I guess before we get started, what I would just say is as always our goal is to make sure that we are able to run an efficient and effective meeting.

And so we will not tolerate any disruptions.

We you are able to hold signs, you're able to snap.

Um, but we ask for please keeping a side conversations to a minimum.

We also ask for no shouting, no yelling, and especially in this space, just be mindful of those who are around you and their ability to see and engage in the hearing as well.

If we reach a point where there are disruptions, I'll give a warning, and then if um I need to, then um I'll give another warning, and then um, if it continues, you may be asked to leave.

So with that, we're going to turn to um item three, which is the public discussion period.

As is our practice, we take the first fifteen speakers, and then we'll go into our public business, and then if there are more speakers that we did not get to, we'll come back to those at the end.

And that I don't have yet a copy of all those speakers, and I think the clerk is getting hers updated, so we'll we'll we'll do our best and adjust as we go.

But let me then say, I guess, Madame Clerk, do you want to call the first speaker?

Okay.

John Lawrence.

And then it will beep whenever you're finished.

So thank you for being with us, John.

Okay.

Thank you, um, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, everybody.

Um, I love the new digs, so I'm sorry, you're going to be here for years, I guess.

Um, and congratulations, Mr.

Mr.

McPike for your uh your primary win.

So I'm sorry to see you go, but uh glad you're moving up.

Um, I'm my name's John Lawrence.

I'm the chair of the juvenile detention commission.

We run the detention center out at Landmark as well as the juvenile shelter shelter care next door.

And like I said, a year ago when I first came up here, I wanted to make sure that you heard from us on a regular basis, hopefully, good things.

And today I basically have nothing but good things.

Um, first of all, our our family days once a once a month, we have two-hour session where kids can bring in three to four family members at once.

They're all in the gym and they get access to their kids in an environment that's like out at a regional park where you're having a picnic with friends and family.

And they've gone on for 15 months and they're incredible.

Uh Thanksgiving, the kids arrange the table, the length of the gym, and one long table, and then two little spurs out there and me being clueless.

I walked in and I looked at one kid and I said, Why is it like this?

And he said, It's a tea for Thanksgiving.

And I felt like an idiot.

Um, but it was just huge.

The the food was great.

Everybody went home with two bags of food and a frozen turkey.

So they had a Thanksgiving dinner guaranteed the next week.

Uh Christmas.

Even bigger, lots of presents.

We had a 30-person choir doing Christmas hymns.

Christmas, Christmas carols, sorry.

Um, and uh the families got to take home bags of presents that could be put under the tree from the kids to the family to keep the connection.

Um the best news is you all know how much I hate the concrete slabs the kids sleep on in every jurisdiction.

Um, in one unit, they are all gone.

We're down to repairing the floor, repairing the walls, and then paint.

We have all the furniture in some of the halls look like a hoarder's paradise because we have so many huge boxes that you're walking down these concrete, you know, corridors, but you have walls that are cardboard.

But um, that will be done soon, and then we'll open that unit and then move along and get all four of them done in the next few next few months.

So that's that's been wonderful.

Um also last spring I came here and I told you about how Annie Rainey, the director of shelter care, had found extra VJ triple CA money, which was money that other jurisdictions hadn't used.

So they went back to the state, and the state said, come and tell us what you can do with it.

She bid, she got 61,000 to do the afterschool program, which was a huge success, which we're continuing.

Um, she was just told last week that there was more money, actually, more money than last year.

She put together a proposal uh asking for over 200,000.

She got very creative, three completely different things that would go through June 30, but not be continued after that.

There is no city match, comes directly from VJ Triple CA, and it's a grant.

Um, she's working on getting all the signatures, and we just need the city managers, and then we're done.

Thank you so much for your time.

All right, Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Kieran Chriscoe, can I just start?

Okay.

I've never done this before.

Well, good morning.

I'm a commissioner on the environmental policy commission.

And the EPC was lucky enough last year to have uh Vice Mayor Bagley, Councilman El Nubi, and Councilwoman Green join our 2025 retreat.

And one thing that we heard was that it's really helpful to have for the council to have uh a window into what the EPC is working on.

And so that's what I'm here to speak on today.

So first, I want to thank the city council on behalf of the EPC for adding two uh climate priorities to the city's legislative packet, including healthy and affordable housing and climate resiliency.

Second, at our December meeting, the Transportation and Environmental Services Office uh presented about the city's first comprehensive flood resiliency plan.

So the EPC is very encouraged by this work that's being uh done and looking forward to reviewing the final recommendations.

Third, at our December meeting, the EPC voted to send a letter of support to the traffic and parking board for uh designated biking lanes along a portion of Braddock Road.

And uh decarbonizing transportation is one of the APC's four priorities, and uh protected bike lanes, bike infrastructure is a proven way to do that.

We discussed equity and parking availability at the our December meeting and found that residents in this corridor retain access to private parking or on-street parking on the side streets with very strong public uh transit options available.

Fourth, some of the EPC members are volunteering in their citizen capacity to start up bike buses uh in Alexandria.

You might have seen the front page article in the Alexandria Times this month.

Uh so one of the bike buses, it runs on Braddock Road uh every Friday morning.

And looking ahead, as you'll see in the flyers, uh they are planning a float in the St.

Patrick's Day Parade, and we welcome any city council members if you're interested in participating.

Fifth, we're advocating for a new non-voting non-quorum youth seat to be added to the EPC, and we're hoping that the city clerk's office will support us in doing that.

There are two uh high schoolers who regularly attend our EPC meetings, and they'll be speaking to you later today about the green building plan.

And um, given the urgency of environmental policies in Alexandria for future generations, we believe that youth deserve a seat at the table.

Finally, the EPC is supportive of a more ambitious green building plan in line with the best EUIs, not just good EUIs.

Uh, we applaud the Planning Commission for recommending that the city council approve a lower EUI that results in better buildings for future and current Alexandrians.

Well, thank you.

That's all I have for today.

I'm waiting for the beep, but um I know a winter storm is coming.

Right.

Well, I know a winter storm is coming.

Thank you so much.

So let's keep ice off our streets.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Uh, Madam Clerk, next item.

Allison O'Connell.

Or next person, I'm sorry.

Is Alison in the room?

I still don't mute her microphone.

Okay.

Allison, um, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Or Ms.

O'Connell.

You can hear me.

Uh the scenes coming out of Minneapolis this month have deeply shaken me.

They are appalling and they're terrifying, but they're not new.

Everything we are watching take place in U.S.

cities now has already played out in occupied Palestine.

When I see that a car full of children, including a six-month-old infant, is tear gassed.

I'm reminded of the children of Ada refugee camp, the most tear gassed place in the world.

When I see doors knocked down and residents dragged outside, kidnapped by ice to be held who knows where for who knows how long.

I'm reminded of the constant terror Palestinians and the West Bank experience.

The IDF is notorious for their middle of the night raids, where they blow doors open, ransack homes, beat and brutalize residents, and kidnap Palestinians to hold them in Israeli jails, often indefinitely without trial.

When I see a child used as bait to abduct their parents, as we saw this week, I'm reminded of the Israeli drones over Gaza that use the sounds of children crying to lure Palestinians to their deaths.

The people that support this violence are the same.

Just this week, Trump and Jared Kushner announced their new plan to turn the Gaza Strip into a hypercapitalist resort.

The companies that support the violence of ICE and the violence against Palestinians are the same.

Amazon, khaki, Motorola, Booz Allen, General Electric.

The list goes on and on.

What is not the same is the way we view this violence.

I have seen so many people, including politicians, express righteous anger at the way ICE is attacking people within our borders.

I see much less outrage about what this country, this government, and these corporate collaborators are doing to Palestinians.

We can't address the horrors of this current moment if we don't understand how we got here.

I know many of us are deeply scared of the direction our country has taken, and this feels new.

It feels unprecedented within our lifetimes.

But several of you on the dais are students of history, so you know it isn't new.

The United States has brutalized black and brown people here and abroad countless times in its history.

Mass death may be our biggest export.

We cannot meet this moment if we don't understand how these two phenomena are connected.

We can't say fuck ice on the one hand and ignore how that same machine under another name maims and kills Palestinians.

We can't say we are appalled at the violent, hateful white supremacist beast that is ice if we feed and fund it through our city pensions.

We have a responsibility to actually live the values we say we have as a community.

Ethical investment is one very important way we can do that.

Please take this crucial first step and bring an ethical investment resolution to the docket.

Thank you.

We appreciate your testimony.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Melissa Lbert Good morning.

Jeff Bezos' net worth is about 245.6 billion dollars.

His wealth is built by impoverishing his workers, incarcerating and murdering Palestinians, and disappearing people in the U.S.

into the violent ICE deportation machine.

In October, Harvard published a grim report about Amazon whose drivers earn nearly 60% less than their UPS counterparts.

A majority of workers being surveilled with every second of downtime is logged and evaluated.

A majority of these food and housing insecure workers receive no basic protections, including minimum wages or overtime pay.

A university of Illinois report showed that one third of Amazon employees are so poor, they've relied on at least one publicly funded assistance program like SNAP.

Amazon is like a cancer for all workers.

Its gig like approach is changing industry standards, putting downward pressure on wages, benefits, and job stability.

The picture gets worse.

Since 2021, Amazon has been providing cloud services to all branches of the Israeli government, including military, Israeli security agency, police and prison service, weapons manufacturers, and government agencies related to Israel's illegal settlement enterprise in the occupied West Bank.

In other words, Amazon has been driving the genocide in Gaza and profiting off of the ethnic cleansing, occupation, and apartheid in the rest of historic Palestine.

This also means Amazon facilitates the incarceration of children.

When Israel detains children, those children are systematically and automatically thrown into military detention, where they are often severely abused.

Speaking of child detention, denial of due process, state enacted violence and ethnic cleansing, Amazon contracts with ICE and DHS to provide the digital backbone that allows these agencies to track, store, and process the data used to target and abduct people from their communities right here in the United States.

Last year, ICE detained at least 70,000 people.

2025 was the deadliest year for people abducted by ICE in 20 years.

So when we talk about Alexandria's working, poor and immigrant families benefiting from ICE's, or I'm sorry, Amazon's housing fund, I think we need to acknowledge the wider context that this is happening in.

Amazon is quite literally creating poverty and misery across the country and the world.

Amazon is an industry leader in the production of genocide and many other grave human rights violations.

Safe to say they aren't really doing us any big favors in Alexandria.

When you divest from Amazon, all of us will have your back because when we say no kings, no oligarchs or f ice, we mean it.

Thanks so much for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Oh, I have Emma.

Okay.

Uh next speaker is Emma Mailer.

Hi, my name is Emma.

I'm a citizen of Alexandria.

I'm a social worker.

I work with a lot of people in Alexandria.

Um, ICE terrorizes communities across the country, including our own.

We do not want these mass violent goons kidnapping people off the streets.

Um, I appreciate the statements you've made to crying ICE and urging Sheriff Casey to stop his voluntary cooperation with ICE.

Hope to hear from him sometime though.

Um, however, these words need to be met with action.

We are begging you to use your power to divest our city from companies that have no respect for human life and dignity.

In Alexandria, Minneapolis, the Greater US and Palestine.

While you agree in private, we need you to voice your agreement in public.

Every person victimized by the companies we invest in needs you to speak out.

We invest in companies complicit in weapons manufacturing and surveillance tech, um, developing this technology for ICE, like Amazon Alphabet, the same tech used to target and kill Palestinians is a tech that we use to track and target our neighbors, disappearing them into crowded inhumane prisons, um, and then deporting them to God knows where.

Our investments fund force family separation, emboldens ICE agents to harm people, even kill.

In Minneapolis, an ICE agent murdered Renee Good while she was engaging in legal observation to keep her community safe because her own public officials failed to do so.

How long before that happens to someone in Alexandria?

It doesn't make sense for the city council to voice resistance to and disapproval of ICE while continuing to fund investments in technology that helps ICE commit crimes against humanity.

Again, I urge you to pass the ethical investment resolution.

Conditions for the people harmed by investments, immigrant community members here, and the people of Palestine abroad are getting worse.

You can't keep dragging your feet, and you can't weigh this out.

Alexandrians and consciousness will not give up until this resolution passes.

ICE is abolished, and the genocide of Palestinians ends.

In 2024 and 2025, Richmond in uh Richmond, California, Hayward, California, Alameda, California, Portland, Maine, Iowa City, Iowa, Somerville, Maryland, Dearborn, Michigan, and um tra Ham Tramic, Michigan, have already passed some sort of resolution divesting public funds from companies involved in Israeli genocide or weapons manufacturing.

We are behind the curve.

That was like two years ago, and increasingly so.

Are you going to let Iowa be more progressive than you?

Iowa.

By passing an ethical investment resolution, our city will have the framework to stand on the right side of history and refuse to fund acts of violence against humanity.

As an Alexandrian, I want our city to live up to the values of community diversity and commitment to human rights.

Part of it is passing an ethical investment resolution to stop funding these atrocities.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Catherine O'Connell.

Catherine, we're ready whenever you are.

Good morning.

I'm a proud union member and staff at a labor union.

I've organized unions at three workplaces and testified in front of the National Labor Relations Board.

I've been on the picket line, and I will never cross one.

I'm sure just about everyone in this room has heard the union slogan solidarity forever.

This is not just a slogan, it's a guiding principle of unionism and something I strive toward every day.

The labor movement is not solely about organizing for better wages or more sick days.

It is about the fundamental truth that we are stronger together than apart.

Minnesotans have shown us exactly what that looks like the last few weeks as community members have squared off against a highly militarized ICE force.

Labor unions and organizers in Minneapolis just pulled off the first general strike in the U.S.

in 80 years.

Another union saying is an injury to one is an injury to all.

That is the ethos that motivates Minnesotans to be out in negative 22 degree weather to kick ice out of their city.

It's what motivates ICE out of Alexandria to continue to demand that Sheriff Casey end his violent collaboration with ICE and for us to call on you, our city council, to make it as difficult as possible for ICE to operate here.

It's also what motivates many in this room to be here, demanding divestment from the companies that profit from ICE abductions and Israeli bombs for almost every public comment period.

We understand it is our duty to fight at the most local level.

We understand that an injury to any Palestinian is an injury to all of us.

And we are now seeing exactly how those injuries manifest at home, while ICE uses brutal IDF tactics in our communities and against our neighbors.

At the beginning of the genocide, Palestinian labor unions called on their counterparts in the United States to demand a ceasefire and to call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions on Israel.

Labor unions were critical to these same efforts against apartheid South Africa.

When my union siblings ask for my help, it is my duty to help them.

And it is all of our duty to organize against genocide.

Finally, you have likely heard workers of the world unite.

The power of the labor movement has always been that our solidarity with each other does not end at our borders.

Labor is most powerful when working in concert across oceans and nations.

The labor movement does not exist just to shore up votes for Democrats.

It exists because the fundamental principle that all struggle is connected and all of our futures, from here to Minnesota to Venezuela to Gaza, are inherently connected.

Divestment from apartheid occupation and genocide in Palestine is not only our duty as a community, it means better, safer, ice-free futures for us here at home.

Thank you so much for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Glenn Pine As a Jewish community member, I want to thank some of you for your swift condemnation of the Hanukkah shooting in Bondi Beach, Australia last month.

I appreciate your efforts to show that Alexandria rejects bigotry against Jewish people.

It's important to condemn political, uh religious and racist violence that uh impacts local residents, even when it occurs outside of Alexandria.

Five days after the Australia shooting, another politically motivated mass murder happened.

The bombing of a Palestinian wedding in Gaza, which killed seven civilians, including a four-month-old baby who had gathered in a shelter for the occasion.

In fact, nearly every school, every uh every school, every mosque, every hospital in Gaza has been flattened with children, the elderly and wounded inside.

Our broad-based grassroots movement here in Alexandria over the past two years has spent uh countless hours of testimony here at City Hall, drawing your attention to the enormity of horrors against the Palestinian people and its connection to our local community.

Despite the unthinkable scale of the atrocity there, literally a genocide, this council has still never uttered a word in public condemning the violence against Palestinian people.

The silence extends to domestic and local acts of hate as well, including uh such as the shooting of three Palestinian men wearing a kafia in Vermont or a man shouting burn in hell to the Palestinian American friendship contingent at the Scottish Walk in Alexandria in front of two city council members.

This behavior creates the appearance of a double standard, reinforcing a toxic narrative of worthy victims versus unworthy victims.

It also creates the impression that you react to Jewish suffering more out of political expediency than out of genuine care for all your residents.

Please correct this through a public condemnation of the horrible and inexcusable attacks on the Palestinian population.

Any of you can say right now that you oppose Israel's genocide.

I know you don't respond during public comment, or you say you don't, but I've actually seen you do it a bunch of times.

It happens repeatedly.

I invite any of you to interrupt me right now or after I finish speaking and say that you believe that Palestinians are people, or that you support an ethical investment resolution that will take Alexandria taxpayers' money out of companies that profit from genocide, occupation, and apartheid.

Or you can raise your hand if you want.

Or you can post it on your Instagram or your blue sky account or whatever you use.

Um say something.

I hope that people see how ghoulish it looks that none of you have said anything as millions have been deliberately star.

Okay, I'm done.

Thank you for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next Florence Moore.

Do we have Florence Moore?

Oh, I think she's I think she's hello.

I'll be speaking on behalf of Florence today.

You want to say hi?

Hi.

Calling out the Jewish federations and others who claim to be speaking for all Jews regarding this resolution to divest.

This is absolutely not the case.

On the subject of Israel, younger Jewish Americans especially are not aligned with the entrenched traditional Jewish leaders and organizations.

But it's not just them.

Older Jewish activists are showing up to push for divestment and disengagement.

I am one of them.

I have painfully come to recognize Israel's genocide.

I will not turn away.

I cannot ignore the investigations and statements on the genocide by Quaker organizations, Israeli groups beat the Salem, and physicians for human rights, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many more.

And it has not stopped.

Although a ceasefire was declared last October, Israel has repeatedly violated it, killing hundreds more and continue and continuing to restrict food, water, and medicine from entering Gaza.

Meanwhile, violence by occupiers and Israeli settlers continues to spread in the West Bank.

If now is not the time to divest, when is the time?

Quoting the great Rabbi Hillel.

If I'm not for myself, who will be for me?

If I'm only for myself, what am I?

If not now, when let me ask that I realize I made a mistake.

Um typically our policy, you can't speak for somebody else.

So what I'll need to do to correct it is we need a official speaker form with your name.

We don't have paper forms.

You did, but the speaker, the person who actually gave um who actually gave the speech has to also have a form.

So I think there's somebody in the back who has a computer.

And so if you can go, we'll get an online form and correct that.

Thank you.

Um, Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Um safety.

Good morning.

Uh, before I begin, F U C K Ice.

Uh, my name is Mo Saifeline.

Uh member, I'm a former member of the City Council uh here in Alexandria, and tonight I am speaking as a neighbor and as a candidate for Congress, asking Alexandria to lead with principle.

Divest from those who benefit from genocide and apartheid.

Alexandria has done this before.

In 1985, the council declared that South Africa operated under an apartheid system and directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance so that public funds would not support that regime.

You did not say that it was not a local issue, and you said our money has values.

Today, respected international voices are raising concerns and alarm.

The United Nations experts have described Israel's system of domination over Palestinians as an apartheid.

And the International Court of Justice stated that Israel practices in the occupied Palestinian territories violate core international legal prohibitions, including the ban on racial segregation and apartheid.

Meanwhile, families are being ethnically cleaned.

You do not have to be an international lawyer to recognize an emergency.

And yet, our representative here in the city and Congress, including Don Bayer, voted for excuse me.

Uh Don Bayer only voted for a resolution that declared that Israel is not an apartheid state.

That vote did not advance human rights.

It protected a talking point and served the companies that fund his campaign.

Here is what Alexandria can control.

The city's retirement plan and reserve dollars are substantial.

As of March 2024, the city supplemental retirement plan held over 196 million.

The OPEP trust held over 128 million, and the city's defiant benefits plan held over 466 million.

The city also held above 419 million in reserve, most of it invested through state local government pool.

This is real money.

It should not be connected to companies that profit from occupation, mass surveillance, or weapons used to enforce oppression.

So I'm asking you to do a couple of things today.

Adopt the human rights screen and exclusion that covers companies enabling apartheid and genocide.

Second, and you guys do this quite a bit.

Set a clear timeline to divest and reinvest in options aligned with human rights and labor rights.

You have precedence, you have the authority, and you have a choice.

Alexandria should not be complicit in this system, and we should be able to lead.

On top of that, I would also include that we diverse from any companies that benefit from the genocide in Sudan through the United Arab Emirates.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your time today.

Chris Tang.

Do we have Chris Tang online?

Okay.

Uh Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Nikki Infield.

Whenever we come to tell you to stop spending our money on death and destruction, I spend the week ruminating on what I can say that might get you to do that.

Do I try to educate you on the facts of the situation like I did the first time?

Back when I too was new to understanding the reality of Israel's decades of colonial horror in Palestine.

We'd been, because of literal bribery, unconditionally supporting and funding.

Because I genuinely believed that if you only had accurate information, you would obviously want to join us in trying to make that stop.

But when instead you chose to become an impediment to stopping a genocide, I got frustrated.

And I had no qualms letting you know it.

One time I hoped waxing poetic about your monumental cowardice and what tragic disappointments you all are might make at least one of you feel a twinge of shame that could encourage you to reflect on the choices you've made and the person you've become.

But it turns out the whole lot of you are utterly devoid of shame.

I guess a useful trait to have in your line of work, but it's a real bummer for the rest of us.

But this week, I am not gonna lie, I really struggled with what there is left to be said.

So I meditated, and you know what came into my heart?

Pity.

Pity.

Because what a dry, desiccated, desolate place must be your heart.

That when you're presented with an opportunity to take a real step in making literally everything better, you allow your fear and your conditioning and your limited imagination and your petty political ambitions prevent you from taking that step.

And it honestly makes me really sad for you as a person.

We told you whatever violence we allowed in Palestine would boomerang back to us, and lo and behold, we have literal stormtroopers terrorizing American cities and murdering our fellow citizens.

This is a moment for leaders with conviction, who can see reality clearly and are willing to meet it face on.

Not pitiable losers who can't even say the word genocide when you're helping fund one.

How can you not see that you are the secret bad guy in every story?

The faceless bureaucrat who keeps their head down and doesn't ruffle any feathers.

And without whose compliance and capitulation, the named villain could not enact their evil plans.

Aren't you tired of following Robert's rules of orders while the world literally burns outside our windows?

Thank you for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Katie Carmere.

Okay.

Uh she's right here.

Okay.

Um hi, my name is Katie, and this is my first public comment.

Um, I've been a resident for Virginia for over 13 years, and Alexandria for the past six years.

I currently work at a local hospital where I provide care for patients and donors preparing for stem cell collections and transplants.

Um, I care deeply for my patients as well as for the members of my community.

Community for me does not end at a local or even a national level.

Every day on this earth is a chance for us Alexandria is Alexandrians to stand up for what is right, what is happening right now in Gaza is inhumane and should not be happening there or anywhere.

I believe that America that because Americans have not stood up for Palestinians, it has made it so much easier for our government to use violence and mistreat humans across the country right now, especially in Minnesota.

What is happening there can happen here.

Our current investments do not reflect Alexandria's values, and we cannot continue to tolerate and support the mistreatment of others.

I stand before you, City Council members, and I beg you to divest from the companies that support the genocide and the violence.

It's the least we can do for our fellow humans.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Julie Milsap, thank you.

Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the Alexandria City Council.

I'm joining as a resident of Alexandria for the past five years, and joining today with my children to address a matter of urgent community safety and justice, and perhaps um prompted to do so because of my own experience having lived for the better part of a decade under an authoritarian regime overseas, um, where I was the foreigner seeking stability and acceptance and safety.

Having watched the demand for papers and classifying neighbors as others and seen what that leads to.

I've spent the past few years of my career seeking to end concentration camps in China in the foreign policy space, only to watch my own country descend further into fascism and target people who I truly believe are the best of the best in our global citizenry.

The ongoing voluntary collaboration between the Alexandria Sheriff's Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, a practice which could be terminated today, has led to dozens of our Alexandrian neighbors being transferred to ICE detention this year.

This collaboration undermines the very principles of a strong and safe community that we do hold dear here in Alexandria.

And one of the reasons that I picked this city to live in.

And by making courtesy calls to ICE before releasing a non-citizen, holding individuals past their scheduled release to give ICE time to take custody, and voluntarily transferring people to ICE on administrative warrants.

Sheriff Casey has gone beyond what the law requires of him.

And this collaboration is happening in the face of indiscriminate ICE raids in the DMV area.

It as it contradicts our own commitment, it also undermines community trust.

Our immigrant neighbors should feel safe to access care support.

And this also includes equal treatment under the law and the opportunity for their day in court.

Alexandrians do not want ICE in our community.

This has long been the case, but now we see that the current administration is empowering a rogue agency to murder a mother in broad daylight and detain toddlers.

And we here in Alexandria, like all of America, hear our leaders asking us to ignore reality and kill our own consciences.

And against this backdrop of evil, it is abhorrent to continue any sort of voluntary collaboration with ICE.

So I echo the calls that I know others in our community have made in demanding transparency and accountability.

And specifically, I'm asking that Sheriff Sean Casey be called to testify at a city council meeting and answer questions about his office's voluntary collaboration with ICE rather than responding with mere rhetoric, and we do appreciate the statements of the city council against this type of collaboration, but we do need to see uh urgently some concrete action that goes beyond rhetoric.

And so we would appreciate such a hearing being called.

Our city leadership should seek to urgently end these transfers as the logical and moral next step.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Jessica Tipton.

Hi, good morning.

Um, my name is Jessica Tipton.

I'm here today as a person who loves the city of Alexandria and the members of this community.

And I continue to be deeply concerned about Sheriff Casey's collaboration with ICE.

I sincerely do appreciate this council's decision to publicly come out with a statement against his cooperation in November.

But unfortunately, things have not changed in that regard.

And I'm here today to request you hold a public hearing with the sheriff.

This has gone on too long.

Um, against the wishes of both the council and the people of this city, and I fear in the midst of the absolute fire hose of grim news day after day, the sheriff's actions will fade into the background.

The public needs to be able to voice concerns to him directly.

Um, in 2025, the sheriff transferred 54 people to ICE.

That's the most since 2019.

Rather than take what would be a lawful stand against ICE's dangerous and rogue behavior, he's helping them more than ever.

All over the country, we're seeing the negative impact of ICE agents getting any leeway at all.

The moment they get the opportunity, they are trampling all over the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.

When anyone, documented or undocumented, citizen or not, comes into contact with our sheriff's department or is accused of something, they should be afforded the right to do process.

But when these community members are in instead taken to ICE detention, we know what will happen to them.

We know they will be treated horribly, denied medical care, denied due process, denied bond, and quite possibly deported to a country they've either never been to or not been to since they were children.

I know that you all are aware that Sheriff Casey does not need to cooperate with ICE.

He does not need to make courtesy calls or do courtesy holds in city jails or honor voluntary administrative warrants.

Frankly, doing any courtesies at all for an organization who is flagrantly ignoring civil liberties and terrorizing communities is patently absurd behavior.

I fear what will come of all of this.

Should DHS target Alexandria in the same way they've targeted Minneapolis?

Um, please help us voice these concerns to Sheriff Casey directly in a public hearing.

Freedom of information requests have unfortunately been unfruitful.

We may not have the power we would like to have.

We as individuals may not be able to stop this terror everywhere for every person.

But what we desire to do for all, we can do for some.

And that means leveraging the legal power that we have to make ICE as unwelcome here as possible.

Thank you for your time.

Ms.

Tipton, can I ask a follow-up question?

And I apologize, I should have asked the speaker above.

I'm I'm curious what are folks hoping to get from the public hearing.

Because I think from the council's perspective, we are very clear.

We disagree with the policies and we'd like to see them change.

I think from the sheriff's perspective, he's been very clear he's not changing them.

So I I guess I'd love maybe you or as other speakers who are coming about this item.

Like, what is the outcome folks are seeking from the public hearing?

Well, we're not gonna, I'm gonna ask, I gotta ask the speaker.

We're gonna have one speaker at a time, and those who speak can answer that question.

Um, I think, yeah, like she said, uh, public pressure.

Obviously, I do know that you guys are all in agreement with us, but now that we've had you know a change of governor, he had said um previously to people he was waiting for a new administration, he wasn't really sure what to do, et cetera, et cetera.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything change in that regard.

Um, like I said, people have been submitting the freedom of information requests and haven't really gotten anywhere.

He's got the private lawyer.

So I know we're just kind of butting our heads against a wall right now.

And um I think having you guys on board to have a public hearing um to allow people to address him directly.

Um, we just continue to mount that pressure, which unfortunately on our own doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And um, we will follow up on the freedom of information requests.

I think there are rules for that there should be responses.

Uh I'm sorry, ma'am.

I appreciate the comments and we will follow up.

I know, but I can't do the back but forth.

It's one speaker at a time.

He does have a private lawyer that's handling the FOIA requests, so they are not being run through the city attorney's office.

So what we're not gonna have is a number of outbursts.

If I have to give another warning, then we'll just have you remove.

So let's figure out how we do this in a constructive way.

And if there's anything that you want to send me, you can shoot me an email right now.

So I just wanted to clarify that that's not being run through a city process.

The sheriff, as we all know, is a constitutional officer, and he's handling FOIA requests related to ICE.

Thank you.

And thank you for your time.

Uh, Madam Clerk, not the speaker.

Catherine Shulman.

Good morning.

Basically, every day for the past few months, I've had to call somebody in my life and tell them don't go outside.

ICE is there.

I cannot even begin to convey how desperate that's making me feel.

How that I've been in times so desperate that they made me collapse and left me permanently disabled and chronically ill.

Those times aren't even, they don't even reach a fraction of a single percent of the desperation I feel now, knowing that the the helplessness I have in the face of ICE ransacking through my community.

And again, all these people are naturalized citizens, but we've seen enough evidence to know that they literally don't care.

They're committing an ethnic cleansing of our zone, our area, our home.

Every single bit of collaboration with this, this Gestapo, these slave catchers, legitimizes them, even if it's for criminals who don't deserve it or some insanity.

Anything you can do to pressure him is worth it.

Even if you think it's pointless, you you guys have a lot more power than us.

We're just random people.

He doesn't care about us.

He cares about what you guys have to say.

Literally anything.

And while dealing with this sheer terror and impotence and helplessness, I can't help but feel like what our investments are doing to other countries around the world like Palestine.

They're making them live in this lottery of death, this lottery of potential abduction, torture, disappearance every single day.

We pay for it over there, and we're paying for the technology that ICE uses right here.

There's I know you guys are probably sick of hearing me coming here every month and talking about my feelings as a Jew before as a person, but I think it's pretty obvious why I've never felt more like a Jew in my entire life.

Like there's nothing to do but divest from these companies funding this genocide, this ethnic cleansing at home and funding this genocide and ethnic cleansing abroad.

It's the only moral thing to do.

It's the only logical thing to do.

The only sensible thing to do is to get this uh ethical investment resolution on the ballot, vote for it, and to pressure Sheriff Casey with every single thing we've got.

Thank you.

So I'm thank you really desperate.

Like, please, I'm begging.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Michael Gearing, number 15.

Okay.

Uh this is number 15.

So Mr.

Gehring will be the last speaker before we go into our public business.

And then anyone we didn't get to, we'll come back to at the end.

Good morning, madam speaker.

I mean, madam mayor and members of the council.

Um I uh come here tonight uh today to uh show my support with my immigrant brothers and sisters, and um and as you've said, uh you mentioned that uh you have uh made it clear that you do not support what Casey what Sheriff Casey is doing, and I I applaud that uh we applaud that.

Um I think what what we really want is we want to put maximum pressure on Sheriff Casey because what is happening in this country is just uh unacceptable.

Uh the the images coming out of Minneapolis are horrific.

Um they murdered a innocent unarmed woman, and they've used a child as a pawn to entrap uh undocumented immigrants, and it's just horrific.

So um I think what we really want to say is um we just want uh maximum pressure on Sheriff Casey to stop uh cooperation with ICE.

It's just unacceptable.

And uh that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time today.

Uh Madam Clerk, next item.

Action docket roll call consent items four through eight.

Okay, there have been requests to poll five and six.

So is there a motion to approve the roll call consent items four, seven, and eight?

Okay, okay.

There has been a motion by councilman green and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley to approve the roll call consent items four, seven, and eight.

Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Ice Mayor Bagley.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Councilman AGRI.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman El Nuby.

Aye.

Councilman McPyke.

Okay, Madam Clerk, next item.

Master Plan Amendment 2025-0005.

Rezoning 2025-0006.

Special use permit 2025-00066 and encroachment 2025-0009, 732 North Washington Street and 710 Madison Street, Planning Commission X action.

So recommend approval 7 to 0.

Okay.

Um, we also do have a speaker signed up for this one.

Um, so what I might do is just start.

Does anyone need a presentation?

Okay, so we don't need a presentation.

So then I'm gonna go straight to our speaker, which is Ms.

Phoebe Coy.

All right.

Uh good morning, members of council.

Um I'm Phoebe Coy.

Um I'm on the Alexandria Leadership team for Yimbees of Northern Northern Virginia.

Um I am primarily here to talk about the green building plan.

Um but while I'm here, I wanted to briefly share a few points about this development.

Uh first, we certainly hope you'll vote yes along with the other housing development on the docket today.

This is a great office to residential conversion that will add more opportunities to live in the great walkable and transit-rich neighborhood of Old Town North.

Uh something that really stuck out to me in the staff report um is that this will actually be the sixth time that the Old Town North small area plan will have to be amended with a height increase.

Uh and the plan is less than 10 years old.

So uh we really hope you will consider this as a lesson learned for our current planning process for Duke Street, uh, as well as for future planning processes to set height limits that are uh appropriate for the housing our city needs from the beginning.

Uh next, I want to point out just because this is the second time this has come up recently, um, is the commercial residential mixed use X zone uh requires a special use permit for a residential building.

I think this is uh the only residential zone where this is the case.

Um and I think it's pretty odd that a uh residential building would be considered a special use in a residential zone.

Uh so we hope you'll consider removing this requirement to make it a little bit easier to build homes.

Um and lastly, we always comment on parking mandates, and we hope you will remove them so that home builders only need to build an amount of parking that's needed for where the homes are located.

Um unfortunately, in neighborhoods like Old Town North, people have choices in how they get around.

So let's stop mandating a one-size-fits-all amount of parking and having to grant an exception every time.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

Ums Coy is the only speaker on this item.

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

All right, there has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley to close the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, the ayes have it.

Councilman Gary.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I'm not opposed to this project.

Um, don't need a presentation, but just wanted to flag for my colleagues.

Uh, part of the encroachment is for balconies.

Um, while I'm not necessarily opposed to the balconies, I wonder um how the BAR will feel about it just because I did a uh Google walk down Washington and I didn't see balconies on any other building.

So it'll be curious to see um if staff brings back to us some some examples um later on.

But of course, at this point, it's really just to be able to move this project forward and they'll come back to us later on afterwards.

Uh, but I just wanted to flag with the flag that for everyone, and with that, uh I will move uh item number five.

There has been a motion by Councilman Aguirre and a second by Vice Mayor Bagley to move item number five.

Is there any further discussion?

Uh I have Councilman Chapman and then uh Vicemair Bagley.

I just want to understand for my my colleagues' comments is staff gonna bring something back on terms of the encroachment.

And are we gonna talk about um what that looks like for the entire GW in Washington Street area or just this project?

Sure.

So Paul Stadter, director with planning and zoning, happy for the question.

Uh so balconies weren't originally on this building when it was constructed, but we are seeing with a lot of development projects that they do include balconies to add more variety and interest to the facade of the building.

Uh, most recently the 601 with conversion project that you all approved does include balconies on the exterior as well as the Whitley phase two, which is just to the north of this.

Uh that also includes uh uh permission for an encroachment for upper floor balconies.

Uh so they are a common amenity uh folks are using.

Uh, this application wouldn't come back to you uh for action after after your consideration today, but I think what we could do is share with you information about the uh, you know, how common balconies are and where they are used uh and how they're used.

And Director Stoddard, what's the student do you think you could get that back to the council?

Uh I I think something short, just summarizing sort of a uh a quick survey of which buildings do and don't have it.

I uh I think give us uh a month or two.

Uh Councilman Chapman, does that work for you?

Okay.

Uh Vice Mayor Bagley.

Uh thank you, Mary Gaskins.

Um, I just uh uh director Stodder, could you uh respond to uh the speaker's comment um about the need for a special use permit for residential use in a mixed use zone?

And just you know, kind of is that the the way it was presented, obviously makes it sound like perhaps this is something we should think about adapting.

Um if you could just maybe clarify or confirm that that's the reality.

Yeah, happy for the question.

So CRMUX, uh they're actually moving into the CRMUX zone uh from what they have today.

CRMUX is one of our most uh uh uh variable zones, uh, and so it does have a lot of allowances that uh what people can pursue by right.

Um, and then there are special use permits when they go beyond what can otherwise be allowed.

So it's something that's contemplated within the district, uh, but because of the scale of development, does it does require special consideration?

Um, in this case, they're working within a building that was already constructed.

Uh, and so uh obviously uh we're not going to tell them to take FAR out of the building.

Uh, and so instead, uh, what our recommendation was was come forward along with the the rest of the applications and permissions that are needed uh and just package it as part of the bundle.

Okay, yes, um, is there any necessity to um is our currently the way the CRUM zone is currently written?

Is there anything about it that is adding to or complicating or slowing down sort of this kind of conversion process?

It might not be that this might be a small piece that a box that gets checked, but I'm just curious as we're learning along the way.

Has this revealed anything about you know the definitions in that zone that we we should be conscious of and thinking about?

We're jumping the agenda a little bit.

We we actually have a uh a larger text amendment uh on your hearing tonight, and that might be a better time to have that conversation about how do we make sure that we're making the conversion process uh transparent and efficient.

No, I appreciate that, and we can talk further then.

Thanks.

Okay, is there any additional discussion?

At this time, there has been a motion for approval that has been properly seconded.

Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Akiri.

I vice Mayor Bagley, Mayor Gaskins.

Aye, Councilman Chapman, Councilman El Nuby, Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman McPike.

I.

The I have it.

The item passes.

Uh, Madam Clerk, next item.

Public hearing, second reading, and final passage of an ordinance to lease and manage the torpedo factory art center to initiate and establish the process to grant an agreement for the lease lease management and operation of the torpedo factory or art center owned by the city of Alexandria.

Okay.

Um, as we were preparing for this item, I am not sure, but it is very cold in this room.

Um, if there's anything we can do to adjust the okay, I didn't know if I was the only one.

Normally I'm the only one who's cold, but um, there is a speaker for this item as well.

So why don't we do this?

Um, is there anyone who needs a presentation or did folks just have questions?

Okay, so then I'm gonna ask that we go straight to the speaker, and then council can ask those questions.

Uh, Madam Clerk, can you please call the speaker for this item?

Ivy Whitlatch.

Good cold morning, everyone.

Uh, I'm Ivy Whitlatch, and I'm going to apologize in advance.

I seem to have a frog in my throat.

But I'm speaking to you today as your chair of the Alexandria Archaeological Commission.

I'm sure most of you know the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, public lab, and offices for the division of Alexandria Archaeology are housed on the third floor of the Torpedo Factory Arts Center.

The museum, in some format, has been in the factory since 1979, five years after it opened.

The museum you see today was completed in 1984.

I also hope you're aware of the incredible discovery of an 18th century shiphull on Alexandria's waterfront in 2015.

The decision was made to conserve the hull with the express goal of exhibiting it on the Alexandria waterfront.

While many donors and organizations contributed to the cost of conservation, the city also provided significant funding.

Conservation is anticipated to be complete in 2028.

While these may appear to be two very interesting but intuitively unrelated points, they are related when it comes to the RFP, the council will be voting on today.

The museum and the offices, while not an artistic operation, and are a city facility, are impacted by the operations of the factory and contribute to its success and visitor counts.

Since the discovery of the ship hull, there have been many discussions, mostly informal, about exhibiting the ship hull and the associated artifacts in that discovery in the torpedo factory.

Let me start with the commission's easier concern.

The exclusion exclusion of the museum specifically from the current RFP scope of work marketing plan section five.

We request that language be inserted to include the museum in archaeology as an integral element in the marketing plan.

Even exterior signage, identifying the museum should also be part of the marketing plans.

Now to the more concerning concern about the RFP.

As we read the RFP, there is not any language to suggest the possibility of exhibiting the ship hull and artifacts with the new operator within the five-year term of this agreement.

If that is the intent of the RFP, the commission would like confirmation.

If it is not, the commission contends knowing about this possibility could significantly affect how and possibly which future operator would respond to this procurement document.

It does not provide full disclosure to a new operator that their business model could significantly change.

Just some of the variables this could impact our loss of studios and associated revenue, the renovation impact and timeline, even the ability to combine combine and event space with the exhibition.

Again, if the ultimate goal of this council was to explore exhibiting the ship hull and artifacts of the torpedo factory before its return, the commission requests timely subject.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your time.

I appreciate your testimony.

All right.

There has been a motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and a second by Councilman McPike to close the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those any, well, any opposed.

No.

Yeah, I have it.

Sorry.

No, do you oppose it?

I know I'm an I of the Vice Mayor Bagley.

Um thank you, Mary Gaskins.

Um, before I want to kind of just open it back, if I could, to the city attorney's office and to um Deputy City Manager um Emily Baker and Julian Gonzalez from um public-private partnerships to kind of respond to the concerns raised there.

I I have some questions, but rather than go through them, you know, one by one, maybe if y'all could just address um the questions raised uh by the speaker.

Yes, um, Madam Mayor, members of city council, Emily Baker, deputy city manager.

Um excuse me, um, we are um very much committed to having the archaeology um museum and staff remain in the torpedo factory um until and unless we find another home that may be more appropriate for them in the future.

The RFP does is very clear that archaeology will remain in the um in the torpedo factory.

As to the um Ms.

Whitlatch's comments about the marketing, there is a um part of the evaluation criteria that we're going to use to evaluate the respondents to this RFP is their marketing plan.

And we have made it very clear that there are a lot of stakeholders associated with that that we want them to participate to um engage with.

One that we have called out is the Office of Historic Alexandria.

And as you know, um, archaeology is part of the Office of Historic Alexandria, and that's sort of our intent that that would be the conversation around that.

Um, so we do feel that that is covered in the marketing plan.

Um, and I spoke with um Ms.

Whitlatch and I have committed that absolutely archaeology is something that we want to see marketed as all of the um occupants of the building, and that's something while we are waiting, we want to see the vision of the respondents.

We want to see that they understand who the stakeholders are, and that they are um proposing to include the um archaeology as part of all of the marketing that they're doing.

Um, but if for some reason we end up selecting somebody who doesn't specifically call that out in their proposal, that is something that we would commit to with respect to the ship.

Um, we want uh and calling it out specifically, it is not called out specifically in this RFP because we are we wrote this in a way to be as flexible as possible because we want to first and foremost understand who is interested in operating and maintaining this facility and what are their capabilities, and do we have people who have the capability to take on a facility like this?

We want to understand what how they see it and what they're proposing and not provide um specific requirements that may limit who might be interested in responding.

That's not to say that we can't have conversations when we get the proposals just to provide that this is an opportunity that could be considered by these operators if they feel that it um could contribute in um in a positive way to how they see the operations.

We do not want to preclude who might be interested in submitting by making it too narrow or providing too many um requirements.

We want to really see what the vision is for the respondents, and then we certainly can have those conversations.

Um question, Ms.

Baker.

So I can understand wanting to have the RFP be flexible and sort of have an opportunity to see a lot of different interested parties.

I am curious though, we do have such a unique opportunity with the ship.

Are there other intentional conversations or is there any way that we are formally coming together to begin to map out a plan for where the ship could go?

Yes, we are very excited about this ship coming back as well, and um our investment in its restoration.

We are uh committed to meeting with the commission and uh um and the staff to in the archaeology to continue those conversations about where can we put this ship?

What does it look like?

What is its best use?

What are the opportunities for location?

Um, and we are going to be starting those conversations in the coming months.

Give a sense of the timeline for not just kind of when they will start, but maybe when you guys need to have when when we would need to have a decision by.

Well, the timeline, we're certainly gonna start next month and having those conversations.

I think it as we as those conversations progress and we get an understanding of what those options are, what the investments might be necessary to do that.

I can't really give you a timeline of when we would have a decision, but that is something that we will be discussing and then could be um potentially considered in the in the budget preparations for FY28.

Okay.

I guess um just thinking out loud to my colleagues know where I'm at on this.

Like if we're not able to adjust the RFP to have that specific language, or we feel like that would limit us and sort of getting a broader set of interested people, then I would want to see um deputy manager Baker and the city manager work together on a very specific timeline on like this is what we need to explore, this is how we're collaborating with the commission, how we're working with the Office of Historic Alexandria and like really having a plan so we make sure we are ready.

Um, and that if the plan is in the torpedo factory, we know all the steps and don't miss an opportunity to do that and do it well.

Uh, Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And I certainly appreciate your comments.

I I would um I would choose and talk to my colleagues or recommend my colleagues that we actually do as the mayor's saying and actually have staff come back and put that in RFP.

Uh I struggle with giving an RFP that does not have the full breadth of what somebody should look at.

Um if we have an operator that cannot handle the capacity of the ship along with everything else we're supposed to be doing, I think there's an opportunity there should be an opportunity in RFP to be able to tell them or allow them to say that.

So we can handle the operations of the torpedo factory.

We're not at the point where we can handle the ship.

I would hate to get somebody in here at the end and find out they are nowhere close to being able to handle that capacity.

I think that's something that we need to know and consider, especially since we've been talking about this as an opportunity for quite some time.

I I honestly think we're a little bit behind because I'm not hearing about any kind of plan of location where this should go.

This has been a long time in coming.

We know this is coming back.

I I firmly believe that we should already know the couple of locations where this should go.

And if we don't, we're behind the times.

Um I would hope that we get it caught back up and bring this back to us before we put it out uh on the market.

Uh I I'm not I'm not of supportive of moving forward on this at the time.

Okay.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Um, so one of the questions I had asked in advance of today, and I'm and if maybe the uh Miss Brown from the city attorney's office is to sort of share my colleagues' concern.

I was trying to balance um the elements that we can change, given that it's a highly sort of technical procurement document.

Um, what what are we comfortable potentially changing, adding today?

What would require, you know, a deferral to have those changes?

How does that impact the overall timeline?

Because I I appreciate the where we started in responses, which is that the museum is is already encapsulated itself, you know, in the document and their presence and their desire to see, you know, there are our intention to keep them in the building.

But I I share my colleagues' um concerns about um this is a highly specific physically large, you know, I and unique uh potential element for the building.

And I understand the desire to be broad.

Um interestingly, I also think by including it to the extent we get feedback that I don't know how to do this, you know, or I can do everything you're you know that this building has, but not that.

We could still choose that person, but now we've learned this is going to require us a specialized operator.

So there's almost some value in including it because the feedback we get from the bidders is that's a that's not something I've done before, or that's a quirkier item to market.

Um, and that would require a specialized, you know, uh type of governance, a specialized location.

There's still value, I think, in hearing that in the RFP process from potential bidders.

Um, but I'm just hesitant for us to modify that document on the fly, absent some guidance from Ms.

Brown.

Um, what guidance are we able to provide?

Sorry.

Um, hello, good morning.

So our in we can make that change if the council would like us to make that change, but because our city code and charter have specific rules around ordinances, if we're introducing a new subject to the ordinance, then we would need to go back and readvertise that.

But because our city code and charter have specific rules around ordinances, if we're introducing a new subject to the ordinance, then we would need to go back and re-advertise that.

It's not something we could do and adopt today.

So the guidance from our office would be to send us back to make those changes.

And then we could have the time as well from the staff perspective to make sure we're including it, but not overly limiting ourselves and get the wording right as well.

So I think at this point, our our overall recommendation would be if that's the will of the council, we should you should vote it down today or defer it and allow us to re-advertise with those changes.

Um before we go on, can you explain to me why it would be sort of a new subject?

If it's already mentioned in the RFP and it's already talked about, wouldn't it fall under the same sort of categorization?

Second question.

So archaeology, as Ms.

Maker mentioned, is is referenced throughout, but the ship itself is really not at all, not specifically called out.

So to err on the side of caution and make sure this is a totally uh you know correct legally um RFP, which we've really worked hard to do to make it all work together.

We would just our advice is to let give us the time to come back with a new ordinance.

Thanks, Mayor Bagley.

Um, so I I want to I'm gonna put a motion on the floor, but I want to preface it also by acknowledging that I've been approached by artists who are excited about this RFP and want to see it move forward.

So I want to just add that to this public dialogue that um I am cognizant that the artists are ready for this, many of them and excited.

And um, should this motion to defer be successful today?

Um, it's it's uh I hear you and you know, we appreciate we are eager to get going as well, but we do have kind of one, you know, hopefully one and done.

Um, and to put a finer point on on Councilman Chapman's comments, the boat is coming back in 2028, or it's going into storage, is roughly my understanding.

And so if we don't have a home for it, you know, in 2028, it's we have a different problem to solve.

So with that, wait, um, before uh you make your motion, I know our um city attorney wants to jump in.

Thank you.

Um a deferral wouldn't be appropriate for this.

I would recommend that you vote it down and tell us a time frame by which to bring it back.

Um that would be the best course of action.

And Madam City Attorney, what's the fastest you think we could get it back?

Since I don't want to frame it as a minor change because I do hear that this requires a whole shift in how we've adjusted this, but we could look at the deadlines for um our ordinance advertising, but the change itself should not take us and the staff team very long to draft.

Okay, Mr.

Manager.

Yeah, I would agree with uh our city attorney on that.

I think that what I'm hearing the council say is that you want specific language referencing the opportunity and the evaluation of um a significant historical artifact and the placement of that in as part of um the plan that someone might utilize to in the RFP process.

So I think that's pretty clear, if that's the understanding that that I have.

Yes, I think the only modification, Mr.

Manager, would be not just saying like the historical significant um artifact, but like specifically the ship.

Yeah, being very clear about that later.

Okay.

Yeah, uh that's where I'm headed.

So I think with that, it's I think it's it's a slight modification of the language that's already there.

And then I think uh whatever's the legal process to get the ordinance back to the council, that's what we would do.

Okay.

Uh Vice Mayor Bagley.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, so with um sincere enthusiasm for seeing the project move forward and uh excitement for what's ahead at the Torpedo Factory, I move to um uh deny the approval of the RFP and uh uh return it uh basically at the earliest date possible um for readvertising and its subsequent approval there has been a motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and a second by councilman Chapman.

Is there any further discussion?

All right, hearing none, Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote, please call the roll.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Aye, Councilman Chapman, Mayor Gaskins, Councilman McGeary, Councilman El Nuby, Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman McPyke, aye.

All right, Madam Clerk, next item.

Public hearing and consideration of a five-year lease agreement between the city of Alexandria and the Tall Ship Providence Foundation for the docking of the Tall Ship Providence at Waterfront Park.

Okay, um, before we go into this item, I need to make a statement um for both items nine and 10.

But to avoid an 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 Bruchette, who have an interest in the tall ship providence.

I have a potential personal interest in this transaction and will be recusing myself from participating or voting on this transaction.

So at this time, I will turn the meeting over to Vice Mayor Bagley.

Thank you, Mayor Gaskins.

Have we already called item nine?

Okay.

Does any of my colleagues need a presentation on that item?

Okay, and so okay, I just wasn't sure the order in which we'd do that.

So if we could call the first speaker on this item.

Scott Shaw.

Hi, thank you.

With my uh colleague Kathy Seifer, who's the executive director of our nonprofit.

Um, I've had a chance to speak.

We've had a chance to speak with most of you over the last month.

So we're just here to answer questions.

Okay.

Hi.

Um, yeah, we're really just here to answer questions you may have, and thank you for your time over the last month.

Um uh Mr.

Shaw, would you just mind um you you mentioned Ms.

Seifert's role?

Can you what is your affiliation just for the understanding?

So I'm the board chair of our nonprofit, and Kathy is the executive director of the nonprofit.

So she's salaried on volunteer.

All right, thank you, sir.

Do we need to close the public hearing?

Second.

All right, there's been a motion to close the public hearing and a second by um councilman Chapman.

Any further discussion on that item hearing not?

Oh yes, Miss Uh Green.

Thank you.

Um Councilwoman Green.

Um, is this a question?

Oh, not for Scott.

Oh, close that first.

So all right, that's fine.

I'll come to you right after.

Okay.

Um so are all those in favor closing the public hearing.

Oh any opposed?

All right, the public hearing is closed.

Um, are there any questions for staff?

Miss Green.

Yes.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Bagley.

I have a question.

Um first of all, I'm I'm very excited about the agreement.

I'm excited about the ship coming back.

I love the programming, particularly with the Title One schools.

So everything about this is wonderful.

The ex including the excitement that it brings to the waterfront.

I do have a question about um the annual payment and how we get to that amount.

Um, so um the annual payment is sorry, I'm trying to pull it up.

There is a fee associated with the um with the lease.

So there is an annual payment, and um I think that the sorry, I have it in the in the attachment.

There is also a provision that in um two and a half percent of any net revenue that exceeds a million dollars would come to the city.

So that's how we we calculate if there's an actual fee that's in the agreement, and then any revenue that they receive over the million dollars, we get a percentage of that.

Yes, but how do we get to that number for the annual payment, which looks to be it's different each year?

It goes up each year.

It goes up based on um the uh uh inflation.

It's an inflation.

Okay, but how do we get to the the base number?

We look at um other agreements that we have for leases with other properties around the waterfront um that we have and use sort of a comparable calculation for that.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Chapman.

Uh thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I would go ahead and put a motion to approve uh the lease on the table.

Thank you.

There's been a motion by councilman Chapman and a second.

Did I hear uh councilman green?

Yes, it was okay.

Okay, take it.

Uh I'm gonna I'll take it.

Sure.

Any further discussion on um item number nine?

All right, hearing none.

Um, all those in favor.

This is a both sorry about that.

Uh Madam Uh Clerk, if you could call the role.

Councilman Chapman.

All right, Councilwoman Green.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Ageary.

Councilman L newby.

All right.

Councilman McPyke.

Aye.

All right.

That item is successful.

If you could call number 10, please, Madam Clerk.

Public hearing, second reading, and final passage of an ordinance to amend the franchise agreement awarded to the Tallship Providence Foundation to dock a replica historic ship, tall ship at the waterfront park part.

Madam Vice Mayor.

Uh Councilman Gary.

There are no speakers, I'd move to close the public hearing.

Okay.

Um, Madam Clerk, could you just confirm?

Because I don't have the current list.

There's no speakers.

Thank you.

Uh, any discussion on the motion to uh close the public hearing?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, the public hearing is closed.

Uh, do my colleagues need a presentation or councilman agarry.

Madam Mayor, move item uh approval of item number 10.

All right, there's been a motion by councilman Ageary and a second by councilwoman grant green.

Uh, any further discussion on this item?

Seeing none, uh, it's a roll call vote.

Madam Clerk.

Councilman Ageary.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman L.

Newby.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

With that, uh, Madam Clerk, if you could call item number 11, and we will give ta-da.

We are 2025-00465 OH 910 King Street public hearing in consideration of an appeal of the Board of Architectural Review December 2025 decision to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 910 King Street.

Okay.

It's only January, and this is our second BAR appeal.

So we're going to run this the same way we did last time, which is we will start with a presentation from the staff.

Then we will have the BAR representative speak, and then we will give the applicant an opportunity to speak as well.

So with that, I will turn it over to staff.

Thank you.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Bill Conkey.

I'm the historic preservation architect for the city.

And I'll be walking you through the staff's presentation here today.

So we're going to run through some the overview of the project and then we'll run through some of the key elements of the project.

And I'll talk about some of what's being proposed.

And at the end here, we'll go through what was approved.

Most of our staff recommendations, so I can give you the background as to where why staff came up with the um uh position that it did, and then kind of the board's um action as well.

So this is an appeal of the BAR decision um of approval with uh conditions for 910 King Street.

Um, as with all appeals, we will be uh the board the councils will be affirming reversing or modifying the decision of the BAR um in uh in part based on the standards from Section 10105 in the zoning ordinance.

And I'm gonna go through some key elements here of the of the proposal right now.

So first first I want to start with the painting and staining.

The applicant is proposing to uh restain the front of the building, and that's the picture on your right there.

So he was proposing to do to restain the completely re-stain the front of the building, um, including some highlights.

You see some architectural features there.

There's some brick and some um uh terracotta features, and those will be like a complementary color to make them pop out a little bit.

Um he's also uh requesting approval to uh paint the east, west, and south elevations, and you can see the west elevation uh there on the left side there.

Just a note that the windows you see there have been um infilled um since this picture was taken.

Uh that was part of an approval from the BAR earlier this year.

Um, in addition to that, the the uh the the applicant is requesting approval for um some metal work at the front building entry.

So that would be there's a new door there.

You see, um it would be some decorative metal work on the door, some decorative metal work um on the transom above, and then these railings, which you see on the left side there.

So those those railings would be on either side of the main entrance, and they'd be attached to the stone uh entry steps.

Um additional metal work.

This uh this metal work here is being proposed for the top of the building.

So this would be there's a there's a knee wall at the top of that bay we saw a minute ago, um, and this would be attached to that um knee wall.

And so it's approximately five feet tall and about 11 and a half feet long, so it would kind of take the length of that knee wall and and be attached to that.

Um signage, you know, the the building's gonna have a lot of the signs we see typically on retail on King Street, so that's you know, nothing unusual there for the most part.

Um, you see the blades blade sign, it'd be on the right side, the bracket there, which is pretty typical, and it's actually being installed in location of a current blade sign.

Um the one uh thing they wanted to point out is that there is a build proposed building sign, which is at the top of the building, and you can see it there on the left.

It's it's on it's attached to that knee wall that we talked about, and it's gonna be the the text is about a foot tall and it'll be lit, and so that'll be that'll be on that knee wall just below the um metal work there.

Uh building lighting, uh the applicant is proposing uh floodlighting around the around the building.

Um that's not unusual again on King Street to have lit buildings.

Um the the proposed lighting uh it is uh multicolor, it has the ability to change colors.

Um so that's that's a little bit unusual.

Um, and then we would work with the the applicant on attachment attaching those fixtures to the building so that they don't damage the structure.

That's a something we work with during construction that's typical.

Um, in addition to the floodlighting, the applicant is uh proposing uh the the light fixture on the left, one on either side of the door of the entry door, so like a carriage light sconce uh on the side of the entry door.

So this project has been has been around BAR for a little while.

Um it started in May.

Um so in May, it first came to the board in May.

Um, and at that time it was uh a larger scope than what you see today.

Um it included uh a roof deck um infilling those windows that I talked about on the on the west elevation.

Um and then a bunch of additional things, and so um at that point, at that time it was deferred.

The board felt like the um the design wasn't quite appropriate for the building, and so they gave comments.

The applicant uh requested the deferral, came back again in June with some changes.

Again, they the board felt like there wasn't still wasn't compatible with the existing building.

So the applicant requested a deferral again in order to make continued working on it.

At that time, we started staff started working with the applicant to resolve some construction issues, some construction timing issues.

They needed to get going on some things.

And so we worked with them to break apart that larger application into some smaller things so they could get going, get started working on things.

And in July, the board approved the roof decks.

It's so it's a it's a railing around the exterior of the roof and a pop-up for the um elevator stair enclosure, things like that.

So that's that was all approved in July.

In addition to the windows on the west side, which I pointed out earlier.

Um and then in September it came back again for uh infilling windows this time on the east elevation, um, and to replace the entry stone, which is broken.

Um so that was that was that was approved in September.

Then in December, uh came back with those things that were not broken out, and that's the it's the stuff that you see today.

And then it was uh that was uh approved with the conditions that we're gonna talk about here in just a minute.

So hopefully you can see these, see these conditions.

These are the conditions of the approval.

Um let's note note that the first eight are were staff recommendations.

Um they were adopted by the board, and the ninth is something is one that the board adopted.

I'm gonna go through them all kind of quickly and just tell you why staff was thinking what they did, and then talk about um number nine and how we have a difference there.

So we'll put the numbers number one and number number two together.

We'll kind of talk about those two uh at the same time.

It's the staining of the front elevation.

Um, like I said, the applicant is proposing to stain the entire front elevation, including some highlights, and then stain those steps.

Um board, the board and staff um were concerned about this in terms of changing the character of the building.

It's um this is a very simple Victorian building.

Um one of the features is this sort of monolithic red color that's that's across it.

And there's there's some variation in it.

And if you look at it right now, that it's it's dirty, it needs needs some love, needs some uh needs to be cleaned.

But we've staff feels like it's an important architectural feature of the building is that monolithic red color.

And also it's the patina on it, right?

So if it was stained entirely new now, it would lose that patina of age and it would, I think, detract from the historical um quality of the building and make it seem as if maybe it's not old, it makes it difficult to understand the age of the building that way.

And this and so what sort of what staff is suggesting for both the front elevation and for the entry steps, um, is that that there maybe there will be some some pieces that need to be replaced because the building has had has had a rough life and it needs some some bricks need to be replaced and things.

And so what's we're suggesting is that the staining occurs only as required um by that by that maintenance work.

So if something needs to be replaced, you stain it to match the existing and kind of leave it like that.

Um we'll put that we'll put three and four together as well.

This is the metal work at the uh at the at the front of the building.

Um we are suggesting a modification to the language.

It's a it's a it's not a really substantive modification, but it just we feel like it's a little more clear.

Uh, we would like to say in in lieu of uh simplify the metal work, we'd like to say to match the Victorian style of the building.

It's a little more a little more specific about what we're asking them to do.

Um talking about railings.

I wanted to quote the uh design guidelines just for a minute.

Um the guide design guidelines say that new steps, new stoops, steps and railings should have a design that is appropriate to the architectural style of the structure, and that handrails should be minimal in appearance and mounted so as not to damage the existing historic material.

So, with that as our as our starting point, we were looking at the proposed metal work.

Um, and the design of the metal work is it's both it's very dense.

Uh that railing you can see it's very dense.

Um, and it's also very highly highly decorative.

It's really more uh maybe more Baroque in style than Victorian.

And so I think staff and the board agreed.

We're concerned that the um that that that detail, that's that design it detracts from the integrity of the building because it's different, it's a different style.

Um, and and the design guidelines do say you should be compatible with the style of the building.

So I think we were we were concerned that that that exact design is maybe not quite appropriate for the building.

Um we have no problem with railings, you know, railings it's a safety feature.

This is gonna be a retail establishment.

Um, no issue with no issue with railings.

We just would like to work with the um applicant on that design to kind of get it to be more appropriate for the Victorian style.

Um and that goes for the that goes for the um metal work at the door at Transome and for the railings.

Uh for the rooftop embellishment, um that is the one that's the one that's being proposed again is is very high style, uh very broke.

It's not really in keeping with this very simple Victorian building that we have here.

Um, and it's very large.

Um so staff was suggesting that they reduce the size and complexity again to be to be more similar to the uh style of the building.

And you'll see here we point to one that's across the street at 913 King Street.

Um it's not to say that it needs to look exactly like 913 King Street, but you know, it 913 King Street is essentially a sibling building to this one.

It's looks very similar, same same brick, same styling, uh built right around the same time.

And that one has a rooftop metal embellishment that's much smaller, simple.

Um, and we find that it's it's often easy, easier to point to something and say, be you know, the size of this rather than sort of this sort of vague, you know, be compatible.

With if we have something that we know, we can say this one works, be something be something like this.

Not that design, but you know, something like that.

Um then the regarding the rooftop signage, um that's a building sign like that is really more appropriate for like a um a commercial, large commercial building where you had a sign up on the building.

Something on a uh a sort of quiet, simple building like this, it's not really appropriate for that.

Um so staff is not supporting um the signage uh at the top of the building or the associated lights.

Um the floodlights.

Um so the floodlights floodlights again, it's it's they're multicolored, and when we were looking at the staff was concerned about the multicolored lights detracting from uh the integrity of the building.

We suggested a warm color range because that is really works with the red um red brick here.

In recent days, we've been discussing this with the applicant, and the applicant has actually said that he um is proposing to use the the multicolors at um at holidays.

So it would be so basically it would be that warm, he would use the warm light throughout the year, and then on holidays for specific events would highlight it um uh use the colors.

So if that if that was the case, and if that if it was being used in that way, staff would be okay with it.

I mean, it's it's fine to light something for a holiday.

Um if it as long as in general it would be uh the warm, warm warm, warm white range.

Um and then the carriage lights, the the proposed um fixture has a very highly detailed um metal work on the side that's kind of kind of similar to the to the um to the uh railings.

And so staff was looking for something to work with with the work with the applicant on finding another fixture that's a little simpler.

I don't have a problem with with lights over there.

Again, it's a safety issue, but um just simplify the design a little bit.

And again, in recent days uh in conversations with the applicant, he's agreed to do this.

So the applicant has agreed that yeah, he will work with staff on a on to find a different different um fixture there.

And finally, number nine is the is the painting of the east, south, and west elevations.

And this is where we had it where there's a difference between staff and the board.

So um the so the zoning ordinance talks about the painting of unpainted masonry and says that painting of unpainted masonry is a uh is considered demolition and requires our certificate of appropriateness.

So that doesn't mean we you shouldn't you can't do it.

It just means that you have to get a certificate of appropriateness, which is what we're doing.

The design guidelines do also talk about that and discourage discourages the painting of unpainted, previously unpainted masonry.

Um, and that's really predominantly to preserve the character of the building, the the architectural character of the building, um, in particular something like this, the color can be uh uh very important to the character.

Um so you know, if if it's for instance, if you had like a uh a yellow brick building and you painted it gray, that changes the character of the building.

So on something like this, um a project like this, that's that's that's what that's the intention there behind the design guidelines.

In this case, staff was uh was supporting the painting of those walls because those walls were never meant to be exterior walls.

Those walls, uh there were buildings attached to the to the to the west elevation and to the south.

So these these these walls, these the brick there was never meant to be an exterior finish.

So in terms of original design intent, this doesn't change it because those were never meant to be exposed.

So that's why staff was supporting painting those walls, um, looking at the original design attent.

The board looked at it a little differently, and the board said, well, those buildings haven't been there in a long time, and so it it those have acquired the character.

The the building, the the character of the building has has changed over time, and the through that history has acquired the uh uh a character um of its set of itself.

So they were not supporting it.

They wanted to be allowed to allow the building um to tell the story.

So that's a difference of opinion in terms of what it means to have architectural character.

Um, and that's that's kind of why we have two sides of this one.

But that's all I have.

Thank you, Mr.

Conky.

Um, one question I did have as we prepare to go to um Chair Scott.

Do you is it possible for staff to pull up a picture of 913 moment?

Um we can come back to I I was gonna Yes.

I it's it's in it's my staff report.

Okay, if not, um never mind.

We'll figure out I'm not controlling it here, sorry.

Okay, yeah.

Those those who have computers have to be.

Sorry.

I would do it if I could control it, but I'm gonna go.

I get everything on paper.

So it's it's okay.

Well, with that, then uh gonna pause here.

Gonna go to Chair Scott.

Thank you for joining us again.

Um, we'd love to hear the BAR's perspective and their deliberations on that.

Okay.

Hello, it's very nice to see you all again.

Um I don't have a lot to add to the city staff's presentation.

I'll just say that uh, you know, the first eight were proposed by the city in the final staff recommendations.

And as you saw in the presentation, we had many meetings with this applicant, and the city staff's recommendations really did reflect the many meetings that the board um had had with the applicant.

Um on number nine, it was added by the board um to deny the painting of the bare um exposed brick.

And I think that Mr.

Conki very fairly characterized the position of the board, which was um unpainted masonry is generally discouraged.

Occasionally the board has approved um painting of unpainted masonry, but in this case, um it's it's historic.

It shows the character of the building and the board's determined uh the board's judgment was that it would be preferential not to paint it.

So I don't have much to add.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have from the board perspective.

Okay, I'm gonna come back to questions.

So I'm gonna ask the applicant to go ahead and come up.

Um we do only have one podium, so I'm gonna ask you guys the switch and then we'll figure figure it out.

I think the applicant has a presentation.

Do we need to get that loaded?

Or is there a presentation?

Yeah, yeah, there is.

Okay, then let's pause before you start and let's um give staff a chance to put the presentation up.

Yeah, I'm gonna do it exactly the way we did it last time.

So do these three, then go to the public hearing, close the public hearing, then be able to do questions building.

I don't think that's not yeah, I don't think this is the presentation.

Uh well, they did.

I told them that we had a presentation.

I don't know.

Okay.

Apparently they don't.

Who um who did you send the presentation to?

Sorry, I hate to um, and Pitt.

Um, well, we can we can let's see this.

Yeah, I was gonna say if you if if you wouldn't mind if you could re-send, let's go ahead and start.

And then if we're able to get it up, we'll get that loaded, and then that way you're able to give but I can go through it.

And my name is Romana Sanchez.

I'm an architect.

This is Cahan Um Dillon.

He is also going to be presenting some and answering some questions about this project.

If we could go back to the staff, the beginning of the staff presentation, we can talk to that.

Our presentation had more pieces, but if we can talk to it.

Okay.

Um the question of staining and paint um of the front elevation.

Um, our concern is that as Bill just said, that uh elevation needs a bit of love.

It's it's very dirty.

So the first plan is to wash it and to see what condition it is.

Um while we're in agreement with only trying to restain the areas that need to be restained.

Our concern is that that will give a modeled effect.

And that's why we're asking for the ability to restain the entire facade if it requires it.

Um do you have anything else to add?

First of all, good morning, honorable mayor and member of the city council.

It's good to see you all again.

Um, I have not had the opportunity to come into this forum because for the last 22 years in developing in the city and being born and raised in the city, I've actually been able to, as Bill can tell you, we've always worked through every single project that I've ever had, never having to file an appeal.

So this is a very unique circumstance, but I want to thank all of you for your time and consideration of our um request of requests.

As far as this item is concerned, um, you know, this building uh saying care and love is an understatement.

Unfortunately, this building has been um, you know, when I purchased it from the previous owner, it had not been cared for, it had not been maintained, and it had not been kept um, you know, you know, and uh and maintained into a fashion that was anything um as to providing the respect that this building should have had.

Uh in fact, to be honest with you, as Bill has uh accurately um uh testified, uh two of the three actually three of the four sides of this building.

He didn't mention the front, but the fact is that when you go back in the history, three of the four sides of this uh building have actually been manipulated.

Uh the the two sides he mentioned, uh which he was correct on the rear and the uh and the west elevation are actually interior walls masquerading as exterior walls.

Then the front facade was actually manipulated as well.

This was originally a Greek revival.

This was not a Victorian.

And um and Victorian in the disciplines of architecture is actually one of the most unique uh most uh decorative and most uh you could say outstanding design uh genres that exists.

And if you look at the well, the picture's gone now, but if you look at the um exterior front facade, in fact, this is not a simple front facade as far as the masonry goes.

It's actually very, very skillfully uh detailed.

And and I would say arguably it's probably one of the most defined um Victorian buildings as far as detailing goes on King Street.

The other unique thing that Bill and I discovered in our mutual um process of discovery through this process is that in fact there's only about four buildings on all of King Street that actually have had their front facades removed and replaced.

And of all of those, uh, you know, approximately four examples that he was able to provide, which I agreed with him on.

This is the only freestanding one.

So this building in and of itself is a very unique circumstance and uh and uh you know, and so we have spent a lot of time, energy, and resources, first of all, sharing up the inside of the building because in accordance with my in my um my structural engineer's opinion, if we had not created the exoskeleton that we now have inside the building, which costed several hundred thousand dollars, this building may not have been around in 15 years.

Uh you could literally on those walls, and Bill almost put his finger through one of the walls, could go up to one of these exterior walls, put your finger through through the brick joints and put it into the building.

So I have spent an extensive amount of resources to shore up the this building so that it's an asset to the community moving forward.

I just wanted to mention that because I think it's very important to give some of that context.

That being the case, the last thing I want to do is create um is basically rebuild the building in place, do the historic preservation that's been done to maintain it on the inside, and then not do it justice on the outside.

It's a very unique circumstance, like I said, in the fact that it is one of only uh four buildings of the hundreds of buildings on King Street that has been had its front uh facade uh manipulated, and um and also uh like I said, it's the only freestanding one.

So whatever the whatever we do here is not gonna set some precedence because you only have three other buildings on all the King Street that could even come forth with any kind of you know perspective changes to the front that actually would be relative to its origin what originally occurred with this building, which is the complete refacing of the facade.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that um as to Bill's comments about the staining, um he was and let me also say the staff has always been phenomenal to work with, and especially Bill in particular.

Uh the reality is that I don't want the front of this building looking as though it has chicken pox or you know, some kind of skin condition.

And what would happen in this case if I went through to repair the brick, having you know built a lot of the iconic buildings in the city and or been a part of them, I can tell you right now what's going to happen from a construction and a restoration standpoint if I go through repairing bricks and then just restain those, which is you are going to see what's on the side of the building now on the front, which is variation of colors all over the place.

It will be a distraction and an eyesore of epic proportions, and that's the last thing that I'm gonna do.

Uh, you know, and so following due process and doing the right thing up front, that's why we're here.

Instead of me having just gone and done it, I came to you all um to do it the right way.

So on the front elevation, I that's all I have to say.

Um we have a next slide that shows the front elevation.

We have an assistant, huh?

Sorry, city manager.

Um, so that's the position on staining.

Oh, good.

Okay.

Thanks, um so I think we've we've covered the position that we have for staining the front of the building.

Uh so the next is the entry stone staining.

Um our position on this is that, and you can go to the next slide so that we can see it, is that the stone uh the stone stoop right now has is eroded in places and the walking surface is uneven.

Uh and so we're um going to repair that and repair the sides as well, because they are not they're not very um, they don't match what's the rest of the stone, and then to figure the whole thing is to repaint that or restain it uh to uh to match basically what it is now.

My only comment to add to that is that a little bit of history, just so you all have it, is the impetus behind this entire project is that this building is actually being um uh restored for the purposes of my 80-year-old mother who was diagnosed with AFib about six months ago, and the doctors told me to give her something to distract her from her current ailment.

So the next thing I did was have a conversation with her, and she decided she wanted to open up a cafe.

So then I had to say, Well, well, let me see which build one of my buildings I have available to do it on, and it happened to be this.

Now, unfortunately, actually, to be honest with you, I don't mind the historic uh use bill.

I'm gonna steal your term, uh, you know, there, Bill Patina, of the front steps.

The only issue that I have is that she almost fell and broke her neck.

Well, trying to walk, and you can see those those cracks.

She she she almost one of her heels all you know, basically all you know, slipped, and she almost fell if I hadn't caught her, and she would have fell fell flat on her face.

So this is this goes back to the whole security uh comment and the reason for these rail these uh safety railings in the front as well.

Um so that's just a little bit of background on on that.

And as you can see, the condition of those front steps, and many of you probably have either seen this building or visited it.

Uh, you know, it has tremendous potential, but as the old saying goes, potential's only as good as what you do with it.

Next slide.

Next slide.

This is now we're gonna be talking about the entry door um design and the handrail uh metal scroll work.

Go to the next.

Uh the design of the railing we have simplified it from the first the first go-round.

We have some examples of other railings that are there that are on King Street.

Um, so what we'd like to do the as far as the door, we have simplified the door itself, the the filigree inside the door.

The transom, the board had recommended that anything that is in the transom that the transom remain as is, and that anything that we put on it can be removed.

And so we will comply with that.

Uh we're just asking for the what'd you do?

I don't know.

I'd probably press something.

All right, go for the uh or the design to be so for the design to be accepted as is uh the next on that note.

Um, so Muraman is correct.

We actually amended, we not only had went through four renditions of the scroll work, which by the way is commiserate, consistent, and pervasive throughout King Street and the surrounding areas.

Um, but also we we did uh we made it so that we kept the existing transom and um and all of this work, all of this sort of metal work uh on the door in the transom is removable.

So it's also we we worked, we sort of worked in the staff's um, you know, we tried to work to find a middle ground with regard to the staff's you know uh feelings on this uh and so forth.

But also we want and uh another mention, another item I want to mention on the railing um scroll work, uh, in addition to the fact that like I mentioned it is very consistent with what's in the area, is it's really a uh combination, uh combination and collaboration of what's in the area, and also um, you know, we um we kept it consistent throughout.

So the front door, the railings, the metal work on the roof, they all are congruent and consistent and commiserate with one another.

And again, we went through at least four, if not five renditions of this with Bill Um with me with meetings and back and forth and everything else, because if you saw what this was to begin with, um, let's put it this way, it would probably be something that uh you know would would have been you know would have definitely been you know more of a complex, more complex and much more involved.

So thanks to Bill, we actually did um you know water this down quite a bit.

Um the next slide.

The next slide has to do with the metal work uh up on the roof.

Um so this is the current rendition of it, and here are examples of some of the um designs in the area on King Street.

Um we have simplified this originally it went the full length of the building, and then they were also around the deck.

There was also a decorative uh wrought iron railing, uh, and that was simplified to a glass railing around the deck, and this was um shortened and uh in length and height to j and then to just be on top of that little knee wall, which we're not sure why that new wall is there, and it is not original to the building.

Um to add just to add to what Romana said, so as you'll see, you know, with this um the with the roof metal work, um you can see the different examples we took from railings through old from old town.

We also incorporated some of it from across the street.

Also the design to the left top left, which is design on 910 King Street, that is in the masonry.

That's we called it was it open circle.

Okay, it was open circle.

We we worked with Bill on, we gave him like four different options of different um you know designs, and this one seemed to be the one that we were thinking would be the you know, would would work best from all standpoints, and so we incorporated that into the middle of the railing.

So the scroll work, what we have as far as the design from the building in the center of that metal work, and then you know, elements throughout uh old town, some of the pictures which are there for for display were all incorporated into this design.

So, what this design does is in fact it collaborates, combines, and and keeps and uh and and incorporates uh designs that are like I said, found throughout uh the next is signage.

Um and we had we're addressing the rooftop signage that is to be lit.

Um, and there's many um there are many examples of rooftop signage around King Street.

Um, and so we'd like this to be approved as well.

Um and the sign was we had it originally higher and longer, we've reduced that, and we've reduced the lighting on it as well, and the signage will not be uh attached to the brick itself.

We will work with staff to do that.

Um, and there's also uh this also um addresses the lighting, the floodlighting of the building.

Um my understanding, and you can correct me, but my understanding is that it would be a warm white color.

The colors that we would put on there would only be um during holiday seasons to accent the building.

So normally it would just be white.

Yeah, that's correct.

Um myself and Bill Bill correctly uh communicated in his commentary that um a couple of days ago that that was clarified that we would be looking to use the warm white um and then only utilize the other colors on significant days um to celebrate the community and whatever those holidays might be.

Examples of such, you don't have to go beyond the doors of your all's offices to find uh those colors of lights.

The other thing I was going to mention, um, and then obviously there's other privately owned buildings that have them as well.

The other consideration here is that we actually write across the street, just for reference purposes, have arguably the most highly lit as it relates to lumens lighting, a lit sign, the majestic on all of King Street, as far as neon colors go, and that is on every day, all I mean that's all on every single night, whether they're open or not.

I mean, it just you know, it's very it's very potent, it comes right through the my windows, and my whole inside of the building is pink and whatever that baby blue color is.

All right.

Uh and the next is going to carriage lights.

Um we have just, I mean, we've agreed with staff that we will work with them on a different selection of lights.

Um and have no problem with that.

Here are just some other examples of carriage lights that are on street.

And uh, and then we've got the painting of the brick on the east west and south elevations.

Um the next slide shows shows the conditions currently of those of those sides.

The west side um has lots of uh concrete that has been applied, unfortunately, to uh stabilize the brick.

Um which should not have been done, but is done.

There's a uh some graffiti that has shown up on that west side.

And again, the west and the south sides were not originally uh exterior walls, they weren't, they were part of a party wall that has been removed.

So we continue to ask that we can paint those sides.

Um the east side is an alley, uh, and you don't see it very I mean you can if you're looking for it, but when you go by the building, you don't see that east side.

Um just to add to that, effectively um we are in agreement with staff that the west and the rear uh should be allowed to be painted, and then on the east side, we just feel as though if you have two sides that are painted and one side that's not painted, and then the front side that's stained, it's just causes quite a bit of causes a little bit of a bipolar state.

So we just want to create a consistency again with the building.

Want to be we want to create consistency where where possible.

And so we just want to be able to add to the staff's recommendation to be able to do the east side as well.

Um also as far as this new graffiti is concerned.

This is a little sidebar, but this is all within the last three or four months.

And uh I said, and you can't read it from here, but that new graffiti on the uh where it says new graffiti, and then there's that circle there, and then the the bottom one there, which is in the northeast corner.

Um, somebody wrote, you know, um, what was it, Bill?

Something about keeping your mind open mind or something.

Yeah, keep an open mind, and then I sent it to him and said maybe they were trying to send the VR message.

And by the way, some of you have seen this in person, I know.

So no, it's we we honestly just want to really create a jewel here.

That's what we're looking for.

We're not looking to, you know, create any history or any precedent, which like I said, we wouldn't be because there are many other examples of everything we talked about.

We're just looking to to bring this back to being a true asset for the community, the city, and the street.

Oh, and then here's examples of the painted brick that you can see, and uh most of these are actually on our block.

68% of the block has painted buildings already.

We uh I call it Ronald McDonald, the best property.

Then you have the one down there at the corner where the gal is looking tied, I'm not sure where.

Um and then you have a just a slew of other painted brick buildings on on the on actually on our block.

Um, so the majority of the building on our block are painted.

These are the sight line studies.

We just to show you what the existing conditions now on the west side, those trees are no longer there, but the others show you um an example of when the trees have leaves on them, what you actually see of the building.

Yeah, and just to add to that, we created this so you could get a um a site, a true site condition rendering of what we are dealing with at least uh the majority of the year, which is it's bare, it's it's not even really visible other than from the west.

You would you know you see it pretty clearly, but when there's trees are full, you know, it is very hard to see it from the north from the north or the east side.

And then here's a site lens.

This one is actually to your question, Madam Mayor, about seeing 913.

There's 913, which is right across the street, which is not which it did not have its front facade ever impugned or renovated or replaced or refaced.

So you want to talk about this one, or you want me to talk about it?

Okay, so then here's our sight line study we did uh from the street.

It's approximately we um, you know, with the knee wall and then the um the feature, the metal work feature.

We're expecting approximately about three feet will be um fully visible.

Uh we drew on it, we drew it in, we hand drew it in.

We also are providing the sight line uh elevation study to show um that uh what it what the sort of view would be.

The other consideration here is the um sibling building, as Bill referred to it across the street, has this uh decorative um yeah, they got the decorative metal, but they also have a decorative uh shingled um exactly.

Yeah, man's hard roof.

Um so to me, that whole that whole element there, the mansard roof portion as well as the um the decorative element, the metal element is about seven feet in total, and it really does, it really is a decoration because if you look at other buildings, you know, of similar uh style, being Victorian, you know, you don't, it's not that you often see that everyone has mansored roofs or or you know, and then the metal elements on top of them.

Um, also in the area, um, to speaking of roof elements in general, there are many examples as you probably all know of roof elements beyond just this one here.

Obviously, right next door to us is the firehouse square, and they have fennels, very tall ones at that, uh, that make it look like a castle next door.

We also on this parking lot have a six-story uh condo building that's it was a part of an RFP that's supposed to be built.

So effectively, we are squeezed between two buildings that are both larger in scale and scope um, you know, between us, so we're not gonna be taking away from anybody else's attention, frankly speaking.

Um within about you know, right around the corner from this building is the firehouse, the historic firehouse.

And you know, there's a I thought it was a witch with a broomstick uh on top of it, but it's actually not a witch with a broomstick, it's actually a fireman with a machete on the top.

So uh just I mean, Bill had to sort of, you know, uh had to correct my uh evaluation of that because I I literally I told him I said I don't know what are we getting ready for Halloween.

So um the thing is on that note, my point is there are very unique roof and and structures and elements, obviously throughout Old Town, and you guys maybe even know more of more of them than I do, but I'm saying within this general just block even, um, we have a numerous number of them.

And I think honestly, that this provides for what is the uniqueness, what is the history behind Old Town?

I think we all make our own history as a part of this, and I think we should be able to put our own um you know, feelings and touches and uh finishes on these respective buildings because we invest so much into them, and when you invest this much into them, you know, who's to say that you can't be a part of that history?

So I just want to mention Mr.

Conn, let me ask you this about how many more slides do you have?

Because I do know we have a couple speakers and um well we have a few, but they're all about the historic elements, which we've already talked about.

That's the front, but the front facade has already been altered, the west facade has been altered, the rear facade has been altered.

So we got like seven more, but we we can get through them like in like five minutes, like because we've already talked about a lot of them, so we can get through them very quickly.

All right, let's do this quickly because I know there's probably gonna be questions for you as well, and they're gonna be out of the way.

I just wanted to be over prepared for you, madam mayor.

Okay, so uh going on to the I'm gonna go quick.

Okay, so alterations to the historic elements.

No, no, I want to just talk through this real quick.

Um, so so the front facade is altered, west facade out of the rear west knee wall roof was added post-1950.

The west facade windows were added post-1950, the rear gates were added uh to the building post-1950, and the west side brick knee wall was also added uh post-1950.

Um, and there's just elements just to show you what how how things are this current site conditions and how things are added and the concrete that's sort of keeping the front even on right now.

Um there's there's an example of that.

The west facade, the windows, uh the west facade metal work.

Oh, that's another one.

There was metal work and a knee wall added um to the side of the building there.

Uh the rear facade, rear facade and the gate, which was also added.

There's that knee wall, which makes no sense to any of us.

We don't know why that was even put there, other than they wanted to create some kind of uh view of the bay and and accentuate the bay by putting that there, otherwise it doesn't really make any sense.

And that's it.

There I did it in two.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um, so what we're gonna do is I'm gonna go to the two speakers.

What I'm gonna ask though, um, Miss Brown, would you mind moving over here?

And then we'll give the applicants this seat, and then that way we have another spot for the chair when we get back to questions.

With that, Madam Clerk, can you please call the first speaker?

Susan Horn.

Okay, Miss Horn, if you want to come to the podium right over here.

We we can wait until the speakers finish it.

Sorry, and the replacement is hampering me a little.

Would you further to sit?

Would that be?

No, I'm okay.

Um, I chair the uh my name is Susan Horn.

I chair the long name commission, we call it finally.

But it is the uh restoration and preservation commission chartered by the city and the state.

We overlap in terms of our mission to preserve and restore the old town.

Uh one of the we do a lot of education and intend to do a great deal more about our architecture here and the cultural heritage.

We hold historic easements as well.

Most of them are in the old town.

Something I would say about this building is that it has gone through many iterations.

As you were told, it was a two-story building with a different roof.

Now it's a three-story.

It moved from being a Greek revival to being a Victorian.

It's got a lot of um character and a lot of scars here and there, but it is what it is.

To dress it up and make it something it's not, I think would be inappropriate.

I did watch the uh hearing that the BAR held on December, I think it was four.

Something in there.

Anyway, um, it impressed me that the applicant kept asking them to deny his appeal so he could come to you.

That struck me as a bit of gamesmanship.

The staff and the BAR both have quite a bit of expertise.

They've gone out of their way to make it possible for him to make this building functional once again.

As I say, it's had many careers.

I think it was even um the home of a Methodist minister at one time, owned probably by the Washington Street Methodist Church.

But I'm I probably our commission might not be in support of every thing the bar does or says.

But basically, we are in support.

You've got them for a reason and have appointed members on that or that have expertise.

You have a city architect, they have all worked hard.

And I think you need to listen to them and not be put in the position, as you would be in this case, of denying what they've had to say in order to accommodate a businessman who is um bent on having what he wants.

And I'll make one inappropriate comment.

Oh, and I was just about to tell you.

But what I'd like to add, if you want to have a look at something that this applicant has already done, go to the 800 block of Prince Street.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate your time, Ms.

Horn.

Thank you.

Um I have on my list one other person there.

There is a Romana Sanchak.

Oh, then who's Susan Horn?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I it's normally listed.

I'm I'm sorry.

Okay.

That is the last speaker of the public hearing.

Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?

No move.

There has been a motion by Councilman McPike and a second by Councilman Al Nuby to close the public hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

With that, I'm gonna ask the applicant to come to this um table, and then I'm gonna ask uh Chair Scott to come to the podium.

And I'm gonna open it up for questions from my colleagues, and just you know, let us know who you're addressing your question to.

I'm gonna start with Councilman El Nubi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

My question is to staff um about the staining.

Tell me a little bit more about the staining, because as I look around the block, as the applicant was speaking, as you were speaking, I'm looking around Google Map, and there are all sorts of paints and types of paints and colors around the block.

So there's a yellow building right across the street, as he showed and I was seen on Google Maps.

So explain to me why these buildings allow to do that, but now he wants to stain the building, and we're telling him he can't do that.

Um I have to look at each individual one to see if they were done prior to um part of the district or sometimes they were done originally.

Um it's hard to say without without knowing the the history of each individual one.

Um but we do take these on a case by case basis, and and that's our best practices are to not change the character of a building through paint or stain if if we can, particularly on a historic building like this.

Um it's not really about the building's not historic buildings.

All those buildings, the block not historic.

Oh no, they are, they very much are.

And if if I was asked today, could you paint them?

If if I if they were unpainted now and it was asked today, could you paint them?

I would say no.

Um it's the fact that they are painted, I I'd have to find out when it happened and whether they were approved or what that history is, but it it it I can't go backwards to try to look at those, and it's not I don't really think it's about the the context and like well, if everything else is painted, this one should be too.

I think we're trying to look at this, the the integrity of this building on its own, and we're trying to look at um you know what's the historic character of it, and we try to protect it as best we can.

So it's not really like you know, oh, it's compared to the other ones.

It's really like what can we do for this this historic structure?

Okay, I got it.

Um, and we said he's your your recommendation is you're allowing him to stain the pieces that will be repaired, but can't stay in the whole building, correct?

Right.

That's yes, and it's it's just because um, you know, again, there are some broken bricks in there, and we've seen this done successfully where maybe you can't get the right color uh from the factory because it's this is an old building and it's got you know some very strange colors in it.

Um you can carefully stain it so that it blends in.

Um, and that's something you know we would absolutely work with uh with the applicant uh on during construction to make sure we can figure out how to make that happen.

And but that's we've seen it happen before, it can be done.

Um it you know, it is difficult, but it can be done.

We we think it's worthwhile.

Okay.

Um Del, before you continue, I'd like uh just a follow-up question.

On the other buildings that you're using as a comparison, do you do you have a sense of is it like one or two?

Or I'm just trying to get a sense of are we talking about like a lot of different bricks all over the place, or is it usually a small number where you're able to do that matching?

Typically it has normally this happens at the let the bottom of the building.

Um the where of the where towards the towards the bottom of the building is where we see sort of damage.

I mean, there's you know physical proximity to getting run into stuff like that.

There's also where from um the salt on the on the sidewalks that you're gonna see a lot tonight.

Um that tears up a buildings and things.

So it typically happens down low.

Um, and it does happen sort of in bands, so it's not like a one thing here, one thing there, it's kind of an area, if that makes sense.

Um, and again, sort of typically lower on the building.

In this case, though, for this building, would we be talking about the lower half?

Or are we talking about sort of all across the elevation of the building?

There is damage kind of uh all over it.

Um, but again, it is definitely the the damage that I've seen is definitely more lower.

Um, and it's but and it's not you know, I think I think a lot of this is gonna be uh can be dealt with just through cleaning cleaning the brick, you know, a very uh sort of gentle cleaning and restoration.

I think will handle a lot of this.

There's not a lot of broken stuff there.

There's a lot of stuff that maybe is loose, and you know, it's it's gonna be it's gonna be a matter of you know just getting in there and working on it.

And like I said, we we work with applicants all the time during construction to see just to make sure like how do they do it and you know, and we just and help them with things, and so we would be doing that here.

Okay, and then just and then I'll go back.

I know I interrupted you.

Um I think when I was listening to the applicant, they said uh stating the whole building if needed.

Do we have examples where we've worked through that construction process and we've given that flexibility, but then ultimately they do the washing that's not needing, and then this never is something we have to use.

No, I've never seen that.

It's it's we've always been able to do them sort of a piecemeal.

Um, and I've never seen we've never seen it have to have to do the entire thing.

Okay.

And you know, and again, but again, I I'm comfortable working with all of our applicants um, you know, in the field and and how getting through this.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Omnib.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And I appreciate it, Madame Mayor.

That's that's kind of what I was getting at, and and those were part of what I was trying to understand.

Um, I I think I I'm I I hesitate to restrict the applicant, and we get to a pro to a point where he really needs to stain and it looks ugly if it doesn't stain, or if he just stains a couple of bricks there.

I lean to give him more flexibility on that.

Um, I also feel it's kind of inconsistent where we're have all these colors around the block, and now we we're not allowing him to to stain um his his facade.

So that's kind of where how I feel about the staining.

Um I think the other piece we were talking about the the walls that used to be interior and now are exterior.

I mean, I think I agree with you.

You you just mentioned it very well.

Like these walls, honestly, they look ugly, they're very patchy, and I don't see anything historic about them.

Um, so I'm I'm kind of in agreement with you, and I probably would go as far as you know, um, just letting him paint all three exterior walls, um, southwest and um and southwest and east.

Yep.

And that's it, Matterman.

Thank you.

Um, other comments or questions?

Councilman Chapman, and then councilman O'Neaby.

I'm right.

Councilman McPeck.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I'll extend kind of the conversation that we're just having now.

So um for staff, as we talk about the uh uh west elevation, and you've got kind of the concrete bits.

I think there was uh it showed our earlier on one of the slides.

I'm assuming that's gonna be brought in through restoration.

You're gonna bring that back to brick.

What is what is I want to very understand the very details of that type of restoration?

Yeah, I mean, it it's gonna depend.

And it's gonna some of this stuff is we really don't know until we start working on it to some degree.

Um, I um I would be concerned.

Um sometimes when you have a uh a concrete um wash on a building like that, it's almost impossible to remove it.

Um, and when you remove it, you damage the bricks to the point where it you should have just left it.

Um so uh it's gonna we'd have to work on it a little bit more and try to you know see how see how it goes.

Um I would be concerned about trying to just wholesale remove it um for that reason.

I think it might cause more damage.

So I want to understand what what's the applicant's um intent on on that side on that western elevation?

Yeah, dealing with the the concrete, yeah.

Is it staining?

I mean, what yeah, so effectively uh that's a good question, councilman.

Our approach is to um first clean, we've already done the masonry work to strengthen the brick.

So that that restoration work has been done.

The next step is to clean it completely from as much getting rid of as many dust particles as we can.

The next thing we would do is apply a sealant to strengthen it as even further as much as possible.

And then the last would be the paint.

So effectively the quote unquote existing patina, as far as the brick sort of work and as far as the brick, you know, um pattern will stay will be seen.

You'll still be able to see it.

It's just that now you'll it'll be a consistent um you know, paint color all the way across, uh, and a wall that just looks consistent.

So all of this concrete patching.

Um we go to that picture.

I'm sorry, didn't mean it's sure.

Can somebody go to that that picture?

I want to be very clear about what we're talking about.

Remote Yeah, here you go.

All right, let me go back to it.

I think I figured out how to use this thing now if you ever need any buddy.

All right, there we go.

So there's uh there might even be a better one.

Uh there we go.

All right.

So as you can see, we got paint, we got concrete, we got sandstone, we got a compound, we got basically we've got everything in his mother's brother's second cousin going on on this side.

And what we're looking to do is repair, restore, and um we've already replaced, so we've already placed all the missing bricks and everything else.

And we worked with Bill on that, by the way.

Uh in fix in uh replacing all the bricks and infilling.

Um and he was very seeing here.

Sorry, sorry to interrupt you, but is that what we're seeing here?

This is after the replacement of the case.

Oh no, no, that would be um, I think it's also we have a picture of that after we did all the repair on the side and the restoration of the brick.

Oh no, the windows.

Do we this is referring to the infill of the windows, which was approved by the board earlier on this year.

That's what that's what that's what they're referring to.

Well, there's between presentations, but I think staff also had a good picture that had the actually it's right there in the top right-hand corner, is probably the best.

That shows you where it is today after we've done the restorative work, um, the filling in of the bricks and and the filling in of the windows, and now we're ready to move to the next step, which is to prepare to create the consistency with the paint.

Um, but yes, that this, and by the way, by us replacing infilling these windows, we actually took it back to what it was previous to these windows post-1950 being installed to begin with.

So back to my original point about this, this this uh to your point, councilman.

This building has consistently and chronically in every single uh as we move from once through time, it's had seven or eight now um material substantive changes made to it.

It's just it was never it, you know, and that's why you see all of this with the brick.

And this actually is a good example of what we're talking about.

I am gonna cut you off because I I do want to get to a couple other questions.

I haven't I think you made your point.

I I want to go next to the BAR because I I want to understand from your your board's perspective.

Now that we're at this particular spot, what's the vision that you want to see for buildings that have this, right?

It's a party wall, you know, there's potential for future development that covers up whatever's here.

But what what is it that you want to your your board wants to see while this is in full view?

Yeah.

Uh councilman, I the board's general approach is that walls such as this one show the rich and um complicated history of the building.

And by painting it, you're essentially whitewashing, literally covering up the many decades, uh, more than a century of history of the building.

And so there are many examples across Old Town of buildings that have fading on them that were, you know, previously had letters on them and they're partly faded.

And so the general approach is uh painting unpainted masonry disguises or covers the the rich history of the building.

Um thank you all for for that.

And I I apologize for to my colleagues for extending that out like that.

I think the the one thing that I did want to touch on as well was if we could pull up pictures of um uh the roof, roof line, uh, if there's anything that we can show and show the public as we talk about that.

I think that is a kind of interesting conversation because uh as we know, particularly in this part of King Street, we have uh some simplistic to ornate roof lines.

Um I would um as we look at what the applicant is proposing, uh I have a little bit of hesitation on how ornate ornate we get.

Um obviously not everyone is staring at every roof line as they walk down King Street, and I understand that.

But what I'm seeing, or what I feel I'm seeing on King Street is you know, if there is um uh more than a basic roof line, it's not uh overly ornate.

Uh it is does have a simplistic style to it.

And so currently I'm I'm thinking I would hope that the applicant can work with staff to kind of um all more in line with that versus how ornate we're getting uh with that roof line.

I think even though the examples that were pointed out, um, such as the one across the street, uh and even uh of course the roof line next door aren't overly uh uh ornate, and I think uh it still allows a little bit of degree of creativity at the roof line.

I would not say that it needs to be some of these other ones that just have brick and maybe a uh white brick or something like that up there.

That's that's not what I'm saying.

I I think the um something more in line with what's across the street um uh could definitely work.

Um do we have uh any kind of history around uh metal work uh in Old Town or uh particularly on King Street, uh, because I I am while I just said this about the roof line, I do see the the opportunity to have if we have some history around it, some creativity around metal work.

Uh, because we do have that in other places uh in the city.

Uh frankly on King Street, if you go, I think it was a block up, uh, one of these pictures had the the railing uh for I believe it's the the chocolate lady.

Um I'm sorry.

I don't drink coffee, I like chocolate.

Thank you.

She's a chocolate lady.

All right.

Um but that particular um that particular building, we don't have a lot of um buildings that actually are going to have railings.

Uh most of them just have a straight frontage without that railing.

And so I think there is an opportunity uh to allow some creativity on the railing.

I think it gives a little pop to the building, but uh I would not want that to take away from the historic uh kind of value of that of that building.

I think we've seen uh obviously this is not exactly the same, but we've seen some of this in historic parts of Washington, TC in Georgetown.

Uh, you'll find that there's uh some creative metal work there that does not fall out of line with the historic character of the district.

Uh and so I would be open uh to that um as well.

Um in terms of in terms of staining of the frontage of the building, I'm not necessarily in favor of.

I think there is a uniqueness of the patina.

I do, however, side with I think the applicant, and this is why I'm struggling with this in terms of repair, uh, in areas of repair, that's gonna be that's gonna be tough to try to stain.

And I think a number of people have said it, try to have splotches here and there on the building.

Um I I want to see that as an all or none thing, but you know, if that's the case, I'm I'm leaning more on the side of none.

Uh, but I don't I don't want to see a splotchy building uh, you know, five, 10 years down the road, uh, because weather and whatnot has really torn away the building.

Um I think those are those are my thoughts uh for now.

I I would say this um last piece, and I think this is the challenge of the historic district.

Um I certainly understand owners want to have a uniqueness to their buildings.

I think that's the challenge of living in the historic district, right?

There is a certain expectation that frankly goes against that uniqueness uh to a certain extent.

Um so I think I'm sometimes challenged when we have these appeals when bar does come to the city to say uh there's certain levels to that uniqueness that I think are appropriate and not.

Thank you, Councilman Chapman.

Um, before I go to Councilman McPike, can I ask staff to put back the staff presentation and go to the slide that has sort of the um distinctions between the BAR and the staff?

Because yes, oh, slide nine, if we could have that up, because I think it'd be helpful.

I think there's a couple different places where it sounds like there might be agreement with staff in the BR and others where there might not be.

One question I had, Chair Scott.

Um, I know that we are looking at this building, like, and we are focused on the history of this building, but can you help me think through or better understand how does the BAR consider though how that building fits in with the rest of the surrounding area?

Uh the BAR does look at each building individually and tries to come up with an assessment of what's the right uh appropriate architectural character for that building.

Uh in general, uh you would you would want to ensure that the building is appropriate in height, mass scale, and general architectural character with the surrounding buildings.

Um with very historic buildings like this, the goal really is historic preservation.

If you're talking about a new build, for example, you might have a modern style, right?

A modern architectural style, and that would be fine as long as it meets meets those guidelines.

But in general, with very historic buildings like this, the goal is to preserve the history.

I can also address um your questions here.

The the modifications here were modifications that the staff has proposed to its own recommendations.

So the the board has no issue with these modifications.

We the way it was approved was we approved uh the application with staff recommendations one through eight, plus that issue of the painting.

But um, as to items three and four, uh it's just a modification.

I think the staff wanted to be clearer on what simplify means.

And there's there's no disagreement with the board on that.

Okay.

And then one, I guess this is a question for staff.

I think earlier we heard that this wasn't originally Victorian style, it was Greek revival style, and I think another style.

Why is staff's recommendation that it specifically match the Victorian style?

Yeah, it's a good question.

This is a this is actually a fascinating building, and and I I could talk, I could get way in the weeds on architecture geeky stuff, which I will not do.

I will not, I promise I won't do.

I promise I won't do.

This building has been heavily modified um over time.

But the the building you see that you see in front of you today came about in 1892.

In 1892, the building was changed from a two-story building to a three-story building that you see today.

So the we took we in a building like that that has changed, you have to identify what's the um what's the dominant uh uh style of the building.

And this is since 1892, it's been Victorian building.

So that is the dominant style.

So that's why we've selected that as a okay.

And I know um, sorry, Councilman Pike, I promise I'm going to you, but just here.

Um when the applicant showed us their new designs and a more simplified version for the rooftop.

Is that closer to Victorian style, or are we still some ways apart?

No, I think that's still um more Baroque.

Uh and the and what we're seeing here today is is so the applicant is correct.

We've early on in the project, they brought me something and it was much more, much more decorative.

It's it has and has settled down.

Has we've been working on it together, we've been working through it.

Um, and but it's still, I think, in my opinion, it is still not a Victorian style decorate, not a Victorian style, it's more, like I said, more like a Baroque or something.

Okay.

And then I know Councilman Chapman was saying that you know he might be more open to something more decorative on the bottom, but less on the top.

I guess as we've approved things like this, is it is in your um expertise, would I guess would the preference of staff be to have them the match and is the goal of similar styles?

Do we have examples where buildings have multiple styles?

I wouldn't want multiple styles.

I think you could go with um a level of simplicity.

You could you could say something that is more dense in one area than the other than the other.

Maybe it's you want them to be to talk to each other.

You want them to be the same sort of general style.

I mean, the whole point of this is we don't want, you know, four different styles of anything on this building.

We want them to be all compatible.

Um, I think you could look at it and say that there's a hierarchy in terms of um of complexity or things like that.

Um, and I think one thing to think about too.

Um, I did I mentioned from the design guidelines that um it talks about railings should be should be minimal, simple, minimal.

And that really is um so that you can see the building, you know.

If if if the railings are very dense, and this is this is across all styles.

If a railing is very dense, then you can't see the building, right?

The building is this is the historic part.

We want to see the building, we don't want to block it.

So um I think you know, if we could uh I would in my imagining of what this would look like, I would I could see something that's gonna be um um much more open.

I think the example that we looked at on that railing that had the sort of the round elements on it, it was very open, right?

You could still see the building, it still has that decorative thing, but you can see the building.

So I I in my imagining of what this looks like uh when we work when we work with the applicant, I see something still decorative, um more open than what than what the application is now, so you can see it a little bit better.

I think that's kind of what I'm thinking.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I guess just my two cents on this, so we can begin to move along.

Um, and you guys know where I'm I'm out of this.

I think I'm open to allowing the applicant um more flexibility on the staining.

I hear what you said about we've been able to do it in the past, but it just seems like this building has a lot of different areas that are gonna need work.

Um, I would be open to maybe some language that say as needed, so that we're not just doing it to do it, but you know, we are trying to do the best we can to match it there.

I think on the painting, um, recognizing that the side is gonna be covered up anyway, eventually.

Um a little more open to allowing uh the painting on the metal work.

Um I think there's uh I like the recommendation of maybe working with staff to get to some agreement.

I'm open to seeing something more decorative and and and innovative.

I I like the comment I heard about continuing to add to the history.

Um, but I do think we need to see some more designs there, and I think there's opportunity for staff to work together.

I've heard no one bring up the lights.

Um, so I'll just dive into it.

I um I I think the warm color range that has been agreed upon is appropriate.

If we are allowing sort of holiday lighting, I can get there with you.

I I worry that like we're opening this up to is that just which holidays and this and who's gonna enforce that and what does that look like?

So I have a little pause there, but um, I would be comfortable with the warm um color range.

Councilman Good Pike.

Well, we've had a lot of discussion uh since I raised my hand, which is no, no, it's great.

I appreciate beginning at getting things through.

Uh no, it's like so a lot of what uh a lot of what I have was going to raise has uh since been raised and addressed.

So I think it'd be to everyone's benefit if I went through all of it laboriously again.

Um so regarding the the railing, which is what I wanted to touch on.

It seems like you're you've made revisions to this uh to try to get closer to the Victorian style.

You don't think that they're entirely there.

I would like to see you all continue to to work on that.

I do think that the decorative approach that you're trying is appropriate, but I I think there's probably something there.

Uh I agree with the mayor on the staining um that we need to give the applicant more flexibility here given the condition of the front of the building.

Um and I do think that the painting of the uh east, west, and south should be allowed given the just sort of real complicated patchwork nature of particularly that western facade.

And on the lighting, I think I'm actually comfortable with what what the mayor just uh just said.

I do see that you know it is across the street from uh the Magnolia, which aside from City Hall is probably the most garishly lit uh building in the, you know, imagestic, sorry, uh majestic uh garsly lit building in this in old town, you know, in at various parts of the year.

Um, but I can understand not wanting to add more uh visual flair to the street.

I do think uh Councilman Newby raised an important point that there are like a lot of different colors of buildings uh in this area.

And also in my time on council, we've approved retroactively stainings of buildings from people who went and stained a building and then came back and was told they weren't supposed to do that.

And uh I appreciate that the app is actually doing this in the right uh sequence here and having this conversation with us before any uh stain has touched any masonry.

So I think that's kind of yeah, okay.

Well, I I appreciate you know the conversation, but that's kind of where I'm landing right now.

Um, is there any additional discussion or is there someone who'd like to move forward with a motion?

Oh um, Councilman Green, and then I think council uh councilman agarri.

Yes, I'm sorry, did we talk about um the rooftop signage and lights?

I don't believe anyone brought that up.

Yes, well, let's talk about the proposed rooftop signage, I guess.

I guess that's with lighting.

So that those lights are different than the flood lights.

Right.

Do you have um a position or specific questions you'd want one?

Yeah, um, could could we talk a little bit about um the applicant brought up the majestic signage, um, which I would imagine would be similar, but probably a little bit smaller, if I'm not mistaking, correct, Ms.

Diller?

Um right, that's a whole thing.

Um, so on that note, um, our signage, the majestic is gargantuan as it relates to signage on on King Street.

Our signage, what are we at two feet for that sign?

It's it's more like 18 inches.

So our sign is only like 18 inches, and the lighting we will use there will actually be less intensive than the flood lights.

The reason being is the floodlights have to have to have the lumens have to be higher to get up the wall.

On the on the lighting for the sign, it just needs to light that one wall.

So it'll actually be less intensive than the rest of the lighting.

Um, and then the sign, like I said, will only be about 18 inches on that knee wall.

And I just wanted to mention one other thing, which I which I neglected to mention previously in my commentary, um, which by the way, I have on video.

So if anybody wants to watch it, I have it.

Um, which is Bill and I and actually uh and Andy all agree on one thing 100%.

And and Andy's the one that's on the video that I have, so he'll be happy to see it if he wants to see it.

But uh what it says is he was a hundred percent correct, and I gave him credit and I said I've never heard anybody in a BAR hearing be as accurate as he was when he said that this is all a matter of subjective taste.

He literally used those two words, subjective taste.

And I can't agree with him more.

And uh myself and Bill, uh every time, I mean every other conversation we have is about the fact that this whole area and this whole arena of architecture is subjective, it's all about personal taste and and and you know, and considerations therein.

It it's a very, very part of the video actually has um you know um Bill in it as well because he had to correct a BIR member when he had to explain to them the Victorian is actually much is the one of the more ornate, if not the most ornate.

And in that same video, which was from the our December hearing, he actually said that it's a gray area.

And so literally he's right about all that.

So my point is we have a subjective gray area here because not only of the building's history and how much it's been changed and how many lives it's lived, but even the whole architectural style altogether is a big subjective gray area.

So I just want to mention that.

Thank you.

If anybody wants to see the video, let me know.

Thank you.

I'm gonna move us to Councilman Aguirre.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I'm gonna take a crack and make a motion uh on here after all of the discussion.

So I would move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions.

Uh number one, in regards to staining on the north, uh to reverse uh for number two, staining on the stones at entry to affirm uh for number three to simplify the metal work on the entry.

Uh to go with the staff recommendation, which is um to match Victorian style.

Um similarly with the design of the railings on number four to match the Victorian style for number five, uh the rooftop uh embellishment I would actually say to to work with staff further.

Uh I I don't know how I feel about 913.

So um, Madam City Attorney, would that just be modified to work with staff further or okay?

So um modified to continue working with staff on that one.

Uh for number six, uh to the proposed rooftop signage and lights be denied, uh affirm for number seven, uh flood lights will be a single color in the warm color range to affirm for number eight to revise the selection for the carriage lights.

I believe there was already concurrence.

Um affirm and then uh number nine, the denying of the painting on the east, south, and west elevations to uh reverse that in full so that he has the ability to do all three.

Okay, there has been a motion by councilman Aguirre and a second by councilman El Nuby.

Is there any further discussion?

Vice Mayor Bagley, Councilman Chapman.

Um thank you to my colleague for putting you know putting that motion on the floor.

Um I the current it the way the motion is currently positioned would affirm denying the rooftop signage and lights.

Where does that effectively what what happens then?

I mean, do we have an understanding then if it's denied, what is the condition that would you know exist denial?

It's just no sign.

There would be no there would be no sign, no light.

So just the roof as it's okay.

I didn't know if there was any like a particular word, you know, we're denying a particular sign or a particular, so they just there's they can put no signage and lights.

Um under this motion.

But they would still have the metal work that they're proposing on the one section.

And we actually have a sign on above the front door already.

This was for the roof for the rooftop.

Okay.

Um I'll I'll pause there in case there's any other discussion about the the contents of the motion.

Um I'm gonna go, Councilman Chapman.

I'll just say I can't make a motion, but I I would be open to seeing the rooftop signage and lights back, but depends on where my colleagues are.

Councilman Chapman.

Okay.

Um I'm not speaking to that, so uh I apologize to my colleagues hoping to continue that that part of the conversation.

I I was only going to uh sub put in a substitute motion um to affirm number one.

Um I think it's standing on for me, standing on the north elevation um has required it does not seem like the north elevation necessarily needs the same amount of work um that the east, west, and south need.

Um that's just judging from the pictures that I've seen.

Um somebody can interrupt me and tell me what's different, but also um affirming uh position on uh number five as well.

Um so substitute motion on uh number one and five.

Okay, um, councilman A Gary.

And just for clarification uh to my colleague, Councilman Chapman, uh, because number five is the metal work on the roof.

Yeah, let me buy nearly because I just just number one.

Um I think we we got to go place on five.

Okay.

Um I guess let me ask this before we move with a substitute motion.

Do you want to see if the motion maker is just open to a friendly amendment first?

No, if it dies, it dies.

Okay.

Uh well then do you have a second?

Okay, there's no second.

So that that has died.

We are back to discussion on the current motion, Vice Mayor Bagley.

Um I guess I'll I'll start by asking the move and the applicant and staff might need to respond to this, but on with regard to the proposed rooftop and signage, is there any opening to to do a modify language as well on that one to send that one back for discussion?

Because what I'm curious about and and staff and bar and applicant can address is the proposed rooftop signage and lights have been denied, but is there any other version that the parties might be amenable to councilman Gary?

I so I'll have to admit I'm not a big fan of trying to put lights up on the roof.

Um and as the applicant also shown, um, the visibility is is very minimal for most of the year.

Um I and I get where the applicant's coming from with putting the metal work on the top uh to try and bring some some additional aesthetic value to the building.

Um, and I'm in agreement with that.

Um, but then you're you're talking about putting a sign as well and with light, and I I feel that that's kind of jumbled.

And so that's why I I'm not in favor of the signage with uh with the lighting, but I am in favor of doing the metal work.

Okay, I I appreciate that.

Um I I think uh what I was seeking was just affirm to modify potentially to continue the conversation, but if the council's not interested in sort of any version of it, I can leave it there.

Um, we're in our discussion.

Thank you though.

Is there any further discussion?

Okay.

At that point, I mean at this point, there has been a motion and a second to reverse number one to affirm number two to modify to match Victorian style on number three to modify to match Victorian style on number four, to modify to work with staff on number five, to affirm number six to affirm number seven to affirm number eight and to reverse in full on number nine.

Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Akiri.

I councilman El Newby.

I mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

All right.

The ayes have it.

Thank you all for your time.

Madam Clerk, next item.

Development special use permit 2025-10030, 220 and 224 South Peyton Street.

Planning Commission Action Recommend Approval 7 to 0.

Okay.

Um just to give folks a sense of the rest of the afternoon.

We're going to get through 12 and uh 13.

Then we're going to take a lunch break and then we will come and tackle 14.

Um, so for number 12, do my colleagues need a presentation?

No.

Okay.

So then I'm going to go straight to the public hearing.

We still have one speaker.

We have two speakers signed up.

Madam Clerk, please call the first speaker.

Karen Griffin.

Okay.

Is Ms.

Griffin here in the room?

Do we have a Miss Griffin?

Okay.

Uh, Madam Clerk, please call the next speaker.

Applicant Lauren Riley.

Okay, then we're gonna start with the applicant, Miss Riley.

Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, members of city council.

Um if there are I do have our presentation.

The first 30 slides are the best, but if you if you would rather, I'm happy just to move into questions and answers given the the docket this afternoon.

Okay, let me look to my colleagues.

Is there anyone who needs a presentation from the applicant?

Okay.

Is there anyone who has questions for the applicant?

Okay, it's hearing none.

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

There has been a motion by Vice Mayor Bagley and a second by councilwoman Green to close the public hearing.

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

Approve.

All right.

Um we'll give me a second.

There's been a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

And there's been a second by councilwoman Green.

Any discussion.

Councilman Alnubi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Question for staff.

Um the park the this building residents will not be qualified for the residential parking permit, correct?

Correct.

Is this part of the conditions where the owner will let the residents know?

I worry about getting in a position where we were in before we had residents think that they are qualified for the RPP.

And then after they reach out to the city, they find out that they're not.

They already moved in.

It's too late.

So that's the scenario I'm trying to avoid here.

I have no problem with the parking reduction.

I think this is a great location right next to the metro, and people will choose not to have cars sometimes.

But I just don't want that to happen.

Um the uh the applicant has indicated that they will um notify any future tenants that there is no parking available and that they would not be eligible for on street parking.

So they there, but that's not in the conditions.

We have not conditioned it.

Paul Starter, happy to add on to that question.

I think what we're finding is that uh buildings without parking are fairly common occurrence uh in the old and historic district.

Uh and what we found over time is that uh having sort of a sort of a preponderance of of conditions actually makes them harder to implement and sometimes that the actual important information that gets lost or sort of buried in the in the in the noise.

Uh and so given that this is a common occurrence for buildings across King Street, uh I think staff's recommendation is is to work with the applicant to make sure they're notifying the applicants.

Uh I'm sorry, the the potential renters, but but not to sort of add it to the the entitlement of the project itself.

That's whole thank you.

Councilman.

Oh, thank you.

Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I I just want to uh going off that.

Um I want to start to understand, and and this doesn't have to be right now, but I would do want to understand what is our full vision as we see continued infill development in Old Town if we're if we're not uh accounting for parking.

Uh if um if we have other lots, uh parking lots and other things that we fill in that come forward without kind of a parking lot what's the what do we plan to do?

Are we are we thinking that we're gonna see a trend continue to focus towards more folks moving without cars?

Um, if that's kind of the goal here.

Obviously, there aren't a ton of lots that still need to do infill like that, but I just want to understand as we continue to see that.

Um I want to make sure I understand the full vision of where we're going because I I do recognize that you know, with some of the I think a previous project, we uh added additional kind of living units in there without kind of additional parking or uh accounting for that.

And so I want to understand what the vision is.

I think it's a good question.

The uh sort of what happens with development because folks are used to sort of new development goes up, people move in and more cars show up.

Uh and what we're finding is that that's not always the case.

Uh and and already uh the city has made changes over the last several years to step down uh the parking requirements in new development.

Uh for example in the enhanced transit areas, townhouses no longer require parking spaces, but we're finding developers actually still build them into their spaces and sometimes even two.

So uh I think what we're seeing is that uh builders have a good sense of of what folks are looking for as they move into different buildings.

I think the city's responsibility there is to make sure that we're managing the curb space properly, uh, so that we aren't having spillover parking, uh, and also to make sure that we're continuing to provide transit options, make sure we keep metro in good operation, make sure we're providing things like uh uh uh safe sidewalks, bike share, uh, and what we're seeing is just this general shift towards sort of shared mobility, uh and even people using things like Uber to get around versus owning the car.

Uh this isn't for today, but I hear the concerns that my colleagues are raising.

And I think one thing we don't often talk about is even some of like the enforceability of these things.

I hear staff saying we're gonna go back and work with the applicant, but I also know we don't have the capacity to go back and check every single notification that they do to their potential client.

So uh at some point I think we just want to think about kind of what's the expectation with even setting um and not setting up a process where um we're saying we're gonna do one thing and then we don't have the capacity to go back and do or enforce.

With that, there has been a motion by councilman Agiri and a second by councilwoman Green to approve development and special use permit number two zero two five one zero zero three zero.

Seeing no further discussion, Madam Clerk, this is a roll call vote.

Please call the roll.

Councilman Agearing.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Hi.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Chapman.

Aye.

Councilman El Nuby.

Aye.

Councilman McPike.

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next item.

Zoning text amendment twenty twenty five dash zero zero zero nine, commercial to residential conversion.

Planning commission action recommend approval seven to zero.

Do um folks need a presentation on this one?

No.

There are also no speakers.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

Councilman Gary.

Move to uh approve item thirteen.

There has been a motion by Councilman Agarry and a second by Councilman McPike to approve zoning tax amendment number two zero two five zero zero zero zero.

Sorry.

I should start wearing my glasses.

Nine.

Um is there any discussion?

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

Please call the roll.

Councilman Aguirre.

Councilman McPyke.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman L.

Newby.

I Councilwoman Green.

Hi.

All right.

The ayes have it.

Um, as I said earlier, we're going to take a recess and go to lunch until one o'clock.

Is there a motion for us to go to recess?

Numbers.

Is there a motion by uh Councilman Green and a second by Councilman L.

Newby to go to recess until one o'clock.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are now in recess.

All right, good afternoon, everybody.

It's one oh four.

Is there a motion for the council to return from recess?

Anyone?

Is there a motion to come back from recess?

Second.

There's been a motion by Councilman and Carey.

And a second by Councilwoman Green.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

We are now back.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Master Plan Amendment 2025-0004 Green Building Plan Planning Commission Action Adopt Resolution 7 to Zero.

Okay, we are going to begin with a staff presentation, and then we will go into the public testimony.

Mr.

Freed.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

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

I'm here to talk to you today about the Green Building Plan, a new chapter in Alexandria's Master Plan.

So why are we talking to you about this?

Um this plan is about improving the re improving the resilience of our community, um, making us resilient to more intense storms, more heat, uh, making us resilient against rising utility costs and aging utility structure, infrastructure, and helping us achieve the city's climate goals.

Um note is this is our approved environmental action plan 2040, which is driving the development of the green building plan, including our commitment to have a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 50% by 2030 and 80 to 100% by fiscal year 2050.

Um, included in this plan is also the commitment uh to achieve net zero new construction in Alexandria by 2030.

Climate change and community resilience are extraordinarily important parts of why the green building plan exists.

Um, why we're bringing this to you today.

Greenhouse gas emissions directly lead to climate change, which significantly impacts the resilience of our community.

Um, I'll talk about heat here, although it can't be lost on us that in a few hours we're going to have some snow that is also climate-related.

Um, but the slide here is from our energy and climate change action plan, which this council adopted, uh, or which a council, I guess not this one, uh, adopted a couple of years ago.

Um what this lays out is that it's getting hotter in Alexandria.

So previously we expected um about seven days to be at oh at 95 degrees or higher.

Um, by the 2030s, that's gonna nearly triple, and then by the 2050s, that's gonna be almost five times more days over 95 degrees in the summer.

Um that doesn't just mean it's hotter, it means that it's more dangerous.

Um heat is dangerous for our community.

Um, it's dangerous for people who are who have substandard housing or have no housing, it's dangerous for folks who can't afford their utility bills.

Utility resilience is another very important reason why we have to focus on the built environment when we're talking about the when we're talking about the green building plan.

Grid reliability from storms and heat.

Well, we will lose electricity in Alexandria because of storms, whether it's heat because we're having increased use, increased demand, or it's storms that are ice and causing our infrastructure to fall.

Um, Dominion's latest integrated resource plan called for doubling the generation that they need in 20 years.

Um, and all in all, this reduces our grid reliability.

Um we're already seeing that our grid operator has a hard time buying enough energy, securing enough energy to make sure that we can be reliable now.

Um, and in the next 20 years, that's only going to get worse.

So the biggest thing we can do is make sure that we're not wasting energy when we don't need to be wasting energy.

The purpose of the green building plan when we were designing this was in addition to meeting those goals and hitting those targets, was to really change the way that we regulate.

So the green building plan is an improvement upon the 2019 green building policy.

In developing this plan, we did it by focusing on the key metrics energy use, air quality, and resilience.

We wanted to reduce, remove costly certification requirements like LEED and other certifications.

And we wanted to provide some regulatory certainty.

So this plan, as you'll see as we go through this, makes clear what it is the city's asking for in achieving these goals, and it helps speed along and expedite development reviews in line with the city's one star initiative.

This plan has been developed through a pretty long process.

We started meeting with an advisory group that included the development community, members of the environmental policy commission, the planning commission, land use attorneys, architects, engineers, environmental advocates, and others.

We launched that in March of 2024, so nearly two years ago.

In April of 2025, we released our first initial draft of the Green Building Plan and then had many, many meetings, including with the Environmental Policy Commission, the Planning Commission, and then lots of meetings with NAOP and land use attorneys and other developers throughout the time.

The Green Building Plan, when it was developed, as we said, we wanted to focus on the key metrics, the things that matter.

So these are there are three major topics energy use intensity, renewable energy, and electrification.

And then there are some additional resilience provisions that we discussed that I'll get into through the presentation.

Energy use intensity is a simple measure of site energy use.

So what you do is you take the energy that's being used, you convert it to British thermal units, and you divide it by the square feet of the space, and that gives you a number.

That's your energy use intensity.

The table that you see here are the recommended EUI targets that we've set for the green building plan.

The benefit of energy use intensity is that it allows for adjustments over time.

So if we believe that the EUI should be 38 now, as technology, as construction techniques, as other things change, those numbers can be dialed down and dialed in.

It also focuses on what matters.

So in contrast to the current policy, which has lead requirements, which does have some focus on energy efficiency and energy performance.

This focuses exclusively on energy performance rather than that broader focus of sustainability.

When we were developing these UI targets, we went through a rigorous process.

We started with work from the Pacific Northwest National Lab by helping us build some prototype models, looking at what code would be, looking at Virginia Broadly buildings and what prototype buildings would we could expect from the various codes.

We also had Cadmus group build models for us that would look at both the possibility and cost of having a reduction of 10, 15, and 25% from code.

And then we looked at some actual properties.

So Washington, DC, I'll have some examples in here from buildings there.

They have actual energy use that is reported annually to their office of environment, office of energy and environment.

And we have information from those buildings that we can provide.

And then in Alexandria, we have code and development application submissions that we're using where we've seen energy models that have been submitted to the city, and we'll share those with you.

These are some of those.

So this is an example.

I have three slides of examples.

So I will go through these relatively quickly because I know we have a lot of speakers on this topic.

All of that to say that these are all examples of submissions that have been given to the city about energy models and where we expect these properties to be.

Some of these are a little more specific, like 5001 Eisenhower because it's at a permit stage.

Others of these are in a more concept phase, and that's okay.

Ultimately, what staff is asking for with this is that energy becomes a consideration and a priority in design at the outset rather than energy becoming a consequence of design.

We want to make sure that when we're building buildings, when we're designing buildings, that we hit this concept stage and we say we want to see highly performing buildings, and not as those changes get made to that design, we want to understand what the impact is on energy.

So it's not just a consequence of what happens to the project.

There are a few other examples here of particular note is in the middle here, Eisenhower Block 20 at 2250 Dock Lane.

This is a large building, a tall building.

26 stories in Alexandria, almost 500,000 square feet and a little over 440 units.

It achieved at permit 40.1 UI, that's higher than what staff is recommending at a 38.

Um, but um, that was without a requirement of having without an EUI requirement, they were able to achieve a 40.1.

There are other projects that have not achieved or are not designed to achieve a lower EUI.

In North Potomac Yard, there are three examples here of 48, 44, and 42, and then and landmark mall redevelopment.

There are two projects that are higher than that at 49 and 52.

Um, I will say we have not dove deeply into either of those projects.

These we were asked to include these slides to make sure that there were there was a well-rounded approach of this from the development community to fully understand why those target buildings are at a higher target.

But all that to say is there are certainly buildings that are built that are not achieving where we would want them to be at the lower EUI of 38 for staff's recommendation.

But we believe that they can, and we believe it's important that they do.

We also provided some examples from DC.

If you look at the green building plan, you'll also see in the appendix there's a list of 11 or 12 buildings.

This is a small example of those buildings.

But there is an example of many buildings from DC.

The largest building here, the Aloom in the top right of the slide, is a 750,000 square foot building and 12 stories tall, 756 units.

So it's a very dense building.

And their actual energy performance has them at a 35 UI just across the river in DC.

When we looked at the DC benchmarking, so DCs are really great that they're so close to us because obviously they're in the same region.

So we have the same climate as DC.

They have a really great information on their buildings.

So for years, buildings have been required to submit their full energy information to the district annually.

So there were 28 buildings that we looked at, and this was all of the buildings that were six stories or taller, built since 2019 and that are in compliance with the DC benchmarking law.

And this is from the 2023 data.

And it's important that we list that it's in that they were in compliance with the law because this means that it had been reviewed and approved by a third party.

So that so the data is accurate.

The average EUI of all of those buildings built since 2019 was a 43.8.

So that exceeds the 38 target that staff is asking for.

But if you take out the bottom 25% performing, so the seven worst performing buildings of that, that average comes out to a 38.8 EUI.

So very close to the target that staff is asking for.

Importantly, their multi-unit residential building, whereas our staff's recommendation is 38.

Montgomery Counties is 37.

And again, this is for all buildings over 25,000 square feet.

So by 2036, existing buildings, existing multifamily properties in Montgomery County, Maryland have to achieve a 37 EUI.

And then as a reminder, um, the EAP directs us to have net carbon neutral buildings by fiscal year 2030.

Um, the new buildings institute, uh very well respected uh nonprofit that focuses on new buildings and energy use, um, recommends that mid-rise apartments be at a 24 EUI and high-rise apartments at a 29 EUI to hit those zero energy targets.

Um, they would still be using energy.

One of the reasons they encourage low energy use is because the more efficient your building is, the less renewable energy you need to hit that net zero target.

So that's EUI.

Um, the other major topic that we discussed in this is renewable energy.

Um, renewable energy is important to make sure that we have locally produced clean energy in our community.

New developments are using more energy, and our grid is currently quite dirty.

Um, Dominion Energy has not made it, has made has been required to meet renewable energy standards, but has not indicated that they will do so.

Their latest IRP does not make staff confident that Dominia is going to achieve its Virginia Clean Energy Economy Act requirements.

That said, staff is asking for 3% energy produced on site to help offset both the increased energy use from new development and the increased dirty energy.

We've also recommended that there be a clean energy fund created.

So if for some reason the developer decides they can't or don't want to add solar to that property, they would make a contribution to the city not to exceed 150,000.

Um there's a whole calculation there from the green building plan about how we get to that number.

Um, but basically we've looked at benchmark costs of what it takes to install solar energy on a building and then divided that, um, multiplied that out based on 3% of their property.

Um for most properties, that will be 150,000 or less.

Um, for some of the larger properties, that 3% would probably exceed that 150,000, but to be in line with other contributions and just trying to set a uh some sort of benchmark after conversations with the development community, we set a cap of 150,000, again, helping provide some of that regulatory certainty.

Final topic is electrification.

Um, there has not been a lot of discussion about this.

Um, generally uh the city already has most interior units.

Most most units are almost all electric in Alexandria already through conditions and through conversations with the development community.

There are a few exceptions, and those continue with the green building plan.

Amenities like fireplaces and grills or commercial kitchens are not areas where we see massive increases in electrification yet.

So staff still allows those as a as exceptions in the green building plan.

Commercial and centralized laundry and hot water, those are very high energy users, and switching those to electric can cause complications and it's they're not always as efficient as non-electric uses.

So we allow those.

You have had come before you numerous times dedicated outdoor air systems as an exception.

And because those have come to you so frequently, we decided to add them for now into the exception list to add those in.

And then, of course, emergency generators, because there is not a good alternative for long-term energy backup generation that's not fossil fuel.

There are some additional green building provisions that are included in here.

So part of moving away from the lead certification or the other green building certifications means that all of those broader sustainability things would be lost.

So some of those we added back into the green building plan.

Most of them are fairly inconsequential.

Energy and water meters allow the building owner to understand the aggregated energy use in the property so they can diagnose and take action on when energy spikes, they know more information about it.

Indoor and outdoor water conservation, obviously, because we want to reduce the energy and water that's being used, water is one of the biggest energy users that exists to create clean water.

So irrigation, whether it would whether it's outdoor for irrigation or it's indoor for all of your indoor uses, that also has a big energy impact.

EV charging infrastructure has been a requirement in standard conditions.

We're adding that into the green building plan to remove it from the standard conditions list to make our holistic approach here.

And then adaptive reuse flexibility.

We agree with staff that adaptive reuse is great.

So make building conversions are great, use of space and it's great for the environment.

So we provide additional flexibility for those properties that would be seeking to do conversions from office to residential.

Planning staff did approve a recommend approval of the green building plan seven to zero, but they recommended some changes.

The first is that small projects, we have a small project exception in the green building plan.

Ours was that those are projects that are four units or less and 25,000 square feet or less were exempt from portions of the green building plan.

Planning commission asks to move that to 10,000 square feet, which staff believes is a perfectly acceptable change.

They've also asked that the climate action office be directed to create a development review process and periodically update the green building plan's application in the process.

Staff is fine doing that.

We do that as part of our nature of doing business with the planning and zoning team and others to make sure that we're always having the best implementation process we can.

And under the direction of Director Stoddard and the One Start Initiative, that process has been improving dramatically through time.

They've also asked that we have future updates, that every two years we bring this back to council and the planning commission to address where those numbers ought to be.

So if we whatever numbers council approves in the green building plan, that two years we come back to council and look at those.

We think that's absolutely fine.

That's part of why we've developed the framework the way we have is that it gives council a lot of flexibility.

Um, that if something comes up, if new technologies come in, or if you know dramatic changes happen elsewhere that cause council to want to make changes to this, it can without having to adopt an entirely new policy.

You can make specific adjustments to specific provisions.

Um in the electrification, they've added, they ask for adding a sentence that we would allow on-site combustion or that on-site combustion is prohibited to explicitly say that rather than just leading with the exceptions, which staff is fine adding that language.

And then with EV charging, they've asked that the climate action consider emergency management implications when we have EV charging to make sure that we're talking with the fire department and others on that, which we absolutely are fine with doing.

There were three other recommendations from the planning commission where staff um they recommend changes from staff's recommendation and staff is still supporting our initial recommendation.

The first is for multi-unit residential with the EUI.

Planning commission recommended a 30 UI considerably lower than staff's 38.

Um, staff believes that 38 is a good place to start with dialing in these numbers.

Um, we'd note that changing our framework of approach of how we look at green buildings is a new thing.

Um, and what we think is the most important is that we're changing the way that buildings are designed.

We're changing the priorities, we're changing the intent, the way that they look at these projects, and starting that number a little higher is fine in order to help the development community get there to make sure that that priority remains there.

It should be noted that either of these in staff's estimation still is mitigating the impact of development.

Um, so whether that number is at 38 or 30, um, we believe that's still a legit, those are legitimate numbers for the city to put those numbers in.

Um so either of those, either of those meet the requirements there.

Um for renewable energy, there are a couple of things here.

So staff recommended 3% on-site renewable energy or that contribution to the clean energy fund capped at 150,000.

Planning Commission's recommendation was that that number increase to 5% on night on site, and then they eliminate the clean energy fund, meaning that every building would need to have renewable energy on site.

Staff is very um committed to the idea of having that clean energy fund as an option for developments that either can't or have other reasons that they don't want to install solar energy on site, and that money being able to be used elsewhere in Alexandria to make to reduce energy burden either or tax burden by putting it on city facilities.

And then finally, net zero energy.

The planning commission asked us to include an industry recognized net zero standard.

Um, staff's definition of net zero is designed exclusively because of ACPS and the city's challenges with meeting the net zero requirements.

Net zero only applies to public facilities.

So the city and school buildings are the only ones this applies to.

Our definition allows us to install solar panels on our property or other properties that we own.

Um to hit that net zero standard.

Um, industry recognized net zero standards allow you to buy energy not just off site on another site, but let you buy energy from the grid or from other entities.

Um, we believe that the intent of the net zero energy requirement in the green building policy currently is that we would have renewable energy on site.

Um so this allows us to do that, but it allows us the new definition does allow us to avoid some of the challenges that we had with ACPS at Minnie Howard and Douglas MacArthur, um, where they hit uh requirement where um Dominion is charging an exorbitant fee for interconnection.

Um this would allow them to go up to the level that Dominion would allow before charging that interconnection fee and then put solar on other school properties in order to meet that 100% renewable energy requirement.

Um, same is true for the city's um intent with City Hall.

Um we cannot put enough solar panels over um City Hall or on Market Square to cover the full use, the energy use of City Hall.

Um, we wouldn't be allowed to even if we could, um, but but we can't do that.

It's not possible.

Um, but we will install solar panels elsewhere throughout the city on city properties in order to meet that 100% renewable energy standard.

So staff wants to maintain our definition.

Ultimately, we think it's important that the built environment be considered when we're talking about energy use and energy performance.

We want this to be a high priority in developments as they come forward.

Um, buildings are not just impacting the people who live, work, or use them.

It's impacting the entire community.

So, as a new development comes in, it impacts the reliability, the resilience of our entire community, our region, our grid.

Um, and you think it's important to that.

We also want to create a policy that encourages development that brings people and improves the sustainability of Alexandria.

Um, this is in sure to make sure that we can also adjust this through time and that council has a lot of flexibility.

So that is the end of our presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Does anyone have any quick questions for staff before we go to the public hearing?

Okay, with that, we are going to go right into our public hearing.

We have 28 speakers signed up.

So I want to let people know in advance that when the button goes, when the weather goes off, I will stop you in love, but we will we will stop.

Um, unless there are clarifying questions.

Lots of love.

Um, but we are um everyone has three minutes.

If you were not here earlier, this is the podium uh where you will speak from.

And there is a little uh ticker at the front to help you keep track of time.

So with that, Madam Clerk, can you please call the first speaker?

Melissa McMahon.

Hey.

Good day, Mayor Gaskins, Vice Mayor Bagley, and members of city council.

My name is Melissa McMahon, and I serve as chair of the planning commission.

Under the provisions of section 9.05 of the city charter, the planning commission may adopt amendments to the city's master plan and submit to you such revisions as changing conditions require.

The proposed amendment before you today will create the green building plan chapter of the city's master plan.

After years of work, the Department of Planning and Zoning and the Office of Climate Action presented recommendations to the planning commission at our public hearing on January 6th, where public testimony and written comment were considered.

Of the nine modifications to staff's original proposal, which the planning commission has put forward in our resolution, we would like to emphasize the importance of the following to meeting established city goals.

An EUI of 30 for new multi-unit buildings.

Renewable energy generated on site at 5% of demand.

The elimination of the clean energy fund and language directing the OCA to review these standards every two years.

Our approach to evaluating the proposed green building plan was informed by community efforts over the last seven years, including development in Alexandria since inception of the green building policy in June 2019.

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets adopted in the July 2019 Environmental Action Plan 2040.

Council's October 2019 resolution declaring a climate emergency, which accepted the science, acknowledged the differential impacts on marginalized populations, and committed to a citywide just transition across all sectors of the community.

In February 2022, the Planning Commission, Environmental Policy Commission, and Transportation Commission issued a joint letter to Council advising steps that should be taken to address the climate emergency.

In February 2023, the Planning Commission and Environmental Policy Commission issued another joint letter to Council, which advocated to update the green building policy specifically and provided a strategy to do so.

In May 2023, Council adopted the Energy and Climate Change Action Plan.

And in June of last year, the Planning Commission wrote to the Office of Climate Action with recommendations to improve the green building policy.

Our final resolution does not veer from that course.

Evocative discussion in our discussion was Commissioner Lenahan's reference to the health revolution spurred by the Catalytic Converter and the Clean Air Act of 1970 against industry protest and the enormous changes to building industry practices that came out of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Today we take these rules for granted.

Car manufacturers and builders know no other way to do business.

Issues of equity and resilience resonated with the Planning Commission purpose.

Better buildings today make a safer, stronger, healthier, and fairer tomorrow.

Your planning commission, besides me, includes three practicing architects, a fire professional, a businessman, and a lawyer, each of whom voted in favor of the resolution, not by dismissing the magnitude of the challenge.

Thank you so much.

Can you give us one last sentence?

But acknowledging the proof before us that these changes are feasible, the need is real, and the time is now.

Thank you, Ms.

McMahon.

Thank you for your service.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

AB Choi.

All right.

Good afternoon.

I'm back to share Yimbies of Nova's perspective on the green building plan.

So first, um, I will share our overall perspective on the environmental impacts of buildings.

Um, energy efficiency is very important and it's certainly a component of housing affordability.

And it's also important to bear in mind that we need to build homes in our region in order to address our regional housing shortage.

And it's much better for those homes to be built here in Alexandria, where we have walkable neighborhoods and access to quality transit than to instead be built on forest or farmland in our exurbs with long commutes by car and car-oriented lifestyles generally.

So we believe that the right outcome for the green building plan is for lots and lots of energy efficient homes to be built here in Alexandria.

Our letter has the full details of what we're asking for and why.

Uh, so I'll just share a few highlights.

Our first and most important ask is that you adopt staff's recommendations for EUI and renewable energy, at least for high-rise apartments.

One of the best things our city can do for the environment is to build dense, tall apartments near transit hubs.

Um, and our understanding is that high-rise buildings generally have higher EUI and have much less roof space per household.

Next, flexibility.

We really appreciate that the plan provides specific flexibility for adaptive reuse developments.

And we're asking you to also provide that specified flexibility to housing built without parking or with very little parking.

This is because parking free or minimal parking housing is great for the environment, and also because it's our understanding that parking garage space lowers a building's EUI.

And in general, um, when implementing the plan, we are asking you to err on the side of flexibility to allow much needed housing.

Next, review.

Uh, when staff is reviewing the impact of the plan every couple years, we ask that that include planning and zoning staff to review the impact on development and look at whether other requirements that we have on development are making it more difficult to meet the green building plan requirements, and then take a serious look at adjusting those so we aren't reliant on exceptions to policy to build housing.

Last, I want to highlight our ask to change EV charger requirements to a percentage of built parking spaces rather than required parking spaces.

So we aren't penalizing seeking a parking reduction.

In closing, we appreciate your willingness to consider our asks and to think beyond the building about being a green city in a green region.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Savannah Circo.

Good afternoon, Mayor Gaskins, Vice Mayor Bagley, and City Council members.

My name is Savannah Stierko, and I live in Old Town, and I'm a volunteer with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

I'm here today to ask you to adopt the green building plan as proposed by the city's planning commission.

I'm very concerned about the effects of climate change and how the city will be able to meet its goal of reducing emissions 50% by 2030 and at least 80% by 2050.

2030 is four years away.

Now is the time for bold action.

I first moved to Northern Virginia in 2007 and have lived here most of my life.

I have been genuinely scared, witnessing the increasingly disrupted and hot weather patterns we've had in recent years, and disappointed by the lack of leadership in this region.

Now September is typically just as hot as the peak of summer, and I'm watching my electricity bills rise, both from increased AC usage and increased energy costs driven by data centers.

The planning commission's proposal for the green building plan gives me some hope because it takes concrete action to ensure emissions are being reduced and energy bills are buffered from projected increases in the coming years.

The more stringent energy use intensity requirements, the increased on-site renewable energy requirement, and the removal of the option to pay into a glee clean energy fund in lieu of installing renewable energy ensures builders, builders are actually being part of the effort in emission reduction now, rather than more promises that may not come to full fruition in the future.

Again, 2030 is four years from now.

How close is the city to achieving its climate goals?

Let's not let this opportunity be another that we kick further down the road.

Let's take decisive action now.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for being with us today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Bill Pugh.

Sorry.

Madam Clerk, mine has uh Seth Hill.

I'm sorry, good afternoon.

My name is Seth Heald.

I'm a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club Potomac Region Group and speaking on behalf of the group.

Uh I'm here today to urge council to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations in total.

And I want to particularly focus on the energy usage, energy energy use intensity number.

Uh we strongly support the number 30 that the planning commission has recommended.

I think it's important that when we adopt the plan that we not just try to match where we are now, but that we actually be a little ambitious.

And from the numbers that the staff presented, it's clear that uh buildings are being built today, uh, well under 30.

And so uh I I think given that we're in a climate emergency that this council recognized years ago, that's not getting any better.

We have a federal government that's working to make it worse.

Uh so the time is now for cities like Alexandria to take bold steps and to uh enact and accept a building plan along the lines of what the uh commission recommended.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Bill Pew Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

Um thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm Bill Pugh.

I'm speaking on my own behalf as a resident and also a parent of daughters who will have to face the climate crisis.

I ask you to vote in support of the proposed building plan and the planning commission recommendations for strengthening it, particularly the 30 EUI number.

First, I just want to say how fortunate I feel to live in a community that takes climate change seriously.

Elected officials, staff, board and commission members.

I appreciate all your work.

I'll focus my remarks just on the shared commitments that Alexandria in the broader region have made towards green buildings by 2030.

And there are other speakers who address um the what's already being built here in the region and elsewhere that meets what the planning commission has uh recommended.

So in 2019, the environmental action plan, um, ensure that all new construction is carbon neutral by FY2030.

In 2020, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, on which Alexandria is represented, adopted a its climate plan stating all jurisdictions will need to implement building codes that require net zero energy standards in new construction by 2030.

We also cited the Alexandria's updated climate plan, which said that 95% of all new housing needs to be built with high energy performance by 2030.

Note that all these efforts had broad community involvement, including stakeholders from business, development, and and housing interests.

As everyone has noted so far, 2030 is not far away.

Also note that none of these plans can get achieved if any sector doesn't do its part.

So that transportation, the electrical grid, our way system, existing building owners.

So everyone is being asked to step up.

We're not singling out the building industry here.

All of us are doing our part, are being asked to do our part.

And that's the only way that we can meet these climate targets.

Regionally, Arlington County, Montgomery, DC, all have standards for high performance new buildings, and they're moving towards stronger ones too.

Fairfax, Falls Church.

They also have in their climate plans achieving more cleaner, healthier, energy efficient buildings.

So I'm really excited about the Green Building Plan and the and the great work that Planning Commission has done.

We can do this.

And the region is moving in this direction.

So I thank you for your work and ask you to really consider the hard work that Planning Commission and staff have done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Kathy Hilckstraw.

So good afternoon, uh, Madam Mayor, uh, Madam Vice Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Kathy Oakstra, and I'm here in my personal capacity.

So I could make uh a moral judgment about this uh process about protecting the future for our kids.

I can make a budgetary argument about why do we spend money for all these plans and emergency declarations, et cetera, if we're not going to um take them to heart and adjust accordingly.

Um but I know with our most recent mayor, we like to focus on data-driven stuff.

So that's what I'm gonna focus on today.

So uh many of the developers will probably argue about the additional cost in order to accommodate a 30 EUI.

Um, but nobody, I don't think, but I would love you to ask them, has gone through and established a specific 100% complete architectural drawings for a building that is a 30 EUI.

But on the other hand, what you do have is something we have been talking about for four years now, and those are all the buildings that have actually been designed and built with a EUI of 30 or less in DC, as uh Mr.

Freed talked about, uh, in Philadelphia, which the Build Our Future Guys did uh webinar on that, up in New York, another webinar, etc.

So my question is why would you think that it was a good idea to adopt something that is fictional versus something that is fact-based that you can see?

So, you know, that that would be my main question.

Um I I strongly urge you to adopt what the planning commission has done when it comes to an EUI of 30.

And uh if you aren't going to do that, um, I guess I anticipate from very specific reasons from you as to why you would differentiate from what the planning commission has done, because I'm not aware of uh any city council meeting that has gone contrary to a seven to zero planning commission meeting, but I like to hear about that if that's the case.

Thanks very much.

Thank you so much for your time.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Taylor Lott.

Okay.

Um then we will move to the next speaker.

Samantha Martino.

We have Samantha Martino.

Okay, Miss Martino, we are ready whenever you are.

Can you all hear me?

Ms.

Martina, can you hear us?

I can hear you.

Can you hear me?

She's speaking.

Oh, well, we can't hear her.

Something on our end.

Sorry, okay.

Okay.

We're gonna come back to her then.

Um and go to Mr.

Walls and then um staff.

I don't know if there's a way to like message her or anything.

We'll we'll I'll call her again next.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Walls.

Thank you very much, Mayor Gaskins and members of the of the council.

I'm Steve Walls.

My family and I live in Lynnhaven here in the city.

Um I'm speaking today on behalf of myself and on behalf of the Alexandria members of the Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions.

We are very concerned and and ask that you sub implement a strong ring building plan consistent with the council's previous declaration of a climate emergency.

We strongly support the planning commission's um recommendations, particularly the 30 EUI for multifamily buildings.

Um of the questions that you're faced with is again, is this really can can it be done 30 um EUI?

Staff presented information about what has been done in the District of Columbia.

There's been some points raised that we've heard that while these are no longer applicable standards because the increased ventilation requirements of the Ashray 60.5 standard and the Ashra 90.1 um energy standards mean that those buildings have to spend more energy on ventilation today.

Um I think that's true, but it's only part of a picture.

We need to look at the full picture.

The US Department of Energy specific Northwest National Lab can conducted technical analysis of the changes from the um 2018 to the 2021 um energy codes and then from the 2021 to the 2024 codes.

They found that in our climate zone, zone four, um uh multifamily housing um had a 10.05% reduction in energy use attributable to the changes in the building code.

So if you cherry pick one thing out, you say it's cost more effective.

But if you look at all 35 changes in that code that that affected energy, 29 saved energy and six caused the energy use to go in up increase.

The same for the 2020 um four code.

There were 54 changes that that um affected energy, 48 made the energies go down, and only um six expected the energy use to go up.

That again led to a 7.43 um reduct percent reduction in the site EUI.

So when we look at the examples of what's been done in Washington, DC, those are still very, very applicable to the question as to can we do that today?

Those buildings actually had a harder time of getting below 30 EUI than they would today under the new codes.

So if we if we say, oh no, those don't count anymore, this really undercuts that.

So with that, we ask that you um be strong today in and looking at this.

We ask that you consider that this actually lowers costs for um for consumers.

The American Council for Energy Efficiency Economy looked at the uh positive cash flow from having a mortgage in a more energy efficient building and for for um for multifamily um condos, they had an immediate positive cash flow or point one year positive cash flow.

So within two months, you're saving more than you're paying for.

So please be be strong.

Thank you so much for your time today.

Um were we able to get Ms.

Martino back?

Yes.

Okay.

Mr.

Martino, can you hear us?

Can you hear me now?

Okay.

Um can you hear me now?

And then we'll try again.

Um Madam Clerk, can you say the next speaker?

Hello.

Hello.

Ms.

Buell, okay.

Can you hear me?

Mayor Gaskins and members of the city council, thank you for hearing us today.

My name is Deborah Belo.

I run an architecture practice in Old Town devoted to sustainability and health.

Um we received certification for Alexandria's first and I think only passive house this past year.

I'm here to urge you to adopt a 30 EUI standard for all new development in the city.

There's a fear that the 30 EUI target adds excessive risk or cost, but these concerns stem from a misunderstanding of how high performance buildings are actually built.

High performance is not achieved by adding expensive upgrades to a standard building.

It's achieved through integrated design.

In the standard additive approach, you design a building and attempt to tweak it to meet energy goals.

This is indeed expensive and inefficient.

By contrast, integrated design looks at the building holistically from day one.

By making smart early decisions about things like building orientation, the envelope, the glazing, we can significantly reduce the heating and cooling demand of the building.

This allows us to right size rather than oversize the mechanical equipment, which is the standard additive approach.

Smaller mechanical systems, less duct work, can be a significant cost savings.

It's vital to clarify the scope of this requirement to move past speculation.

Number one, it does not require passive house certification, although I think that would be amazing.

Number two, it does not require extreme construction methods or unfamiliar materials.

Number three, it does allow for maximum flexibility in the building form in the envelope assemblies and in the mechanical systems.

Designers still get to be designers.

The integrated approach is something that all design teams are capable of.

It makes a 30 EUI manageable and a repeatable outcome, not a high risk experiment.

It's important to understand why we can't split the difference and why I'm advocating for 30 EUI.

Setting a target of 35 or 38 may seem like a good compromise, but it's a false one.

At those levels, developers can stick to business as usual, adding expensive tweaks to a standard design to just barely hit the mark.

30 EUI is the threshold that requires an integrated design lens.

This is a good way of building.

This is how we should be designing anyway.

Finally, I have to address health and equity.

Air quality is a real concern.

We all know this.

High performance houses address it through the fresh air systems.

This standard ensures that families, regardless of their income level, live in homes that protect them from pollutants and respiratory triggers.

We all know we're looking at a major snow and ice storm this weekend.

There's projections of loss of power.

Standard housing does not keep how heat in.

High performance housing will.

Imagine the impact to our vulnerable population this weekend alone because of that.

Please adopt the 30 EUI standard.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time today.

David Peabody.

And staff, I'm just gonna keep going until you give me like a thumbs up or something on the tech.

Madam Mayor and members of council.

I'm David Peabody, an Alexandria resident uh and architect specializing in passive design for the last 15 years.

You have heard a very depressing story from the development community leading up to this.

And you will hear more of the same today.

It is an old story of manipulation through fear.

In this case, your fear of losing development of desperately needed housing in our city.

It has the usual components that every city adopting more stringent building standards has heard.

It can't be done, can't be done here, it's too expensive.

It'll kill development and planse the city into economic darkness.

The story is long on rhetoric and short on evidence.

What evidence is offered is cherry-picked and misleading.

For example, the claims about energy recovery ventilation driving up costs, which Steve Walls already covered and which I also covered in the fact sheet that I hope is in front of each of you, and I hope you will consider it in your deliberations.

But let's get away from Mordor.

And let's go to a brighter story.

Kind of a tale of two cities.

Did it drive developers away?

Did construction slow down?

He was a bit nonplussed.

He said, hardly.

A 98-unit passive certified multifamily building just opened on Concord Avenue.

But even more telling than this is that 56 Massachusetts communities now, after they were the fifth, uh, has adopted that same code, including all the towns surrounding Cambridge.

If a passive standard, which is far stricter than 30 EUI, were killing development, Cambridge neighbors would not have adopted that.

But they did.

Finally, about 30 EUI.

I just want to reiterate what Deborah said so well.

Please do not split the baby.

Deborah made clear in her comments why we have to break through that building as usual cost barrier and move to an integrated design approach for Alexandria buildings.

30 EUI forces that to happen.

It's only through integrated design that New York's high-rise multifamily buildings have been able to reach 23 EUI at a 3.5% cost increase.

Only that approach that Pennsylvania Housing Finance Program is delivering 23 EUI buildings at par with code minimum construction.

And will only be through that approach that builders in Alexandria will build buildings to a 1.2% above you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

We appreciate it.

I'm done.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Scott Barstow.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Good afternoon, Mayor Gaskins and members of council.

My name is Scott Barstow, and I live in North Old Town.

Let me start by noting that the storm we're about to get is being amplified by climate change.

Warm moisture-rich water from both the Pacific Ocean, South of California, and the Gulf of Mexico is overrunning a shallow layer of cold Arctic air.

And those waters are about four degrees above average for late January.

This warmth is 30 to 50 times more likely than it used to be because of our carbon pollution.

Warmer oceans fuel greater evaporation, a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, and snow and ice totals increase.

I want to focus here on costs.

The plan includes an analysis by Cadmus, concluding that achieving 31 EU would cost 4.3% more than a traditional multifamily building.

But this only shows the cost when you do it the wrong way.

Cadmus got to 31 by increasing insulation and installing better windows, but for energy efficient buildings, insulation is the icing on the cake.

The cake is starting with an airtight envelope.

A passive building undergoes a blur door test and only passes that test if it leaks out no no more than about half of its air volume in an hour.

Typical code-built buildings leak out around seven times their air volume in an hour.

Airtightness is more important than insulation, and it is not expensive to accomplish.

You heat or cool the air and it stays there.

Pair that with an energy recovery ventilation system and add insulation, and you get a 20 UI building.

I bet all of you wish you were in a building like that now and over the next couple of days, but you're not, and neither are thousands of Alexandria families who struggle to pay their energy bills, who are probably also feeling cold right now.

This first essential air tightness stuff was completely left out of Cadmus's methodology, and consequently, their analysis shows that it would likely cost much less than a 4.3% premium to achieve 30 EUI.

Similarly, a 26-story low 20s EUI building featured in a webinar we hosted three years ago was built at about a 3% initial marginal cost.

To get to net zero buildings by 2030, we need developers to stop giving us the equivalent of internal combustion engine cars, and we quickly need to start getting the equivalent of EVs, which would mean EUIs in the low 20s.

The 30 EUI target would require developers to start down this path by at least trying to give us the equivalent of a plug-in hybrid and show us their math if they can't get there.

And if they can't, then staff can work with them on a potential exemption if needed.

Without a 30 EUI requirement, they won't try.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

They said to try Samantha.

We're ready.

Try again.

Um Miss Martino.

Okay.

Miss Martina, can you hear us?

It's still not working.

So okay.

Well, we'll keep going.

Um Stephanie Logan.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

And speaking to you as an Alexandria City resident.

My husband and I live in North Old Town, and he actually works in this building, which I didn't realize until I got here.

Um while he's finishing his studies to become a social worker, he last year worked at CPS and this year works at the Child Advocacy Center.

We love living in Alexandria, and we hope to put down further roots here.

But as we plan our family's future, um, the most important factor to determine whether we will be able to raise a family in Alexandria is the cost of living.

I look at the rising house, the rising cost of housing, health care, groceries, daycare, and electrical bills.

And it's hard to imagine how we will be able to make that math work while raising children and remain in Alexandria.

And with energy prices predicted to double over the next 15 years, that equation gets even more challenging.

I know that many of these are sticky problems, and many of them are outside of the control of this city council.

But you have an opportunity today to make a decision that will allow that will make it easier for families like ours to bear the cost of to bear these rising costs and remain in Alexandria.

By requiring new buildings to be more energy efficient at 30 EUI, we will be less we will use less energy and save money in the future.

Please don't put the developers' short term profit margins above my family's long-term future.

Help us and families like mine stay in Alexandria and adopt the new the green building plan.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

My God, Magaha Monopoly.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Mega Moneypola.

I'm a sophomore at Alexandria City High School, and I'm here to voice my support for the revised green building plan.

Sustainability has been a very important issue for me for a long time.

My mom is an environmental engineer, so I was always raised in a household that was environmentally conscious.

I've sat in on the last five environmental policy commission meetings, and they've consistently supported more aggressive green building stipulations.

When the green building plan was reviewed by the Alexandria Planning Commission, they removed or they made several major changes.

Specifically, they removed the proposed clean energy fund that would have allowed developers to pay up to 150,000 rather than install solar panels on eligible buildings.

I agree that this new version will do a better job of protecting Alexandria from the effects of climate change in the future.

The new plan also proposes stricter EUI, which measures the energy usage per square foot.

I believe this green building plan will create a healthier environment for all Alexandrians by improving air quality and promoting an overall higher standard of sustainability for all buildings in our city.

But the benefits of the green building plan are much more profound than these quantifiable gains.

By approving this legislation, Alexandria is conveying a stronger stance on the issue of sustainability.

When I was in third grade, I learned that if we continue on our current trajectory, the 15 the 1.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature will be irreversible by 2030, which is now just four years away.

Since then, it's often felt like time is running out while the government and the world leaders refuse to acknowledge it.

In Alexandria, we feel these effects more acutely as flooding events become more and more common and the heat of each summer breaks a new record.

However, by passing the green building plan, Alexandria would be doing our part to protect the earth and our cities for generations to come.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mega.

Uh next speaker.

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Emma Bidwell, a high school student, and I'm here today to voice my support for the green building plan.

As a high school student, something I always seem to hear about the environmental policy and action is that it is now up to our generation, mine, to right the wrongs of those who came before me, large developments, my parents, and my grandparents.

However, I strongly disagree with the view that we must wait until my generation, full of people, people ego for eager for change to get real change with environmental policy.

From being a leader in an environmental club at my school as well as attending five EPC meetings, I'm always looking for ways to advocate for my for my community and the environment, which is why I am here today.

I believe that the green building plan is crucial for environmental policy in progress in Alexandria because it not only improves our air quality in building health for residents, but also brings the city closer to reaching its climate goals of reducing emissions 50% by 2030 and 80% to 100% by 2050.

The latter is especially something that I resonate with as someone who always tries to reduce my carbon footprint, but feels as though others with more impact do not do the same.

It feels frustrating and hopeless to know that major developers can erase the efforts of those like me and others here today.

The green building plan holds these developers accountable and makes it that they are not able to pay up to 150,000 rather than installing solar panels on their buildings.

The green building plan also takes full advantage of flat roofs in our city, optimizing space for solar panels.

As a teenager, climate change has always been an important yet saddening issue in my life.

At times it feels like a looming dark cloud getting ever so closer each day.

To say plainly, Alexandria is falling behind other cities like DC and New York City, who have taken steps for the environment.

I don't want Alexandria to be another city who refuses to move forward.

We must make strides forward for environmental policy now, especially when we see our temperatures and carbon emissions rising.

That is why it is crucial to vote in favor of the green building plan today.

Thank you so much for your testimony, Emma.

Madam Clerk, next item.

I mean, next person.

Donna Gold Madam Mayor and members of the council.

I am Donna Gold, a nearly lifelong member of Alexandria, and currently the co-chair of the Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions.

There are strong reasons why we must adopt the Planning Commission's modifications to the city's proposed plan.

I want to particularly focus on the issue, issues of social equity and fairness.

First, health concerns.

A number of people have talked about the impact of cold today for good reason.

I'm going to speak about heat.

Wet bulb temperature combines dry air temperature, as you see on a thermometer with humidity.

In essence, it is a measure of heat stress conditions on humans.

Inefficient buildings will increasingly become a life safety concern as wet bulb heat wave events become more common.

Those most at risk in our city are poor and elderly.

Second, economic concerns.

Based on the U.S.

census data and information from the U.S.

Department of Energy, roughly 20% of Alexandria households have incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.

And on average, these households spend 7% of their income on energy.

This is seven times more as a percentage of income than households at or above the metro area medium income spend.

Here's what that means in real terms.

A recently approved 93,000 square foot affordable multifamily building, built to the minimum statewide energy code, 42 EUI, will cost a family of four about $37 more per month in energy than would a 30 EUI building.

As rates rise, that gap will grow to $75 per month.

That can mean a choice between groceries or prescription for a sick child.

Energy bills fluctuate, spiking in the hottest summers and coldest winters, exactly when families are already under the most stress.

Unlike rent, however, energy costs are not capped.

When developers build to the minimum energy code rather than a higher performing standard, long-term costs are shifted onto residents with the least ability to absorb them.

We would never allow a developer to raise the rent on affordable units by $75 a month to improve project economics, but inefficient buildings produce the same outcome, except the increase is invisible, unregulated, and permanent.

It is not.

Thank you.

Thank you for your attention.

Madam Clerk, next person.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council.

My name is Kim Pexton, and I'm Senior Vice President of Sustainability at JBG Smith.

Sustainability is central to how we operate and develop buildings.

It matters to our region, our residents, and to our shareholders.

For us, energy efficiency is both a responsibility and a business imperative.

My team specifically tracks real-time energy and water use across our entire portfolio and is responsible for forecasting performance and improving the efficiency of new buildings.

With more than 30 years of experience in green building, I'm here to share concerns about the studies used to support the proposed EUI targets, specifically why a uniform EUI of 30 is not achievable for most projects designed today in Alexandria.

The studies referenced in Appendix One, including those from Cadmus and PNL rely heavily on Virginia EOI data that is not third-party verified for completeness or accuracy.

As a result, this data should not be treated as definitive or representative of real-world building performance.

Additionally, the energy models used to demonstrate EUI achievability are prescriptive in nature.

Essentially, they are simplified building forms.

By contrast, projects undergoing Alexandria's development review use performance-based modeling that allows for architectural variation.

We're simply not building boxes in Alexandria, and building form matters greatly for energy outcomes.

One example shown in the report depicts a building with limited glazing, no facade articulation, and a scale that does not reflect typical Alexandria development.

More importantly, the model does not account for several local requirements, including the proposed full electrification and 40% EV charging.

These requirements increase energy use, meaning that even a building identical to the model would not achieve an EUI of 38 if built to those proposed standards.

The report also references benchmark data from recently delivered DC buildings.

While helpful, this data lacks important context.

These buildings were designed under pre-2020 mechanical codes that allowed for natural ventilation through opened windows.

Through since then, code changes have required mechanically assisted ventilation, which has resulted in documented energy increases of approximately 20%.

The shift is shift is not reflected in the analysis, further calling into question the applicability of the proposed targets.

At a minimum, the EUI thresholds need to be informed by both quantitative data and qualitative context.

Thank you so much for your testimony today.

Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Okay.

We're gonna act a leave.

We gotta keep trying.

Okay.

Ums Reader, did you hear that?

Are you able to hit star six?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

So sorry about that.

I couldn't come in in person because of a family issue.

Um I appreciate your patience with getting me on the line.

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Samantha Martinow.

I'm um with JBG Smith, my colleague Kim just spoke.

Uh, one of my main roles in the company is working on the new development in North Potomac Yard, where we have already made significant long-term investments in partnership with the city.

Environmental sustainability is a major priority for our company, and we appreciate that this council's leadership and making sure it's a focus here in Alexandria.

Across our portfolio, we have set public sustainability targets and have committed to self-reporting our progress on things like energy, water usage, and bodied carbon and waste diversion.

These goals serve as key benchmarks our board uses to evaluate our executive team's performance and effectiveness.