brought to us.

This is what the applicant put before the board and said, here's what we want you to choose from.

Here's what we want to have a discussion about.

It was more than a hundred pages.

I know you have access to this, but it was it, it's a huge project.

It's more than a hundred pages long.

And the city presented multiple design alternatives.

In this presentation, in spite of the many concept reviews we've had, the many discussions, the work sessions, there were some pretty significant design changes from the previous submissions.

This was the first time, for example, the board had ever seen the revised design for the structures in Market Square.

There were previous designs that we had seen and weighed in on.

This was the first time we had actually seen the version that you just saw here today.

And typically the board would see very detailed architectural drawings.

In this example, on the 5th of November, the first time we saw it was actually when it was projected on the screen, it was a rendering, but it wasn't an architectural drawing.

So during this meeting, the applicant proactively asked the board to evaluate and resolve design proposals affecting many aspects of the design.

And if you look at the original staff report, the original staff report, the first recommendation from the November 5th meeting was the staff recommends that we choose from the options given to us.

And I have a copy of that report here if you want to see it.

But the original staff recommendation was that we choose among the options that the city was asking us to choose from.

Now, because this November 5th meeting was a marathon.

It lasted four and a half hours.

I encourage you to watch the video, but I don't I only for my benefit, not for yours.

So there was a lot of new information in here.

And in fact, the architect whom we think is brilliant and has done a really wonderful job.

At one point, the architect brought us a half completed drawing of what arches might look like in the front and said, we're open to arches.

It doesn't have to be arches, it could be square.

This was an active discussion we had.

This was not something the board is is just pulling out of thin air.

I have never been in a meeting in my over three years on the board where an applicant brings us a half completed drawing in the middle of the application and saying, Well, what if it looked like this?

Right?

So put yourself in the mind frame of the board.

This is probably the most significant project any of us have ever worked on, and we're getting half completed drawings and many options placed before us.

The board did not know what to do.

This is a serious project, and one thing I can tell you for certain is every member of the Board of Architectural Review takes their obligation very seriously.

We know the requirements, and we have 24 meetings a year.

We have more meetings than any other board except for y'all, right?

We have a lot of meetings, and we apply these standards all of the time to sit regular citizens of Alexandria.

And one of the things that we're sensitive to is that the city ordinance doesn't provide exceptions for the city.

The city is subject, if it's the landowner, if it's the applicant, to all of the same rules as any average voter citizen of this city.

And it's it's been very important for me as the chair, but also for other members of the board to ensure that everyone is treated fairly before the board and that we don't give special treatment to groups with more power.

It's important for the board to hold large developers to the same standards that we would hold a homeowner that wanted to make a minor change to the facade of their building.

So this is all the backdrop, this is the context of what we're having to consider.

Because the meeting was four and a half hours long, it was midnight, there were so many questions about that were unresolved, options we'd been asked to consider, new renderings.

There was no way the board was going to come to a decision on that date.

We did ask the city if they would consider deferring and coming back to us with a more complete plan.

But the city, and it has every right to do that.

The city said, no, we really we want to move forward.

We would like you to give us some decisions tonight.

And if you watch the video, you'll see the city.

It wasn't Mr.

McPike there that day, but the representative of the city asked us to make decisions.

But we simply weren't ready.

So we could we did the only thing we could do, we continued the matter.

And a continuation just pauses it, and when you come back to the next meeting, you just pick it up again.

What this continuation allowed us to do was cool off, go home and think about it.

And that's what I did as the chair.

And I spent most of the next two weeks looking at the application and discussing individually with other members of the board because we we can't discuss more than individually because of public meeting rules.

And um, so it was a it was a lot of legwork focused on the city's application and saying, okay, they've they've given us uh I felt like the lady in the meme looking at all the angles, right?

Trying to figure it out.

And I I'm just trying to unlock this lock because we felt as a board really strongly that this was a city project, and we wanted to give the imprimatur of the board to the city council to say, we approve this project.

We want to give you that cover because it's important and because we didn't want you to put you, the city council into a position of having to make a decision that wasn't endorsed by the board.

And that's why we took two more weeks to work on this and to look at it.

So I will mention that a week after we continued the meeting, we get this additional letter from the applicant.

It's a two-page letter, and it shows this rendering uh you're seeing here, but it didn't show this version.

It showed a weird angle from the ground looking up, and it said we prefer this option, right?

The option 4A.

It also asked us to approve some conditions where the applicant would continue working with staff.

So here's the problem with that.

First of all, this was not a deferral and a resubmission.

This was the same matter.

And because it was the same matter, and the applicant did not withdraw their submission, it was simply an additional piece of paper on top of the other 80, 97 pages that we had to consider.

It was the same matter, continued from the fifth to the 19th.

And I will say as an aside, it is not uncommon for us to get options, particularly from large developers, where they will say, um, here's what we want to do, but here's another option that we're open to.

And so when we receive this additional letter from the city, we interpret this as okay.

So they're they're putting their finger on the scale of all the options they gave us.

They like this one the best, but it certainly didn't replace the 97 pages of application or eliminate all of these options they'd given us.

In fact, we had a legal requirement to continue the meeting as it was and to consider the application as it was.

Okay.

So if you were to look at the staff recommendations uh for the November 5th meeting, not these staff recommendations, but the November 5th one, there were three recommendations.

And the first one was we recommend the board make some decisions from the options you're given.

And so that's why when you look at the conditions, that's why they're structured in the way that they are.

And the the first part says as to staff recommendation one.

And it's because staff recommendation one in the original submission asked us to make some choices.

And so that's what we did.

Now I will say, not all of the um conditions are mandatory in here.

Some of these are simply express expressing what we think the applicant should do.

And that includes the arched entryways.

The requirement doesn't say they must be arched, it says they should be arched, and that came right out of a discussion from the architect representing the applicant in the November 5th meeting.

But for the for the purposes of me not talking way too much longer, I'm only going to focus on the mandatory conditions because all of the optional conditions are truly optional.

It's just a suggestion.

We stand by those suggestions.

We think they're the right suggestion, but they're not mandatory.

So looking down, the first condition is that the pilasters, and those are like the half pillars that are attached to the building, should be made of stone or precast material in a beige or gray color.

That reflects the option that the city gave us.

Now, they gave us several options for different materials of those vertical elements.

One was this stone look.

It could be made of actual quarried stone or precast as the architects call it.

I'm not an architect, but uh I would call that precast concrete.

Um that reflects the option 4B.

The other options they gave us were brick or sandstone.

The board felt that the contrast presented by the stone or precast concrete was more fitting for a large civic building and slightly more formal than the brick option.

Also, there's only four inches of relief on those brick pilasters.

And so if you're standing at any distance, it's just gonna wash away.

You're not gonna see them.

But the stone element provides that clear contest.

It's also very consistent with architecture throughout our city.

If you look at the courthouse on Washington Street, it has those exact elements.

And this does obliquely get to the point that the applicant made about architectural styles.

What I think the vernacular you need to think about is do the modifications fit the style of the edition itself, right?

The style of the beautiful 1871 building is second empire.

It is a different architectural style than the infill building from the 60s.

That's colonial revival, right?

And so there were a lot of early discussions from April about whether it should continue to have a colonial revival look.

I was of the opinion you should tear the whole thing down and put a spaceship in there and make it look modern, but that's just my opinion.

Um it wasn't the opinion of the board or the public or Mr.

McPike or anyone else.

So we kind of landed on this colonial revival style because that's already the style of the edition, right?

So any elements added here are inherent to colonial revival.

They don't compete with the second empire style because they're not of the second empire style, right?

So that's the example of the pilasters.

This again, option 4B was not an invention of the board.

This was presented to us, and the the city asked us to make this choice.

Um also not to get too architecty on this, but the applicant described a hierarchy in the facade and suggested that the main entrance should be the main element of this south facade and the most prominent.

With the addition of these glass hyphens on the side, which by the way, the glass hyphens are in front of fire stairwells, right?

And so when you look in there, you're just going to see a stairwell, right?

They're going to be beautifully designed.

We haven't seen the detail, but it's a stairwell.

And they will have to be lit at night because uh for fire code reasons.

And so keeping that in mind, it was very important to the board to emphasize the center of the building, not these glass elements that are put on the side.

And so this idea of ensuring you have the vertical gray element draws the attention in to the center of the building, and it's more appropriate for a formal civic building than simply brick that could be washed away.

It's one of the problems with the existing building.

Okay.

The next mandatory condition is number four.

You can skip over two and three because they are recommendations, they are not required.

Number four says the doors of the center entrance pavilion, which is the center part, shall be made of wood or clad in bronze or other metal.

This we came out of the discussion in the working group where the architect representing the city has already agreed to do the doors in bronze.

This was not invented by the board.

And if you go back and watch the video from the November 5th meeting, you will see the city's representative agreeing to do the doors in bronze.

We're gonna let our um letter um representative speak and um not interrupt as they did for our time.

So I think thank you, Mayor.

My my point here is just that this is not arbitrary and it's not a Franken building.

This was a question we were asked that we were answering.

In fact, we broadened it because we realized bronze is an expensive material.

We felt that wood would also be appropriate.

And so when you see in condition four, wood or bronze, right?

Uh the applicant agreed to this.

Okay, the next mandatory requirement that is certainly the most controversial is the decorative chimneys.

It's a requirement that the decorative chimneys shall be retained or reconstructed.

Now, the architect has told us they probably have to be torn down for structural reasons and rebuilt, and that's fine.

I will say chimneys are maybe, aside from windows, the mo one of the most controversial things we as a board see.

And we require citizens of this great city 15 times a year to rebuild their chimneys.

This is not some special rule we're applying to the city.

Chimneys are important because they mark the skyline, right?

They also reflect the history of the city.

Now, if you were building a spaceship there, right, if you're building a new building, you might not put chimneys.

They are decorative, they're not functional chimneys.

But decoration is important in architecture, right?

Just decoration is an expression of the building.

And the board determined that these chimneys, which by the way, this is the most photographed building in Alexandria.

This is the symbol of the city, and those chimneys are iconic for the city.

And so the board determined look, these are distinctive architectural design elements.

They need to be retained.

Whether you keep them as is or you tear them down and you rebuild them to a slightly better scale, actually, the city's proposal, if you look, is a better scale than the chimneys as they exist right now.

But having that chimney there to punctuate the skyline is important.

It also serves a really important functional role.

As we mentioned before, the fifth floor addition is going to be a kind of a gray box behind the front of City Hall.

The chimneys draw the eye to the front of the building.

They draw the eye to the center pavilion, and they help that fifth floor uh addition, the modern edition, recede into the background.

Those chimneys do an excellent job of focusing you on the part of the building that you actually want people to focus on.

Historically, Alexandria buildings were a mix of commercial and residential in the same building, and so you do see a lot of chimneys around town.

Um these are decorative, they're not functional, but nonetheless, the board assessed that they were a distinctive architectural element.

And I will note the city asked us to weigh in on this.

4B is not for board.

We didn't come up with this.

This city came up with it and asked us to weigh in on it.

Um, I think I've I've done good on the chimney.

Um, number six is the next mandatory requirement, and that's the first floor extension shall be on the same vertical plane as the upper floor extension to the maximum extent practicable.

So this is really not mandatory.

We are giving the applicant an out here.

The deal here is that the front floor, right, where the doors are protrudes farther into the market square than the upper floors do where the pilasters are.

And so you've got a you've got a you've got a relief there.

And the concern was that it would make the pilaster element recede too much, right?

So the idea is maybe you do have to have some setback, but try to minimize that to the maximum extent practicable.

If the city were to determine, look, we just can't do it any different than it's done, that's fine.

This does not actually require the city to do anything that's impracticable.

And it also suggests that they use architectural detailing to minimize the appearance.

I would say the city has already complied with that, right?

Because of those pilasters and other design tricks.

This was included because we knew that from some of the other requirements, there might have to be some redesign of the front, and we just wanted to make sure that that architectural deal detailing with the pilasters remained.

And so to the extent that the city has already complied with this, that is fine.

Remember, November 5th, we're given a ton of options.

We have all of these new things that we've never seen before.

We did put some things in the conditions that we thought the city already complied with, but we just weren't sure because it was the first time we'd seen it, or there were just so many options, we weren't sure how to land on this stuff.

Okay.

Um moving on.

The next, okay, so that's it for the for the center pavilion of the south facade.

The next element was the first floor, uh, was the uh fifth floor edition, which again I'll point out in the letter we received on November 13th, the supplemental letter that showed the single rendering, it didn't discuss the fifth floor at all, right?

It it wasn't a comprehensive replacement.

It was a two-page leaflet that we got.

But we had discussed the fifth floor in depth at the November 5th meeting.

And because of that, uh we issued an approval that the condition shall be unobtrusive and that glass and glazing shall not be visible from the seat from the contributing structure, the contributing structure is the historic structure, right?

It's the 1871 building.

The city agreed to this on November 5th.

And if you watch the video, you'll see the city agreed to this condition so that you can't you can see the gray like exterior metal cladding, but the condition is you won't be able to see the windows because the windows are reflective, the windows will draw attention away from the historic building.

So you can see the gray part of the building, but not the windows in the curtain wall.

And that's the requirement.

The lighting, the prohibition of lighting on the fifth floor is because the applicant had made a comment, a comment in the hearing about maybe we should highlight the addition by show putting some like lighting on top of it to highlight it.

And the prohibition has nothing to do with the safety code.

The idea is that at night uh visitors to Alexandria Citizens, you, me, everybody should be focused on the front of the building and not a ring of lights around the top of a modern fifth floor edition.

That is why that was prohibited.

It has nothing to do with the safety code whatsoever.

Again, this was discussed at length.

Okay, the last thing, not the last thing, second and last thing here is the structures on market square.

And believe it or not, this was the bulk of the conversation on November 5th.

We were pretty close to a resolution on the actual building on November 5th, but the market square discussion swallowed it because again, the shade structure, the canopy shade canopy and the and the um the stage shade structure, these were new designs we hadn't seen before.

And so we did include some requirements in there.

The first was that the board required the stage canopy shade structure and terraced seating to be complementary using the same architectural style.

I think the city has complied with that, but because we didn't have the detailed drawings, we had only seen renderings, it seemed important to require to mandate that that continue.

Again, we wanted to approve this, but we also have an obligation under the code and under the mandate you give us to be offer a degree of certainty as to what we're approving.

We have to know what it is we're approving, otherwise, what are the citizens gonna think?

Uh the second one is the second mandatory requirement is number three.

So the first one is number two, the board required the stage canopy shade structure and terracine to be complementary.

The first requirement was a study, right?

It doesn't say what the study is.

There's no there's no mandatory anything there.

Hey, take a look at it, no obligation.

City doesn't have to do anything.

They could spend an afternoon studying it and say we did that, right?

But we want them to look at it because we think it's the right thing to do.

But we know this was a new element, we didn't want to force it on the applicant.

We were very sensitive in what we made mandatory versus what we suggested.

So number three was the stage canopy shall be tall enough to accommodate a temporary stage.

This was another topic we discussed on November 5th.

The proposal was to have it 14 feet high.

Now, 14 feet, it's a good height, maybe the ceiling in this room.

But if you're building a stage canopy and you're gonna have a band or or any kind of a musical act or anybody performing under that stage, typically what happens is under the canopy, they build a temporary stage that lifts them up because they put the equipment and everything underneath there.

So if you're lifting it up by three feet and the top is 14 feet, that's it's really tight.

It is possible that that would be good enough, but we were authorizing the applicant to go higher than 14 feet if they wanted or needed to, just to ensure that that stage shade would be functional.

Because the idea here was don't build a shade structure that actually doesn't accommodate a performance or anything like that.

What we wouldn't want to see is a bunch of temporary stage canopies built when you've got a permanent one there, but it's too low.

So it it just was acknowledging that 14 feet was tight.

It might be right, it might not, but it just make it tall enough to actually be functional so you're not having to rent in temporary stages and clutter the market square.

Okay, number five, the terraced seating in market square shall be granted stone.

This was an explicit question asked to us by the applicant.

They showed us two renderings.

One showed granite stone and the other one showed red sandstone.

And they said, which one should we do?

Well, the board took a look at it, and the determination was that granite stone is both more durable and more formal than red sandstone.

And so this condition is simply asking a question that the city asked us to resolve for them, which is granite.

And I'll note that in the renderings they showed you today, it's not granite.

Number six is that the conduit and drainage piping of market square structures shall be enclosed.

This is another like nerdy architectural detail about whether you show water drainage or not.

This was something that the uh city's representative, the architect had told us in the meeting, that was her preference.

She always enclosed the drainage structures because we didn't want to see exterior, any kind of exterior drainage added on to these shade structures, but because we didn't have the detailed architectural drawings, we actually couldn't see any of the drainage.

And so we included this as a condition because we didn't have the detailed design, right?

And the city didn't want to go back, defer, redesign, and come back.

So we just said, fine, you've agreed, we've agreed, it's all good.

Just make sure that it's concealed and not obvious.

Okay, that's it for the market square.

The next item is the glass hyphens, right?

These were very controversial with the public.

We heard a lot of input from the public that the public did not like the glass hyphens.

Ultimately, the board approved the glass hyphens.

The architect made a compelling case that this was an important architectural bridge between the 1861 and the uh 1871 and 1961 building.

But the requirement is simply that the glazing shall be unobtrusive and that the hyphens should receive.

I will say, I will submit.

I think the design as submitted already complies with this requirement.

The reason this requirement is in here is because we never got a rendering of the building at night or directly on to see exactly what inside of that would look like.

And the concern was is it going to be obstructive?

Is it going to be too bright in the middle of the night?

And so the idea was just make it, you know, it's it should blend in, right?

It is an architectural design, but but um it should be unobstructed.

That is the purpose here.

I I will say I think they've complied with this already, but again, with so many unresolved issues, we did have to put some conditions in that we weren't so sure about.

The last two conditions, if you look here, they are modifications of what the um city staff asked for.

As to staff recommendations two or three, I'm on the bottom here.

This gets into a nuance that that I that I do think is worth addressing.

The the city staff requested that we require the applicant to continue to work with staff on these two issues.

The applicant is the staff.

There is a clear conflict of interest here by returning to the applicant, the city, the authority to continue working on its own design with its own employees.

There is no third-party oversight.

There is no independent review.

If you tell the city staff, you tell this side of the city, you can talk to this side of the city, but everybody works for one person, right?

And so there is a conflict of interest in a proving condition in from the board's perspective, which has a mandate of oversight.

There is a conflict of interest in returning items to this.

Now we do this sometimes with other applications where we say applicant, you have to work with staff.

First of all, we always do it on really minor things.

We do not turn major elements over to the city staff.

And if you look at the zoning ordinance, and we love the city staff, we work with them, they're awesome, they support us, they're fantastic.

The zoning ordinance, the city staff has a different role than the board.

The city staff makes recommendations.

Only the board determines what complies with the regulations.

And today, you're in the place of the board.

So only you can decide what complies with the regulations, not the city staff, and certainly not the applicant.

So, you know, in conclusion, it is true.

The applicant quite correctly highlights that the board is not empowered to consider cost trade-offs in its deliberations on a certificate of appropriateness.

This is true.

But this is not a flaw in the process.

This is actually a feature.

If ever a building, if any building ever should be designed from the outside in, it is this building.

This is an outside building.

People are gonna look at this building.

Inside features are nice, but outside features are really important, and that's why the board is required only to look at what can be seen from outside.

Because it's the historic district.

You can make it a modern spaceship inside.

This is the most photographed building in Alexandria.

This building is going to be here for at least 75 years, way after we're all dead.

Um except the Boy Scouts.

Oh, they're still here.

I was a Boy Scout.

Uh long live the Boy Scout.

Um look, we are very thoughtful here.

This is not arbitrary, this is not capricious, this is not boards gone wild.

This is the result of an incredibly intensive deliberative process.

Look, our board has four architects that are all incredibly competent.

We've got a real estate professional who knows everybody in town, and we got two attorneys.

This is not a bunch of keystone cops just rolling around saying, make it bigger, right?

Like this is very thoughtful.

Finally, um yeah, I just I do want to thank the city staff.

They have been incredible throughout this process.

It is unusual in an application like this not to have the city staff in lockstep with us.

And it has been surprising to see the element of change from the original recommendations to us, which was hey, could you please choose?

And today it's like, oh, you should overturn them.

This is the conflict of interest.

This is why you can't delegate to the city staff decisions because it's a city project, right?

You you the citizens of this city, the ordinance requires certainty in the design that we are approving, right?

So simply make them requirements, don't delegate it.

Don't look at the slides, look at the actual packet in front of you with staff recommendations.

Four of the five recommendations in the staff report would require you to delegate back to the staff monumental work of approving all the remaining design details.

This is the this is the work of the board.

This is your work.

The staff, the applicant, have asked you to give it back to them.

And we've never done this in a big project, right?

We will delegate what's the final design of the door.

What's the shade of red of the brick?

Right?

This is the thing we will tell third-party applicants to work with staff on.

There's an objective measure of control there, right?

The staff could come back to us and say, they didn't work with us at all.

Then they're clearly in violation.

How does the board know?

How do you know as an elected city council if the city is not working well with the city?

That's a tough one.

It's a tough condition to approve.

So here's the thing.

The board's conditional approval has already done all of the heavy lifting for you.

Right?

We have resolved the unresolved elements in the appellants submission.

The conditions are reasoned, they are appropriate, and they are the result of extensive discussion with the applicant.

Again, this is the applicant's design.

You see it right before you.

This is not a board design.

This is what the city came up with, and it's beautiful.

Every major condition in the board's approval is aligned with the proposal.

On behalf of the board, I'm just gonna urge you, thank you for your time, but urge you to ratify the decision of the Board of Architectural Review.

This is our process in this city that has worked so well for 60 years.

If you move forward with the board's project, the city uh that is fully endorsed by the board, and many of the members of the public that are here today, everyone can be proud of this result.

This is an absolute capstone to this year-long process.

The city, the applicant deserves a lot of credit for developing this proposal.

All we've done here is answer questions.

So thank you.

I'm available.

I know I've talked a lot, but I am absolutely available for any questions you have now or at any process tonight.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Scott.

Um, with that, I'm gonna go right into the public.

Um, I'm gonna come back.

I'm gonna come back.

I want to go to the public hearing just so we can get something.

You'll have a chance to respond.

Uh, we're gonna have everyone who is before the public hearing will be able to call back on again and have staff speak.

Um but given that it's 9.30.

I want to go ahead and get some of these speakers rolling.

Um so, Madam Clerk, can you please call?

Um in this room, we can't have people line up, so we'll just have to do it one at a time.

Um, and if we can have others sit and wait until it is their term.

So, Madam Clerk, first speaker.

Al Cox.

The chair is a tough act to follow.

Um, Madam Mayor and members of council, my name is Al Cox.

And one second, Mr.

Cox, before you begin, we want to make sure our new clock works.

Yeah, we get right here.

It's working.

We're good.

Okay.

Get real close.

Get real close.

That's what my wife says.

Madam Mayor and members of council.

Okay, Mr.

Cox.

My name is Al Cox.

I live at 311 North Alfred Street.

I believe that City Hall is culturally and politically the heart of our democratic community.

Throughout the world, the seat of government is given a level of architectural prominence that reflects the civic values of its people.

In our case, the geographic location at the center of Old Town was established by George Washington's survey map of 1749 and remains the genus loci of the city today.

The first architect chosen for City Hall by the town trustees was Benjamin Henry Latrobe, the first professional architect to practice in the United States, an architect of the U.S.

Capitol, and designer of our own St.

Paul's Church.

So Trobe's clock tower at the North Royal Street entrance was so venerated that it was recreated when the City Hall burned in 1871 and incorporated into the reconstruction.

The architect chosen to design the new building after the fire was Adolf Cluse, a nationally prominent architect and one of the most prolific designers of Victorian public buildings in 19th century Washington.

His entry on Cameron Street, then considered the primary civic street in Old Town, is monumental in scale, and its construction exhibits superb craftsmanship.

The present alterations to the 1961 colonial revival style South Facade of City Hall should have an entrance that we can be equally proud of.

Using the criteria listed in the zoning ordinance, that is what the BAR did.

The Alexandria BAR was created 80 years ago, the third in the nation.

Design review is often a messy process, but in my experience, being on or staffing architecture review boards for the past 40 years, many property owners thanked me and said how much the process had improved their project.

Indeed, the same has already happened here.

I and many others have lauded the public outreach process undertaken by General Services over the past year on this enormous and complex project.

Having worked in City Hall for three decades, I can attest that it clearly needed functional and aesthetic renovation.

However, the early design proposals for the South Elevation tried to reject rather than embrace the colonial revival style that has defined Alexandria since the early 20th century.

The board was not therefore comfortable with the initial modernist entrances in market square design.

The applicant responded, and the application now before you is a vast improvement.

But it isn't quite there yet.

And that is why the BAR conditioned their approval to reflect public discussion and design alternatives shown in the application materials.

We're honestly drawn down to a few architectural design details, and we do not believe that there is any reason for the outstanding issues to meaningfully add to the time or construction cost in this limited area.

Please trust your appointed board members and uphold their unanimous conditional approval of the certificate of appropriateness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Melissa CUNEC.

Okay, I've spoken in public before.

I know how to use these mics.

I'm Melissa Cannon.

I am a resident of 42525 Montgomery Street.

I'm a retired architect.

I've designed dozens of civic buildings.

And I just need you to know that it's a very sorry, I can't read with my glasses.

It's a um it's very well known among architects and municipalities that the design of a civic building reflects the pride the city has in its community.

So why should you trust what the BAR has uh has set as conditions?

Because these experienced members of the BAR understand that a well-designed civic building of quality materials serves as a physical manifestation of the community spirit by strengthening its collective identity and inspiring a shared sense of accomplishment and belonging.

Civic architecture goes beyond functionality.

It tells stories about shared history, values, and identity, and symbols of classical architecture reflect democratic ideals and historic narratives.

Well the BAR is asking the asking to be done is to go just a little a step a little bit higher in the quality of materials for the cast stone pilasters to replace the chimneys, and so the focus is on the center doors.

Just as an example, I looked up city halls within a few hours' drive.

It took me less than five minutes, 15 minutes to find this many examples of city halls that all have stone columns on the front.

And these are some of these are much smaller communities than ours.

I think it's really important if we're going to use the city hall as an example of our public identity, the photo of City Hall is our public identity.

Let's not hide it behind a flage flag and a fountain at full height.

Let's show it to be true classic architecture.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Christine Roberts.

Hi there, I'm Christine Roberts, and I represent the Historic Alexander Foundation, which gives me five minutes, but I will take one because I promised the mayor when we met that I would not repeat anything anyone said.

So I'm sure that you got a chance to see it.

I would just like to reiterate that the Historic Alexandria Foundation would really like to see this applicant treated like all the other applicants before the BAR.

And I think Mr.

Scott outlined all the ways that they haven't necessarily been under the same scrutiny that that other uh applicants are.

They haven't presented plans there as detailed.

Um, and the interaction between the different sides of the city is problematic, and you need the BAR as the arbiter of that.

Um, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time this evening.

Uh Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Carol Black.

My name is Carol Black, 13 Auburn Court.

Not gonna tell my apartment number.

Um, I am a member of HART, but I am not speaking on behalf of HARP because I don't like to be forced to be that diplomatic.

Now, and I didn't make a promise to anyone, I'm not gonna repeat anything, but I'm gonna be very quick.

I was taught with my father when I first became a lawyer to make sure to ask one, what do you want?

I want you to uphold the decision of the BAR, this unbelievably qualified group of people that you chose to be on there who serve for free hours into the morning, 2 a.m., to make sure that to maybe follow along with what Ms.

Roberts said, to not look at the members here of the applicant and see fellow city employees, but to see people who are bringing in action just as though a private developer would be.

Because what I'm concerned is a private developer is going to take a lot of note of what's happening here.

Now I'm going to talk about the audacity of the architect who came with the shade structure, put it up on the screen, and didn't even bother with our huge entourage to give printed copies or even send an email with them.

How can the board make a decision based on that?

I'm also afraid that when I attended, I attended both the November 5th and spoke there, attended the second one, November 19.

The continuation, a continuation that the members of the public were not allowed to speak.

None of us complained, none of us made comments about it.

But if you look, Mr.

McPike's memo says at the bottom, this this exhibit below depicts the proposed South facade presented on the November 5th hearing.

It was one of the proposed.

And I think Mr.

Scott made that clear that there are choices here.

So I was vehemently opposed to this fifth floor terrace.

I think it looks great on the top of the Mies Van Dero MLK library in DC, but they've made changes over the time.

They tried to cover the glass and make it look more like slate.

I'm still vehement vehemently, I'm sorry, I'm talking too fast, vehemently opposed to the shade structures.

I don't think in any way they're complimentary.

I'm not on the BAR.

I wonder, I was craning my neck to see whether or not the Secretary of Interior Standards would be applicable to the shade structures and to that fifth floor.

I'm very curious about that.

Please uphold your BAR.

Please don't look at the applicant and see city employees, see this applicant as any other applicant because private developers are going to be doing that.

And thank you so much for your time.

Madam Clerk, if you could call the next speaker.

Yvonne Callahan.

Good evening, Madam Vice Mayor and members of council.

My name is Yvonne Wade Callahan.

I live at Cirty 735 South Lee Street.

I am president of Old Town Civic Association, and although I'll probably not take five minutes by far.

Excuse me, which is that you see one thing, you hear another thing, something else comes up, you're told we didn't see this, we didn't get copies of drawings of it.

This has become, it started off well, a lot of cooperation, things got a little bit wonky for a while, and then kaboom.

We're told no more talking, no more nothing.

Now we know we they presented four options that we never got to really talk about because it was clamped down because they came in with a later one that said, oh no, this is it.

Now I think one of the things you have to keep track of here is what it means to be staff here.

Who is staff?

When the applicant, I'm gonna put it that way, is granted a certificate of approval with conditions, which is granted by city code.

That applicant doesn't go to uh this private developer, let's call it a private developer, does not go and appeal the granting of it because they don't like the conditions the BAR put on the applicant, the developer.

They want their own conditions to be substituted.

Now, what's going to happen to the bar in the future when you find that a developer says, Oh, I want this and I want that, and this is the way we're going to do it, and uh because that's what you did to the city.

You were it was you the applicant here is no bet better, no worse than the average person that comes before the BAR.

By the way, the BAR is now 80 years old this year.

Old Town Civic is about 75 years old.

So we've had a long history together of watching the city grow but yet keep its roots.

Um what is next?

I you now have seen, like I said, the issues we've been going.

Just tonight we learn about the position of the applicant that the certain standards of the Department of Interior should be met.

I've had no chance to look at that to discuss with them or to read about it.

By the way, the author of that was born and raised in Old Town, lived on the 500 block of South Fairfax Street, Brown Morton.

I think he knows a little bit about you know what it was really talking about.

I would like to have I'm going to show you one example from a document you got tonight, which exemplifies, I think, the issue that we have of what in the world is going on here.

If I could direct you to um this particular piece of uh that you should have, um bar appeal to the city council, um, and it's a three, four, five, six-page document.

Okay.

On November 5, you get there is a memo to the chair and the members of the BAR from preservation staff.

November 13, Jeremy Pike, fifth floor.

Work with staff to ensure that glazing cannot be seen from the ground level.

Okay?

Work with staff, don't let it hide it.

You know, hide it, really hide it.

Okay, same document you got tonight, a different page.

Staff recommendation.

The exterior of the fifth floor.

Now, again, not work with staff, but this is a condition.

The exterior of staff will be similar to the adjacent state slate roofs, and glazing will be minimally visible.

So, which is it, invisible or minimally invisible.

And this is just tonight, in the same in one document you got.

This is what we have been dealing with.

Yes, it's a minor issue.

Well, it's not a minor issue.

What's what's a major issue here is the BAR is doing this darnedness to present the city with a very good product.

We need your help in sending this back to the BAR.

And some, I don't know what to do.

Policing of the working with staff part.

Whoever staff might be is the first thing to determine.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Robert Adams.

Thank you for all the time we're spending together.

Uh I'm a member of the BAR, uh, one of the members.

The uh I've been a resident of Old Town for 45 years, and I've been uh an architect for 35 years working with the BAR.

I also had 10 years' experience working on monumental historic buildings in Washington.

Library of Congress, Capitol, so forth.

Highest level with the highest level participants.

City Hall is a landmark.

It's taken on a life of its own.

This side of the building, the South Facade, I don't think the architect recognized that this is the main visual component of our of City Hall now.

People don't go around a Cameron Street or Royal Royal Street to see the building, the older other building from 1871.

So this one has taken on a importance of its own.

And it was done in the 60s when the colonial revival was used for these urban renewal sections of town across the street, across King Street, a little bit further.

They tore down a lot of buildings, maybe wouldn't have been done today, but it's created an ambiance or a stylistic uh note for this area.

And that's when we uh asked the architect to not put glass and chrome on the outside of this building and instead embrace the colonial revival architectural style.

Um to say that it's not a uh a subject of preservation.

I wonder how you think about the Kennedy Center built in the also later than this in the 70s.

I guess it was in 67 maybe, or other uh buildings that take on an importance of their own, not because of age, but because of purpose and visibility.

And as another speaker said, how many times do you see this image on the cover of a magazine talking about this is the fifth or the third best place to vacation?

Why 3.5 million people come here as tourists.

This is the image.

It's also important to think about the distance you can see this building from, that facade from.

You can see it from a block away, even a block and a half away.

And it's it's so important because of its visibility.

The the pilasters using stone, as Mr.

Scott said, the contrast from stone to brick makes these uh image look right.

And instead of the way it is now with the brick pilasters, there's a entablature that's just kind of floating over nothing that you can't see 20 feet away.

The chimneys is another uh element that defines the building from a distance.

Uh I I never understood why they were even being removed.

I mean, they're not taking off other parts of the building.

There's never seemed to be an explanation why the chimneys would even be considered to be removed.

They're the highest level of decoration.

Uh just want to thank everybody.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Karen Paul.

Okay, is she online?

She's online.

Okay.

Ms.

Paul, um, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Um let me know if she rejoins, but we'll we'll keep going.

Margaret Miller.

Okay.

Good evening.

Thank you all for all your service to us.

I especially enjoyed hearing uh the all the accolades that people in the city were being given, but I'm very concerned about the situation here tonight.

But first I'll tell you about myself.

I'm a 45-year resident of the old and historic district.

I've served on the board BAR.

I'm a BAR member, but I'm not speaking to you on behalf of the BAR.

Mr.

Scott did that this evening.

I served on the board for eight years under four different mayors and worked tirelessly specifically on this case on Samuel Madden and on the waterfront.

And I want to give you an example of what happened with the waterfront.

We worked tirelessly over and over and over again with Aiken Young and Tom at JBG to put that project together.

And there was a lot of controversy related to it.

And when it was all said and done, people were saying to me, what was the controversy about that?

It's beautiful.

And I said, Well, it wasn't always beautiful.

And that is the case with the submission here at um with the city hall.

I also want to tell you, as I sit in the back with the Boy Scouts watching this meeting, I'm a little bit concerned about the structure.

Mr.

McPike has a an attorney at council next to him.

Mr.

Conkey has an attorney, council next to him.

Here sits the city council, and here sits the applicant up with the city council.

And the BAR, who is the only unpaid entity of the city in this room, we're on our own, kind of swimming in the water, trying to keep this thing straight.

I don't think I I don't think I realize this is an unusual situation, but it's very unsettling to me to see how things have been set up.

Okay, I'm not going to talk about what I was going to talk about, but I am going to respond to some of the things that number one, Mr.

McPyke once again has introduced information that we didn't have before.

The um Department of the Interior, the only thing that I've read that they have requ required is a quiet sandstone.

That is something that is a local stone for us.

It comes from, I believe the Woodbridge area.

And if we use sandstone, we're supposed to use a quiet sandstone.

But these other remarks about the uh Department of the Interior are brand new.

How could the board have ever considered them?

The next thing I want to tell you is over independent oversight, it's absolutely essential in this situation.

I've suggested it to Mr.

Conki several times, and he told me it was not possible.

And it is needed.

We can't have Mr.

Ms.

City Manager Parjan and Mr.

McPike running the project.

There has to okay, I'll sit down.

I have lots more to say, but my time is up.

I do want to cur um just state a couple things for the record, just so everyone in the room and those watching know.

Um so first, Mr.

Conkey is not seated next to an attorney, but I do want to make sure everyone is familiar with Director Paul Stoddard, who is the director of our planning and zoning staff.

In terms of the structure for how we've set the meeting, um, it's my understanding, yes, this is a unique case, and we are you know it's a unique situation, but in terms of the flow, the process, and how we've gone, that's the same that we would follow otherwise.

And part of the reason why we had Mr.

Scott speak first before the public hearing is so that typically when we close the public hearing, we would not be able to ask him any more questions.

Now, since he's spoken before, there will be able to be as many questions and back and forth.

Another thing is um he was given as unlimited time, um, which is also an important part part of the process.

So I just wanted to make sure we've tried to be very clear in making sure that everything about the flow of this meeting is the same as how we would typically do them.

I also want to state, and I will let um Madam City Attorney weigh in on this as well, because I think a couple of people have raised this.

Um, and this is for my colleagues as well.

Neither the BAR nor um the City Council can consider the Secretary of Interior standards.

We have to do our decision based on the what is set forth in the zoning quote.

So while that was presented tonight is an important part of the applicant's case, that can't be the basis by which we make our decision.

And I don't know if Madam City Attorney wanted to.

That is correct.

This is a de novo review of the BARS appeal and that it's pursuant to the zoning ordinance as indicated by Deputy City Attorney Christina Brown.

So those are the criteria before the council tonight and the information when you render your decision, you should articulate your reasons as set forth in the zoning ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um next speaker, Madam Clerk.

John Patrick.

And just so we have a sense of time, how many more speakers do we have?

Five.

Five.

Okay.

Mr.

Patrick.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, members of council.

My name is John Patrick, and I'm speaking for the Historic Alexandria Resources Commission.

The Commission members strongly support the BAR's decision and the conditions that they have set.

That support is based on members' long experience of seeing the BAR process and seeing the BAR in action.

And we really wish this project to go forward now.

Doesn't have to go back to the BAR.

All you have to do is say to the applicant, proceed according to what the BAR has told you.

Now, I'd like to talk about two things.

One is the funding issue, which appeared tonight.

You would not be sitting where you are unless you were very skillful in the ways of organizations.

And every one of you knows, as I do, that there are ways to ask a question to get the answer that you're looking for.

We are told that if a building that has chimneys now doesn't get those chimneys scraped off, the funding will be denied.

We are told that pilasters in brick will get the funding.

But those same pilasters with the same dimensions in a form of concrete that looks very convincingly like stone, that won't get the funding.

As I say, there are ways to ask questions to get the answer that you want.

One other thing of our time.

What is of our time?

The hyphens, which the board has accepted.

They're glass, it's a glass wall with bronze elements to basically hold the glass.

That is the design vocabulary of the Seagrim building in New York.

It was built three years earlier than the colonial revival structure that you see there.

So those hyphens in that style are somehow of our time, but the colonial revival is not.

The colonial revival started roughly at the bicentennial of this country.

So it's about 150 years old.

The international style of architecture, the glass walls.

That started a hundred years ago in the 1920s.

Thank you so much for your time.

All right, Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Paul Beckman.

Is Paul in the room?

Is Paul online?

No.

Not online either.

No.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Stephen Malone.

Good evening, Mayor Gaskins, members of the City Council.

My name is Steve Malone.

I live at 907 Prince Street.

I'm a 30-year resident of the old and historic district, and over half of that time, 15 years I work for the city from 1999 till 2013 on the planning and zoning staff, including overseeing a historic preservation staff for a portion of that time, reviewing over a thousand projects in the BAR and staffing over a hundred BAR meetings over a several year period.

I am speaking in support of the BR recommendation of approval of a certificate of appropriateness of the proposed construction and renovation of City Hall and Market Square with the conditions the BR recommended to ensure the construction and proposed changes are appropriate for the very special building and market square that are the heart of our nationally recognized historic district.

As you're aware, City Hall and Market Square plays significant, even outsized role in the visual and economic success of our wonderful city.

The recommended requirements and conditions the BR is asking this project to meet are no more stringent than those that would be required for all commercial and residential building owners in the old historic district.

The requirements derive from the zoning ordinance and our own historic district design guidelines that we, as we discussed, that the BAR, city staff, architects, designers, planners, and building owners have for decades used successfully to guide development.

They are sound and should apply in this case for City Hall, as they do the rest of ACER structures in the district.

When an applicant applies for historic district uh construction, the application requires detailed plans and specifications for doors, windows, exterior lighting, chimneys, replacement materials, roofing, and other details that, as others have pointed out, were not always clear in this uh application.

Uh, if you had a chance to look at the design guidelines that were included in your package, you'll see this proposal cuts it goes over, proposes changes for over half of this.

Hundreds of pages of of design guidelines apply in this case, and a lot of those details were not provided.

BR was trying to provide recommended changes and conditions with options uh by selecting the options that the applicant proposed and refine the design to be appropriate uh for this colonial rival city hall.

And the historic district the proposed changes or recommendations or conditions by the BAR enable the city design team to move forward along with city historic preservation staff without having to return to the BAR for another public hearing.

These conditions are reasonable and necessary for the proposed alterations to be successful.

I can also relay that these are very few, these are really very few conditions.

We had pages of conditions for that.

Also, and that was an ARHA project, which I know is not city, but many people consider city, as well as Charles Houston Rec Center.

That was a city project.

Thank you so much for your time.

One second we do have a follow-up question from Councilman Chapman.

Yeah, and I think Steve, thank you for your comments.

I think uh the question I have, you may have just answered it.

Um I guess for the Charles Houston Rec Center.

Well, let me ask a question and then I'll let you pick your examples.

Um during your time as staff, were there any other um applications like that, like like this, the situations like this where the city came um before the bar for uh approvals?

Well, yeah, yeah.

So those were the two I thought of that are big public projects.

Uh the James Plan redevelopment that's now called Old Town Commons, that's five blocks that surrounds Charles Houston and Charles Houston Rec Center.

Um again, that was one of those things Charles Houston Rec Center when it initially came to us was just supposed to be a renovation.

And as the city looked at it and looked at the details and looked at the kind of facility it provided, it ended up being a whole re redevelopment.

So the the reason I asked you that, because I want to get at something that was brought up.

Um in that development, the Charles Houston one, you know, were there where were there kind of the direction of the bar to go back and work with city staff?

Again, it being a city project.

City staff going back and working with city staff.

I'm gonna I want to understand if there's some history to this.

Uh I I'm trying to I there as as this has been, as all projects are, they're very iterative, and there's a lot of back and forth, and I can picture with that we put put uh documents all over City Hall where we had work sessions and went through different details of the project.

I don't recall the final conditions and I think uh uh and if how much had to be worked out with staff afterwards.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, thank you.

I just say I was the project manager for Charles Houston on the project, and I do recall those conditions of continue to work with staff on those.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

Since I was the project manager for the project manager, and I was kind of part of the lead of planning zoning.

And like one condition I can remember that we hadn't decided to.

Thank you.

I think I what I want to do is I do you want to keep us being made?

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr.

Malone.

Um, but thank you.

Did you get the answer?

Okay.

Do we got where we need it?

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

All right, Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Final speaker, Dino Drudy.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, uh, Madam Mayor, members of council.

I'm Dino Drudy.

I'm speaking of my personal capacity.

Um, I was one in my testimony at the BAR, I was the one who raised the conflict of interest issue.

This is not a rec building.

This is the city council's building.

This is the city manager's building.

Those two are not comparable.

You are asking your staff to overrule their superiors, the city manager.

That's the underlying conflict of interest from a bureaucratic standpoint.

And I put forward a solution.

And the solution was that you might for this project contract with an expert, and I suggested Carl Moritz, the retired uh planning and zoning head, as an example of someone you with whom you could contract who would perform the role of working with staff and overseeing the certificate of appropriateness implementation and compliance.

Because you can't have the staff citing their superiors and overruling their superiors.

You just can't have that.

At the November 5th bar hearing, folks came with their testimony responding to the design that had been in the advertisement, only to find that an entirely new one was put in front of everybody at the last minute, not fully fleshed out, still in draft.

The city said, approve us now, or else.

And they had to take their testimony and they couldn't give it.

They had no real opportunity to go back to their organizations and prepare proper testimony.

So there's some sense that the 1960s infill is not a very good design, and we've been stuck with it.

The reason that I support endorsing what the bar has ruled and all the conditions is because we have to get this right.

And the bar knows the character of Old Town and knows what fits here, not one size fits all from the National Park Service or whatever.

And that's why I would urge you to uphold the decision of the bar.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Drudy is our last speaker.

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

So move.

There has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Chapman to close the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

I promise that I would go let me do this.

Let me bring up Mr.

Scott, just so you're up here and we can make it easy.

Let me go back to Mr.

McPike because I know he had some comments that he wanted to say.

And then I will open it up to council questions.

Mr.

McPike.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council.

I guess you can probably tell why some meetings lasted till midnight around the subject, lots of debate and discussion.

However, part of the issue is lack of clarity throughout the seven months.

It was mentioned earlier by the chair that somehow things were sprung.

Those were actually items and feedback that would continue to develop and working with BAR members.

So I I've just wanted to make one point.

Some of the comments tonight would stymie any private applicant or any applicant from actually being collaborative and discussing or submitting anything in writing to BAR because what has been taken is a submission of 4B and been represented to you tonight by the chair as something that we ask for.

When you apply the condition of the archways, okay, to that entry and the rest of the forms, because it actually has to lift the roof structure with it.

It also reduces your doorway heights.

It's a completely different design.

So I wanted to make sure the record is very clear.

4B as represented by the board chair, and the BR is no longer 4B.

So that is not what we submitted.

We provided sketches of archways as a study.

They've applied it to 4B and are representing to you that is the 4B that we submitted.

It is not for the record.

It is absolutely not 4B.

What is in the submitted shows still a very linear entryway and in the bronze.

Once you add the arches and the rest of the colonial style, it changes the entire center bay.

So I just want to make sure that the public listening and hearing what was submitted and being represented is completely inaccurate.

Furthermore, Madam Chair, I just want to clarify that the city received absolutely no special treatment.

If any other applicant was to be put forward, you're talking about years, and if it's year over a year to get the process, the process is broken.

And I can share with you that process-wise, having clarity during the numerous meetings, and I'll click back through all the meetings that we had with through through our schedule with the planning commission, I'm sorry, with the BAR staff on each one of these.

So I want to make sure you hear a lot of contention tonight.

There's actually a lot of good rolling up the sleeves and collaboration to get the design and what this mission we had on the table.

The other critical point is that what we're asking for is still consistent, and as at some point an applicant has to have a level of consideration for the work that they're putting forward and what they're asking for when it complies with your zoning ordinance, whether it applies with the zoning and it meets the standards.

What level of predominance of the public outreach and the work that is done that that weight takes place before a public body versus new introductions of design styles that have not been consistent nor submitted by the applicant?

I think it would have a chilling effect to any applicant looking to apply to the BAR and having new stylistic introductions to different submissions of an applicant.

I think that has an incredibly chilling effect upon any submission in the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Spain.

Let me just say one thing.

I can recognize the passion that everyone has in this room and how important our vote is going to be tonight.

I do want to go back to something I said at the beginning of the meeting, which is that we have an obligation to make sure this meeting still goes through smoothly and effectively and that we're able to hear and actually engage in the dialogue.

So I'm going to ask one more time, please, can we keep the side convic conversations to a minimum in the same way that nobody up here can speak out loud?

Let's only make sure that we're only speaking when we're spoken to.

So it's very difficult.

There's an echo for all of us up here.

And if you want to make sure that we can hear what each person is saying, that's the best way to do that.

So thank you.

I ask that you bear with us on this.

I have a clarifying question, Mr.

McPike, just so I can make sure that I'm tracking.

So is your statement that the recommendation of number five?

Um I what is it?

Staff recommendation one, the response from the BAR on number five is different than the 4B that is presented on page eight.

Is that what you mean when you say there are two different things?

Madam Chair, that is correct.

Once you apply 4B on page eight of that document and you add archways, it's a completely different design.

You're no longer looking at the same architecture.

It changes the entire entryway of archways, and you have to actually heighten the roof line.

So to represent to answer your question, it is completely a different design.

Okay.

Um do you have a picture you can pull up while I want to um go to Mr.

Scott to make sure that that's on that with the BAR's understanding as well, or sort of how did you guys interpret these two pictures?

Well, yeah, and I certainly don't want it to come across that there's like a lot of hostility here.

Uh we really appreciate all the work that Mr.

McPike has done throughout this process.

I will say that requirement number um three is not mandatory.

It says they should be arched.

It doesn't say they have to be arched.

And the reason why it's in there is because and Mr.

McPike wasn't at this meeting, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

The the architect who was representing the city at that meeting brought up the issue of arches and handed us a diagram of a half-drawn arch, right?

This is not what the board approved.

This was an independent submission sent in by someone else.

That is not what the board approved.

The board approved what the city asked us to approve.

That came from an independent.

I think Mr.

Cox mailed that in, and yes, it's a beautiful design.

That is not what we approved.

And it's right here in writing.

Should be arched.

It's not required.

The city can ignore it if it wants.

I mean, there's just no there's no mandate there.

The things that are mandatory say shall.

And again, the city brought this up to us, like in the meeting, the architect raised the issue.

So I'm gonna go to Vice Mayor Bagley.

I see a number I see hands um popping up.

I guess just one thing I want to put out here is as we go through this.

Um so when I'm hearing the different comments, what I'm hearing is that part of what the BAR put forth was a response to their concerns about where there was a lack of specificity.

And so putting in kind of here's the things we need to see because we don't have maybe the details or the content we need.

I think what I'm also hearing though is given that the there I would never have known, I'm just gonna say from the read of this, which things were mandatory or not mandatory based on that language.

Can I wait?

Let me just say that.

I'm sorry, Mayor.

I didn't mean to.

And so I think something that is going through my mind is as we're going through this, you know, making sure that we're not trying to interpret maybe what was intended or not intended, and how do we make sure that spaces where like there might be an opportunity to work together could be worked?

I recognize the concerns that were raised, but I think that's what's going up through this for me is to kind of like if we were if the BAR was responding to the places where they felt more detail was needed because they didn't have that, but then there was still space or opportunities where they would work through that had they had it, then what is the process by which we could have worked through this?

That's what I'm thinking through.

Let me go to you and then let me go to the Vice Mayor.

So we asked the applicant to defer to continue developing this design on November 5th, and the applicant declined.

The applicant asked for a vote, even though this wasn't a fully completed design.

And after the meeting, I spoke to Bill Conkey and I said, take a careful look at the approvals.

The shalls and the shoulds are meaningful, they have legal effect.

I know for a fact that the city was made aware of the difference between those two.

And I I really don't want to highlight what are some pretty upsetting procedural moves made by the city, but I will tell you that it's hard for me to hear the presentation by the city where I hear these new Department of Interior standards where they're pretending like should means shall when I know for a fact that since November I personally pointed it out to the city staff.

And I know the city staff talked to the city attorney about this.

This is not a surprise.

And I don't I I'm just not hearing the level of candor from the city on this issue that I would expect.

And this has been the case all along.

What they're representing to you, even that doc that drawing that they put up, that's not what we approved.

And part of our frustration is we do demand candor, not because of our egos, but because that's our task.

We have to know what we are approving.

I have the city staff sent this to us.

They said it was ready for a vote.

I have never ever seen an application for final approval that had many, as many untied, loose ends as this one.

We did everything we could to move this process along to give you the unanimous approval that you deserve that this project deserves.

We tried so hard, and I'll tell you ten minutes before we read the conditional approval, the city attorney told me on the phone that we weren't allowed to approve a project conditionally.

Ten minutes.

If you watch the video from the 19th of November, you will see that I am rattled and upset.

And it's because the city tried to prevent us from doing our motion.

That is an imaginary standard, and I actually went back into the zoning ordinance.

It is right in there that we can issue conditional approvals.

And if the city had an issue with this, why tell me 10 minutes before the meeting?

Approach this is another thing.

Like if there was confusion about what this meant, developers do this all the time.

They come back to us.

Hey, clarify the city has treated this as an adversarial process.

I, the board, any one of us would have been happy to discuss these.

The city doesn't want to engage with us.

It's feels like they want to set us up to knock us down.

I cannot explain why, but the city has never called me before any other applicant and tried to change the standard of review ten minutes before a hearing.

Okay.

That was an up uh that was a decision the city applied to itself.

Let me do this.

So I um what I don't want to get into is a back and forth of he said she said and and this conversation.

I think for the sake of this project and the engagement that we've had on it, I want to make sure that everything we're talking about tonight were all conversations were appropriate to.

So I I can understand the frustration I hear it and and your voice, but I do want to make sure we're kind of keeping the conversation here and the things that we we all um were aware of.

Let me go to the vice mayor so we can actually get to uh questions, and then if others have questions, let me see your hands and we'll okay.

Councilman Alnuby and Councilman Chapman.

Um if I could ask the board, the bar chair in number six.

Architectural detailing shall be used.

What does shall mean in that context?

It means it's required.

Um, and I again I would have explained this to the city.

We think they've already complied with that.

Good.

Okay.

We think the pilasters are those.

In number five, decorative chimneys shall not be required.

Shall um in number four, um uh the pavilion shall be made of wood.

Yes.

Okay.

Mandatory.

Mandatory.

Uh in number three should recommend recommendation.

Can we at least have some gentle meeting of the minds here that should is the past tense of shall is is is a different, you know, it is no should means uh recommendation, shall means must.

I look I that's what it means.

Here's here's a but here's a different way for me to say this.

The choice of the word should be arched and may include.

May is also suggested.

It is but so all I wanted to express to you and respectfully, like your first presentation was 40 minutes, and you know, so I'm is I'm I'm walking you through the five words together, the choice of should be arched and may include.

I just want to I want to and invite you to consider that as a reader, you're using two different words there.

I I assume intention in your word choices, and if both are meant to be recommendations, you're you're using two different words.

So it's it implies two different levels of of you know, may sounds absolutely permissive.

Yes.

Should was a different word choice right in the same sentence.

So all I'm asking, all I'm pointing out to you is that as a simple language matter, and and you're you're being very clear that you said shall everywhere else and you said should here.

I'm also pointing out you use should four words away from may, implying different degrees of intention.

And it's Madam Vice Mayor, that's exactly what it meant.

May was simply a permission.

You can do this if you want.

Should is a recommendation, we think you should do this.

Okay.

And again, this is the kind of thing that we would have been more than happy to talk to the city about.

Nobody nobody reached out to us at all, ever.

Um the 4B, and I'm trying to reconcile, like just as the mayor was, I'm trying to reconcile the 4B that you all, the bar, sorry, it's late and I'm using affhorism.

Yeah, the Southernisms.

But the the 4B that the bar was trying to indicate support for was not the drawing, but was what you've attached here as 4B.

Yes.

Okay.

And that was the city's submission to us.

Okay.

And so can I ask a question?

I mean, I'm not exactly sure procedurally where we at.

Okay.

So just so Mr.

McPyke to reiterate then why what's what is this disconnect?

Like if they think if the bar and I I'm trying to be specific, but if the bar thinks they've described this, why is it the city's position that they've described the drawing that you put up on the screen?

Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor, I think it's exactly to the point you just made in terms of the application of should on its conditions.

And just to clarify, we were not, as the applicant, we were not given the motion and conditions to review prior to when we heard the motion being made.

Okay.

So whether or not like the council has purview all this process argument, I I I wanted to get to so it sounds like help me on if the clear statement now that should was intended to be permissive, recommend you know, recommending language, even if it may have been interpreted differently, because I'll admit the way I read it should next to May sounded much more intentional.

And that's clearly how the city also read it, or at least that's what I've just confirmed, right?

So from help me understand then if we can all now agree that this is the version that the bar was trying to communicate.

Why is this, why did the city move away in their final recommendation from this version, which if I'm understanding the documents correctly, was one of the city's recommendations.

Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor, I would say we put options as a part of the collaborative process.

Our preference is the one we put forth, which is 4A.

And there's a reasons why architecturally and because the interior standards, well, yes, it's not a predominance of the considerations as an applicant, an applicant putting forward something that is looking at historic tax credits, it is important to an applicant because it has material impact to the design as well as the financial impact to the project.

But from the design standpoint, this is the submission is equally as valid.

And said, okay, here's what the building looks like with these different materials with this these different elements.

I think it's worthy of a study.

However, at the end, it is not what the applicant asked for in terms of this is what we want.

Can I say a quick follow-up on that?

Um but Mr.

Conkey, city staff determined in your estimation, when you did your your review, you stated that you don't see sort of a that both 4A and 4B would meet sort of the architectural and historical requirements.

Can you talk a little bit more about how you came to your conclusion?

Sure.

Sure.

I mean, when we did the analysis, when I did the analysis of the new staff report, um we go through the standards that are in the zoning ordinance.

Um and both 4A and board both 4A and 4B uh comply with those standards.

They're both uh acceptable from a in terms of how they interact with those standards.

So it becomes a a choice.

Um so and that's that's where we where we go to the public body um in terms of it meets our meets that meets that threshold, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Um and so in both of them do that um equally.

Let me go back to the vice mayor, and then it's councilman on newby and councilman Chapman.

So from from the city attorney's perspective, then, and this is as a de novo review, we don't have to find that the bar was wrong.

Like if both, if hearing what Mr.

Conki just said, if both are acceptable and we are a de novo review, meaning we are essentially sitting in the seats of the bar, then we don't, you know, we we can take two acceptable options and essentially accept a version or make a motion that adopts either of the acceptable versions.

Correct.

You can I think the language in the zoning ordinance, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's a firm reverse or modify.

But this is a de novo review, to be sure.

That is the standard.

And I I that my last comment is just I I was looking for a moment in a context to try to make that point as well.

Just just hearing everything that everyone said tonight and the mayor's attempt, you know, to work through and get us all through the process.

I am also cognizant of that.

And so for me, I appreciate the city attorney and Mr.

Conki and everybody.

I uh you know, I'm trying to also understand whose shoes do we sit in here tonight.

Um that's that's my question.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman on the B.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I really appreciate the passion.

I mean, clearly everyone is passionate about how they are viewing this, and I think that's great for the city that we have staff that are committed.

We have a bar that's committed and residents who really are passionate about the design of this city hall.

I think at the end we all want to see a city hall that reflects Alexandria that is going to be uh great sightseeing for people who are coming in.

So just want to start with that.

Thank you so much, everyone, for you know, your passion so far and your comments.

Um let me start with with our bar chair.

It sounds like can you walk me through at this point?

Because it sounds like there are things that are recommendations.

And then it sounds like there are things that are required, and then it sounds like there are things that the city already met.

So how about we start with the things that they already met so we know we're not this those are probably not on the table anymore because they're moved, right?

They've been met, right?

So how about we start with that so we know what what are the what are the elements that are in dispute at this moment?

Okay, I will go as fast as I think.

He did go he did go through in his presentation.

So if you can just go like I've got to do that.

Yeah, just quickly just summary.

So I can show them off my list because I mean as you were going through, I realized okay.

Look, I understand this is complicated, and it was really hard to get consensus.

So the shoulds are okay.

Number one, pilaster shall be that's a requirement, has not yet been met, but it's what the city asked for.

Okay.

Number two, should be capped with an entablature.

It's a suggestion.

It's a recommendation, it's not mandatory.

Three, the ground floor entry openings sh should be arched.

It's a suggestion may include that's permissive.

So three is not mandatory.

Four, the doors shall be made of wood or clad in um bronze.

That's mandatory.

Five, decorative chimneys shall be retained or reconstructed, that's mandatory.

Six.

To the maximum extent practical, the first floor extension of the center uh that first portion is optional.

The second portion, architectural detailing shall be used, that's mandatory, and we believe they've already complied with that.

So so far only six has been complied with uh out of the mandatory.

The second part is correct.

For the fifth floor, um I would have told you they've complied with this, but today they're showing a version that has minimally visible glazing.

Previously, we had heard no visible glazing at all.

So up until you know this latest presentation, I would have said they've complied with this.

At this point, I will say it's mandatory and it hasn't been complied with.

Okay.

Um, for the market square structures, shall study integrating uh it's mandatory, but it's mandatory to look at something.

It's a study.

It doesn't actually have any impact on the final design.

It's just telling them to look at it.

Number two, stage canopy shall be complementary.

This is mandatory, it's also already been complied with under the design that we've seen.

Number three, shall be tall enough to accommodate a temporary stage beneath.

This is mandatory.

I think they've complied with it.

We just want to be a flexibility to go taller than 14 if they needed to.

For um shall study incorporating, again, there's no real teeth to this.

It's a study, so it is mandatory.

I don't know if they've looked at it, but again, this wouldn't affect the final design of building if they didn't want to.

Number five, uh shall be granted stone, that's mandatory, and I don't believe they have complied with it.

Conduit and drainage piping shall be enclosed, that's mandatory.

I don't know if they have complied with it because we haven't seen the detailed drawings.

For the glass hyphens, the glazing shall be unobtrusive such that the heist is recede as a third design line.

In our opinion, that has been met uh and it is mandatory, so they comply with it.

Number two, the canopy roof at the fire exits should be minimized.

Uh that is a recommendation, and I'll note that I think they've complied with that recommendation.

Um that's it.

Okay, great.

You should.

Okay.

Okay.

Um still gone.

Um let me ask you this, just to simplify it for us.

I know I'm gonna take the chimneys as an example, right?

Simplify it for me as a layperson, you as the bar, when this comes to you, you are looking at the code that was cited earlier, right?

And you're going.

So how are you looking?

How are you interpreting the code to say that the chimneys are required?

How can walk me through your analysis?

Walk us through the analysis that you did in your mind say that and came up with the same thing.

How did you come up with the conclusion that this does not uh is not required?

The board over many years has promulgated design guidelines based on the um zoning ordinance and the design guidance are guidelines are voted on by the board and passed.

Many of them have been around for a long time.

We're in the process of res revising them.

The design guidelines really take the zoning ordinance and then put some meat behind it.

And if you go online to the city website, you'll see design guidelines for just about anything, windows, terraces, um canopies, and chimneys in the design guidelines are recommended to be maintained.

Can I stop you here?

Is that what that was what was attached to the docket, the design guidelines of the board guidelines?

That was one of the attachments to the docket.

Is that what he's talking about?

Before before Mr.

Conky responds, I do want to just clarify one thing, because we've been using city staff.

So when we say city staff, we are talking about Mr.

Conkey and Director Stotter.

If we have a question that we have for Director McPike and for um Bonnie, then that is the applicant.

And so just making sure that we're directing the right players to it to answer the questions.

So I interrupt.

And just to be clear, in the staff report, um, when I say work with staff, I do say work with historic preservation staff just to be clear on that.

Uh yeah, that's it's a good question.

Um so design guidelines are just that, they're guidelines.

They are meant to they provide guidance on a whole variety of different things.

Um there's a lot of leeway in there, there's a lot of gray area in them.

Mostly what we when we use guidelines in a strict sense is when things that we can and cannot do administratively.

Um we use the guidelines to inform uh the BAR on as they make decisions, we help to guide them to do that.

So, how did I uh um how do how have I come to the um decision that either with or without the BA without either with or without the chimneys um can comply with that.

So the chimneys that we have on this building are out of proportion to the building.

They're frankly not really um appropriate for a civic building like this.

They're really something that would be on a on a um residential building.

Um I in that sense I I think it complies with the standards of compatibility for them not to be there.

Um equally they could be there.

Um you know they they are they I think so that's why again I think these options all comply with the standards.

There's the there is the flexibility um for the BAR or now the council to step into that into that role and and and make that interpretation.

Thank you for that.

So let me go to the city attorney, just to make sure that we are on the right page here.

These design guidelines are not what we are looking at today.

We're only looking at the code, not the design.

We're not required to look at the design guidelines as a council tonight, right?

We're only guided by the code.

That's my understanding.

Can you correct me?

The appeal standards are outlined in the zoning ordinance.

And those are the the that is the standard of review for you this evening.

So I don't know if we need to pull that up or I can resend it, but that is the that is the standard for appeal for for this evening.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I I have it pulled up here on my screen.

So I'm um so okay, thank you.

So I think I got my answer.

So you you came up with the decision on the chimneys, because we're trying to take one example by looking at the design guidelines, but not necessarily in the code.

You you looked at the design guidelines as well to be come up with that interpretation, correct?

Yes, and we we do this consistently to all citizens, and we almost always require chimneys to be maintained or rebuilt.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Newby, before you move forward, um the applicant wanted to respond with their position on the chimneys.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I just wanted to say we're not um the staff recommendation that has all the language around work with staff, work with historic preservation staff.

Director McPike and I are do not necessarily need that language.

We are totally content to go through the conditions as you all started to do and talk through whether it's in a firm modify or remove it, reverse that, right?

We can do that.

We're prepared to do that.

We've gone through every condition.

We were prepared to do that before this hearing.

We can do it tonight.

We're not we don't need the work with staff if we're if you want to take it that way.

We think we can get to a conclusion of this without that concern about conclusion being present.

Thank you.

All right.

So I think what we've established here that under the code, there can be several interpretations under the code, and they're all valid.

Okay.

Um and that's the code that we are going by tonight.

Like I appreciate that the bar has their own guidelines, but that's not what we are required to go by.

And you are lines apply.

Okay, I've made this comment a couple different times.

We're gonna try and get throughout this without any outburst or additional comments.

I recognize how many things people want to say in the content.

We will work through this as a council the way that we need to in making our decisions.

Yeah, let me just clarify real quick.

So the guidelines do apply.

They apply to you just like they apply to the BAR.

The guidelines are guidelines.

They are not rules.

It is not you must do, you must do.

It is a discussion of best practices, discussion of typical standards, things like that.

And the board or the council in this instance is in the role of saying we are we can make we are making an exception to this guideline because dot dot dot dot.

And what I'm what I'm suggesting, and this is something that happens all the time.

If if something meets the guidelines, then it can be done administratively, right?

So this is so we take quite often we take things to the board because what's being proposed doesn't quite meet the guidelines.

So we go to the board and we say we say, okay, um, I'm gonna just use an example.

Um the applicant wants to use a material on the side of the building that's not allowed per the guidelines.

I cannot do it administratively because it doesn't meet the guidelines.

I can go to the board and say, hey, board, I think there are outstanding issues here.

There's proximity to the property line, minimal visibility that allow you to allow the board to interpret make that interpretation to say, given these other factors, these guidelines don't.

So it's so the scene of the what I'm getting to here is that the the either the board or the council in their shoes makes that interpretation.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um question for the city attorney.

Um we heard a lot about precedent.

If we end up siding with the applicant, what kind of precedent does that set?

Are we in any way as was you know implied, taken away from the board's authority?

Um so what precedent would this set um and if we do that, does that still preserve the bar's role as it stands right now?

I think the bar the bar will always have a role, but the council does set precedent in in the ways that it is, I guess uh affirming, modifying and or reversing the bar's decisions.

So there's going to be, I think, a realistic expectation of someone sitting in a similar position coming forward and they are going to use this is similar to what occurred when the uh the city was the applicant in the city hall renovation, and it will be up to the council to determine whether or not that's that's an accurate interpretation.

So it really depends.

But everything the council does does set a precedent in some in some fashion.

Yep.

I would say it's the same as any other case that we review.

And so whether we've approved or modified or denied, each time I think it sends a signal to those who come before the council as to what is the expectation that that would achieve.

But I think the point being is we're the bar still has its role, and this doesn't diminish any of the bar's role or authority.

Correct.

The bar has a specific role.

The city staff has a specific role, and in this case we we have a specific role.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

That's all my questions for now.

Thank you.

Um what I want to do before I go to Councilman Chapman is I do want to try and move us to some sort of conclusion.

Um what I'd like to do is I'd like to go with the recommendation of our deputy city attorney and go through in a in a public forum at kind of where there's agreement and not, and then maybe that mock that list shrinks and we can actually come to some conclusions there.

I'm gonna work from the back, because that seems like the easiest.

So if we could go to page two.

Page two um number three.

The final design and detailing at the fifth floor exterior shall be similar in appearance to the adjacent slate roofs.

Is there agreement from the city on that?

Yes.

Okay, and acceptance of the BR condition.

Yes.

All right.

The restoration materials um shall match the historic materials in color and texture.

Yes.

Yes, agreement.

And I guess I should also I want to we'll get all the parties.

Mr.

Conkins are agreement on um there as well.

Uh these were both uh some of my original staff recommendations.

So I'm still I still agree.

Still agree with myself.

All right, we're moving to the hype uh hyphens.

The canopy roof at the fire exit shall be minimized so as not to create confusion about the location of the front entrance of the south facade of the building.

Yeah.

On that one, I think we need it.

Okay.

Madam Chair, uh Mayor, I I think we already meet it with the standard as long as it's clear that it is a recess, we're still having covering because of a fire egress, but yes, to minimize, we have no objection.

Okay.

So everyone's on the same page.

So on that one, we're all in agreement with that condition.

Okay.

The glazing shall be unobtrusive so that such that the hyphens recede as a third design element of the south facade.

Madam Mayor, I think I heard the chair saying we we believes that we meet that already.

And if that is the total agreement, I think we are okay with the language.

Okay.

Met and agreed.

All right.

Um all drainage piping shall be enclosed and not exposed.

All drainage piping shall be enclosed and not exposed.

We're all in agreement.

The terrace seating beneath the shade structure and the stone elements in the stair and elevator structure shall be granite stone.

So Madam Mayor, I would just say that for the terrace seating, the material selection is not of objection.

I just caveat that the shade structure based on uh we may or may not have this structure there in terms of being proposed to be built as an option.

And so I would just like to ensure that caveat if if the shade structure is constructed.

Okay.

So in a sense this one and if somebody could track um Vice Mayor, can I put you uh to track this?

So on that one, I just want to jump in on that one.

Yeah.

Um because you get approval to do that shade structure doesn't mean you have to do that shade structure.

So I think i I when we've had this exclusive conversation, this one but to be just to be clear, you know, it if if we all the time we have we have applicants who come in and they have a lot of things they want to they want to submit and they don't get to whatever aspect of it, it's not like you have to.

So just to be clear there.

Great.

Um so could a potential modification just simply say like if a straight shade structure is constructed, then blah, you know, the rest of it?

Yes.

All good.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um can you just track that one?

So you're essentially putting number five.

Okay, I got it.

If a shade structure is constructed, then the terrace.

Okay.

Number four.

Um, the applicant shall study incorporating architectural elements from the 1871 City Hall.

Madam Mayor, we would have objection to that one just based on applying elements from the 1870s one structure into the shade structures.

I think the overall structure for the for the stage has met the goals.

I'm just concerned about the ornamentation and hope the BAR members understand it.

I think we're really close, but I think adding those ornamentation to the 1870 would create some design conflicts that we want to avoid.

So we do object to that respectfully.

Right.

And for this one, so that I understand, I believe when we heard earlier, Mr.

Scott said that it's a recommendation to do a study, but it is um not a requirement that the BAR has an expectation be implemented.

Madam Mayor, the I I think the difficulty is an applicant as a city is when you have an approval that says you shall study, there's an expectation of a result to go back to the public and show elements, not just disappear.

And so managing expectation also as a public applicant, we have a higher standard of burden that people and the public would expect us to show all of these.

Um we see closure on these, because it you know, frankly, taking a look at it, we don't prefer this language.

We don't prefer adding different elements to it.

And so when we read these things, we also look at how we're going to take action and come back to the public and show these.

And so we really would just object to it.

Again, respectfully.

Um I'm going to circle that one, then it's maybe one to come back.

I think something for my colleagues to think about is is this one that we would change or this one would strike.

Um I think I do have concerns with doing a study to do a study and then us not using the information that comes from the study.

Um the stage canopies shall be tall enough to accommodate a temporary stage beneath.

This is authorized to be tall to be taller than 14 feet.

Madam Mayor, we accept that.

Okay.

The canopy, the stage canopy shade structure and terrace seating shall be complementary using the same architecture style design language and materials.

Except.

Except.

Okay.

The applicant shall study integrating the stage canopy structure with the opening of the stair elevator enclosure.

Except, Madam Mayor.

Right.

Moving to the fifth floor.

Um the addition shall be an unobtrusive backdrop to the contributing building facades.

Glass and glazing on the curtain wall system shall not be visible from any point at street level behind the contributing facades on Cameron, Fairfax, and Royal Streets.

Lighting along the roof of the fifth floor addition is not approved and shall be removed from the plan as applicable.

I think I heard earlier that we are all in agreement that this would need to be updated to be clear that the that lighting that is approved is lighting that complies with building and safety code requirements.

Madam Mayor, that that's correct.

The the first part of that we have no objection to.

It's really around the lighting and preventing of lighting that's required.

We are not trying to illuminate or highlight it whatsoever to be clear and put that on the record for anybody who had concern about it.

But we do want to make sure we maintain code and life safety lighting.

We felt that the language as written was too restrictive and would prohibit basic uses of that fifth floor.

Okay.

Um so to be clear, if there's language, if this last line is struck and the language is updated, that it's lighting for the purpose of life and safety and code compliance with all parties be.

Okay.

Yes.

Moving to page one.

Number six.

To the maximum extent practicable, the first floor extension of the center entryway pavilion shall be on the same vertical plane as the upper roof.

Sorry, that doesn't say roof.

Upper floor floors two and three extension directly above.

Architecture detailing shall be used to minimize the appearance of any necessary setback in the upper floors.

Madam Mayor, we have no objection to that.

Okay.

Five.

The I'm gonna come back to this one.

But I was on a roll and areas of agreement.

It's gonna take me down.

Four.

The doors of the center entrance pavilion shall be made of wood or clad in bronze or other metal.

The doors shall not be aluminum storefront frameless glass or full glass French doors.

Any windows incorporated into the center entrance pavilion doors shall be of a colonial style with true or simulated divided lights and external muttons.

So Madam Mayor, a little a little bit more nuanced uh for this.

The first part um of the statement, I think we already meet with our application.

We we've provided an aluminum framed entrance door with high performance coded, anodized age bronze finish.

And so we think we meet the standard um for that portion.

The the concern comes into the second part, uh starting with any frame windows incorporated center pavilion shall be of colonial style with true to and and or similar divided lights and external muttons.

Um we we just we have the stylistic it again it's getting into colonial style replication at the entrances that we would have concern over the second part of the language.

Okay.

Um I think we know where you where um both the BAR had stood on this and the staff recommendation.

So I'm just gonna circle this one.

That's uh I guess a council decision on where we feel on that element.

Uh number three, ground floor entryway openings.

Um in the center entrance pavilion shall be arched and may include keystone and stone oh should be oh yeah, not shall should be arched and may include keystone and stone water table based elements in order to accommodate arched open openings.

The applicant has the option to reduce the overall mass of the first floor cornice molding and move the letter to the entablature or cornice molding at the roof line atop the third floor.

Madam Mayor, this you know, part part and central to some of the objections that we do do have with this language.

And if I heard earlier, this is one that the BAR was putting forth as a recommendation, not a Yes, Mayor.

Okay.