Uh we're gonna call the meeting to order.

Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

Mayor Gaskins.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

I here.

Councilman Aguirre.

Here.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman El Nuby.

Here.

Councilwoman Green.

Councilwoman Marks.

Here.

I hear.

Yeah.

There's a quorum in the room.

We have a quorum in the room, Madam Clerk.

Okay.

So if you could call item two.

Approval of electronic participation resolution by city council.

Move approval of electronic participation.

All right.

There's been a motion by Councilman Aguirre, a second by Councilman Al Nubi to approve the electronic participation resolution.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Oh, it's a roll call.

Excuse me, ma'am.

Um Councilman Aguirre.

Councilman Al Nuby.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Hi.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman Councilwoman Marks.

Aye.

Okay.

That motion is approved.

Welcome to participation in the meeting.

Um, Mayor Gaskins and Councilwoman Green.

Um, on that note, um, people everybody's probably observed.

Um uh this morning, uh both uh Mayor Gaskins and Councilwoman Green need to join us remotely.

Um we have approved their participation.

Um because of the mayor's participation remotely, um, I will be acting as chair for this meeting, which means I won't actually be able to make motions in seconds, but the mayor will.

So it's a little bit of a difference in procedure.

You might pick up on, and I also just want to declare that, clarify that for the public for my colleagues that that's how we'll be operating today.

Um with that, uh Madam Clerk, if you could call item number three.

Public discussion period.

Um, could you please call the first three speakers?

Snyder, Nicholas Morrow, and Janice Grenadier.

And as those people are making their way to the podium here, we ask that one speaker comes up at a time.

We've got the one podium.

Please don't stand behind each other.

Please take a seat in that first row if you need be.

We also don't do clapping or cheering, but you are able to snap if you feel so moved.

Good morning, sir.

Um please begin.

Okay.

Is this on and the timer will start when you start.

Okay.

Uh good morning, uh, honorable mayor um and members of city council.

My name is Nick Morrow, and I live on South Royal Street.

Um, let me start with I love trees.

They make they make Alexandria a truly beautiful place to live, and I love living here.

Um and we should plant more of them.

Uh unfortunately, the one in front of my house was a tragedy waiting to happen.

Um, and in April, I asked the city to inspect this tree.

Um instead, they pruned it and uh didn't get back to me about the inspection.

So I followed up.

Um in May, I submitted a second request to inspect the tree.

And two hours later, that request was closed and said that the tree did not meet remove uh requirements for removal.

So I followed up again as requested and received no answer.

And I my impression was clearly they just wanted me to go away.

Uh so um I hired my own expert uh and they confirmed that that tree was high risk.

I brought those concerns to the city council and to the mayor, and thankfully they alerted Mr.

Taylor, the director of recreation and parks and cultural activities, and he stepped in to get an independent assessment of that tree, which proved it was not just high risk, but in imminent danger of causing severe damages.

Um it had gotten uh disease that caused the roots to die.

So um I spent hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours uh money that really should have gone to my son's uh summer camps just to get the city to act.

Um but I couldn't spend another night like last night, uh, wondering if that tree was gonna come down on my family.

Eventually the city made the right decision and took that tree down just hours before those storms.

So I'm very thankful.

I'm very grateful to the mayor.

Um I'm very grateful to Vice Mayor Bagley.

I'm very grateful to Councilwoman Marks and Councilman Al Nubi for bringing urgency to the issue and making sure that the proper attention was given to this.

I'm also extremely grateful to Mr.

Taylor for his intervention to deal with it swiftly once he was made aware of it.

Um I can't, I'm here today because I really can't explain why this situation was so difficult to deal with.

Um, but it it was and um it didn't need to be an emergency, but the data that this city paid for said it was and needed to come down immediately.

So I'm just here to say to tell you about this so that the next person doesn't have to uh go through it and it doesn't trying to do the right thing doesn't have to go through the same situation I did.

Um or worse, just give up and for there to be a tragedy.

So thank you for your time and uh thank you to the council for uh bringing in attention to this issue with the city.

Um I appreciate your your your um advocacy on this behalf on my behalf.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Mr.

Murrow, and um I just I appreciate the manner in which I think this played out.

I I don't disagree that that um it shouldn't need to be this complicated, but I do appreciate your recognition of Mr.

Taylor's responsiveness and that ultimately the right thing happened here.

So thank you for that for your time today.

Absolutely.

Um Madam Clerk, I had number one as Ricky Schneider.

Is he online?

Do we see Mr.

Schneider online?

No.

Okay, then we'll move on to um Jenny's Cranadier.

Is she online?

Oh, there you are.

I wasn't late.

Um, good morning, everybody.

In October of 2014, I I was illegally jailed, held in solitary confinement for 14 days, um, another seven um days in jail.

Um, and Judge Haddock stated to commissioner of accounts, uh he's working as a lawyer, Michael Weiser, Ben Demiro, Andrea Mosley.

I can't hold her any longer in jail.

It's illegal to jail people for money.

$8100 in legal fees after they had totally harmed me.

What did we had?

We had Donald Hayes, who was our chief of police, who came in pretending to be a priest when I asked to talk to one.

I have fought this in many different ways, and God has put me on a new path.

And I've created a national prayer for justice in America that I have copyrighted and will be taking to every Supreme Court justice building in the United States to pray it to bring notice to the corruption of our courts.

We gather in humility before the Supreme Court of Virginia, it would be with gratitude for the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms it was designed to protect by our forefathers.

We recognize that across this nation, millions of Americans carry stories shaped by the courts in their state, stories of hope, of hardship, of loss, and of perseverance.

Today we pray not for ourselves alone, but for every person who has stood in a courtroom, seeking fairness, protection, or restoration.

Grant wisdom to those entrusted to interpret the law, grant courage to those who seek justice, grant clarity where confusion clouds truth.

May our courts remain places of integrity, free from fair bias, favoritism, or undue influence.

Strengthen equal justice, access to justice for all people, let due process be honored, let evidence be weighed fairly and impartially.

Let no voice be dismissed without hearing, and no claim be judged without consideration.

For those who feel unheard, give them a voice.

For those who feel unseen, give them dignity.

For those who feel broken by the process, bring restoration and strength, protect the vulnerable, the children, the elderly, the disabled, improvished, the families seeking fairness, and those whose voices feel small.

Restore trust where it has weakened, restore courage where truth must stand, and restore integrity where it is tested.

May justice in America be administrated with wisdom, restraint, fairness, and moral clarity.

And may our nation remain committed to liberty and freedom under law for this generation and all further generations.

We ask this in the name of our Almighty Fody Father for all, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

May each one of you take a good look at yourselves in the mirror tonight.

Thank you, Ms.

Granadier.

Um, seeing no other speakers on the list, I'd understand a motion to close.

Close the public period.

All right, there's been a motion by Councilman Aguirre, second by Councilman Chapman.

Um discussion.

All right, hearing none.

Um is this a voice vote?

Okay.

Um all those in favor.

Any opposed.

Uh seeing none.

Uh the motive that the public hearing is closed.

Um, we are moving on, madam clerk.

If you could call um the next item.

Action docket roll call consent items four through 15.

I'd entertain a motion to approve item.

Yes, ma'am.

Sir.

Uh move roll call consent except for number six.

Right.

Uh all right.

There's a motion to approve the roll call consent items four through 15, excusing number six and a second by councilwoman marks.

Any discussion?

Hearing none.

Well, apologies, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, I did want to bring attention to number 12 for the public, which is the uh changing of the precinct to bless sacrament, which has been a precinct for a long time.

Uh, if you're in the blessed sacrament precinct, remember that you will have a new polling place on North Quaker Lane.

Angie here.

Oh, there she is.

Um thank you, Councilman Aguirre for for um mentioning that item.

Um I miss Turner is here.

I I don't want to further um drag that out, but I just want to acknowledge if people do have questions.

You can you can seek out Ms.

Turner at the registrar's office for information about the location and whether you have to do anything.

But my assumption is you don't just show up in the new location and and they can um process your vote there.

With that, there is a motion to approve the roll call consent items four through 15.

Uh uh excusing item six.

Um, not seeing any further discussion, Madam Clark.

This is a roll call.

Councilman Aguirre.

Hi.

Councilwoman Marks.

Hi.

Thanks, Mayor Bagley.

Aye.

Councilman Chapman.

All right.

Councilman El Nuby.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Okay, those items passed unanimously.

Madam Clerk, could you call item number six?

Special use permit 2026-0009, 699 Print Street Planning Commission action recommend approval seven to zero.

Okay.

Thank you.

And good morning.

Uh, we'll begin with a brief staff presentation, then we'll move into public speakers and any questions my colleague might have.

Good morning, Mayor Gaskins, members of City Council.

My name is Lanning Blosser with the Department of Planning and Zoning, Land Use and Preservation Services.

I'll be presenting on special use permit 2026-0009.

Uh brief outline of the presentation will go through site context, proposal, and recommended conditions from staff and planning commission.

And I will slide right into our summary.

Is to obtain approval for live outdoor entertainment at the rooftop restaurant at 699 Print Street.

An overview of this request will highlight the mixed use environment of the King Street retail strategy and the commercial downtown core of Alexandria, outlining diverse uses that create a vibrant community.

The live entertainment hours are limited to afternoons Thursday to Sunday.

And staff have added SUP conditions along with planning commission to mitigate potential noise impacts based on the live entertainment use.

The surrounding uses here are a good representation of the CD zone with a mix of commercial, institutional office, mixed use and residential uses, all in this area.

On these proposed hours, Thursday, 5 to 9, Friday and Saturdays would be 5 to 10 p.m.

And Sundays are 1 to 7 p.m.

Um the live entertainment use is accessory to the restaurant use, and no other changes are proposed to the restaurant operations.

So staff have added recommended conditions of approval, and I'll outline those.

And Planning Commission amended one of our conditions of the staff report and added an additional condition that I'll outline here as well.

Condition number three of the staff report restricts the days and hours of operation to the applicant's requested hours Thursday to Sunday.

If approved, those hours would only be able to be changed through an amendment to the SUP.

Condition number four requires the use of an in-house sound system and noise governor.

Um this gives the applicant uh full control over volume and the musical guests that come to the site uh will still be able to perform and plug in their equipment, but the volume controls would be under a lockbox control with the on-duty manager.

Uh condition number five requires the rooftop speakers to face downward.

Condition number six requires a community liaison to respond to noise concerns.

This condition would also require the business to have uh contact online on their web page and have a process to respond to complaints that they receive internally through that um community liaison.

Condition number nine is somewhat a standard SUP condition of a one-year review.

Staff had added a six month review to this condition, and planning commission also recommended a three-month review.

Um so if approved, the the business would go through a three-month review with SAF, six month review, and then it would still have its standard one year review to confirm compliance with these SUP conditions.

Condition 10 was added by Planning Commission.

Um, this condition requires the business to hire a called sound engineer to prepare uh sound and vibration management plan for staff's review and approval prior to an approval of the live entertainment use.

Uh, this condition is outlined um and gives the the applicant the ability to work with uh professional sound engineer to confirm um standard noise operating levels and the ability to create a plan that staff can review um prior to approval.

So, with that staff, do you recommend approval of the SUP uh with the amended and add-ed conditions from Planning Commission?

And I am happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Do my colleagues have questions for staff at this point?

Uh councilman Alnubi.

Um my first question is can you walk me through a scenario of how the SUP will be reviewed within these three, six and months and one year?

Like if they continue to violate, um, and I say continue because I know there's a history um of violations, if they continue to violate the SUP, um, or they violate the SUP.

Um how would that play out?

Yeah, so um condition 10 would have to be satisfied prior to approval too.

And um, if approved after three months of operations, um, staff would go inspect the site to confirm compliance with the existing SUPs, and then we would take a look at um our our noise complaints through both Alex311s and our TES noise inspectors.

And if there have been complaints received from there, we would either develop a memorandum with the business to either restrict the conditions further, um, potentially redocket the SUP.

Um, the worst case scenario is that we would bring it back for revocation if they're not able to uphold these SUP conditions.

Restrict the SUP further, what would that look like?

That could include um anything from reducing the hours of the while their hours of live entertainment.

Um that's probably the the first thing I would think of.

Um from there, you could also restrict the days of live entertainment and um from there.

I think it would probably be within staff and the businesses discussion on what the best route forward would be.

I will say uh Tony Lakola planning and zoning condition 10 also indicates that staff could require an additional inspection or uh review of the sound management plan by the acoustical engineer.

So we could require that individual to come back and work further with the business to develop a plan that that works.

Maybe if there's an issue, it's not quite right.

This person could come help fix fix that.

Can you tell me more about what a plan that works would look like?

Like how would the plan be tweaked further to make it work if the plan that we're requiring right now does not?

A typical sound management plan will recommend types of speakers, locations of speakers, maximum volume.

Um those are types of things that could be um you know tweaked a little bit to make sure the sound system complies with the noise ordinance.

Great.

Um on the condition number, I don't have my glass on condition number four, the noise governor.

Um you may or may not know the answer to this.

You're not a sound engineer, but do those noise governors typically have logs, collect data?

And I ask about that because and I sent this.

I see Paul nodding his head there, send the question in last night.

Um what I'm thinking about is one, will this noise governor automatically lower the volume or automatically limit the volume?

So they cannot go over what because I want to avoid complaints on us having to respond and then having to verify, avoid all this whole thing that has been going on.

And I, you know, I think the neighbors deserve a little bit of peace of mind there.

So would that governor have that ability to limit automatically?

And would it have logs that we, if we receive a complaint, we can go in and inspect those logs and know whether they violated the plan or not, or whether they violated the SUP or not.

Um, unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that question.

I will say, in our experience with um requiring a noise governor with Hobson Shine, uh, we had staff from TES, Office of Environmental Quality with noise meters.

Um, they turned the sound system up to the maximum amount allowable where it would trigger a violation of the noise ordinance, and anything past that uh was not permitted.

So at that point is when the noise governor basically we said you can't go past this, you know, say the dial says one to 10, you can't go past six.

Um, and the noise governor has to be pretty much on lockdown, where only the manager um on duty has access to it.

You're not gonna allow a staff member like a waiter or waitress or the musician themselves have access where they can turn the volume up or down.

It's behind lock and key, and only one person has access to that to increase or decrease the volume.

Um, but I can't tell you whether there might be technology that does track um, you know, sound levels.

I know there is Wi-Fi-based technology, sound meter readers that can do that.

Perhaps that's part of the sound management plan that's recommended by a sound engineer.

Okay.

And so, but we don't require that now.

But I'm just thinking out loud here.

I foresee that as possibly a condition we can add or something.

It could be.

It could be.

Okay.

Great.

Um, last question.

Um what is the logic behind Thursday to Sunday?

Like, why specifically these days?

And how until when on Sunday?

That was what the business themselves proposed.

Well, those are the hours that they would like to operate.

And until what time on Sunday, seven, I believe.

Seven, right?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Mayor Gaskins, I believe you've got some questions.

Thank you.

Um, my question is also related to condition number 10.

It's my understanding that once we receive the report from the acoustical engineer, staff will do a review, approve it, and then it needs to be implemented before any performances can go forward.

Is that correct?

Uh yes, maybe since that is correct.

Okay.

During that review, do we have the ability to make recommendations or things that we want to see?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if it comes back and let's say things are missing, like we want to have a sound system with technology, or we believe based on what we know from other projects, like additional planters or things might be helpful with mitigating sound.

Like, do we have the ability to insert recommendations into that plan?

Um I think working with our staff from the Office of Environmental Quality, we can uh determine whether there need to be additional mitigation measures.

Uh, as I said to the planning commission, we are not sound engineers.

Our staff does not have that technical uh knowledge.

So we will rely on a professional to determine best how to manage sound.

If the system is not working, and I assume there will be tests of the system prior to us signing off on it, if the system is not working, we can come back, ask the sound engineer to return and develop additional um measures to mitigate the sound that might be uh still a problem.

And let me be clear, I agree with the approach of having a professional come in.

I think what I'm trying to understand is if we're setting up a process by which we are the reviewers and approvals, I think we're then setting an expectation to the public as well that you know, if we see something that is not to a level it should be that, or if there's certain criteria we're measuring this against that we're able to then make changes with it.

Um we do have the ability to change.

We do, yes.

That is written into that condition.

If you uh take a look at it, it allows staff to go back, revisit the plan.

Um, if there are issues at the three-month, six month, one year, or even further out, uh, if there continue to be noise issues, we can um work with the applicant, we can docket the SCP uh for review at city council, or if in worst case scenario, they absolutely will not comply with any of our recommendations, they're not making any effort.

They're not making any effort, we would recommend revocation of the SUP.

Okay.

And then two more questions.

You mentioned, Tony, you assume there will be test, or I just want to get clarity on our process.

Will there, will there not be test prior to the implement, like prior to um actually giving that approval?

Is that documented?

Yeah, there will be an inspection um to ensure that the sound system as designed by the sound engineer has been installed.

Uh staff, like we did on May 20th will test the sound system.

Um I I will say that you know, there is a maximum decibel level.

And um that doesn't say there will be no sound at all.

Like there might be sound that you can hear from a block or two away, but as long as it's not violating the noise ordinance, there would not be a violation issued.

So there has to be an expectation that there might be some sound, but it will not be excessive sound.

And then um, well, I guess this gets to, and maybe this will come up in the council discussion.

I guess this gets to what councilmanal Newbie was raising.

Without a way to measure it, we don't have the capacity to have somebody out there at all times.

Our noise inspectors are stretched across the city.

And so figuring out this distinction between whether or not it was excessive, whether or not it was a violation.

I think we just need a way to make sure we're able to document that in real time.

And maybe that's the technology that's recommended by the engineer, but I think having a real-time way of documentation is a way that solves it via technology versus you know, human capacity, or we're never gonna have enough people to be at every single place that's playing music or doing entertainment across the city.

Um, my last question was around condition number six.

It's my understanding that the person who receives complaints, there actually has to be a documented process for reviewing those complaints.

Does the city review what that process is?

And then when they come back for their review, are we able to get a copy of how many complaints they received on their end and what was the resolution for each of them?

Um, yes.

So the uh well, condition number six would require a community liaison and um and staff's review at three months, six months.

We would also be able to go back and look at um how they have responded.

Um we the business itself still has to provide a clear plan to staff on what that process will look like for them.

Um we we have been told that it would work through their 24 hour front desk operator.

Um, and we would have to outline the the final um plan for for the community liaisons process.

Um, but portions of it, the telephone number, email address would still be required to be on the business web page.

Um, similar to uh indoor live entertainment use limitations, um, that would also still require that same plan.

Okay, so we get a copy of that plan before we move forward with approval, and then as part of our reviews, we are able to pull from them whether or not that plan has been followed.

Yes.

Okay.

And then the last question I had was just on Sundays.

Is the Sunday one to seven time?

Is that consistent with um other approvals in in the area?

Um Sundays one to seven.

We generally it's what the applicant has requested.

Um for standard noise operating levels, it ends at 11 p.m.

Um, so staff just have accepted what the applicant presented as one to seven p.m.

Okay.

What are their hours of operation that day?

Does the rooftop close at seven?

Um the rooftop closes.

I believe the rooftop has operating hours to 3 a.m.

Um, and then it's up to them.

So the existing restaurant SUP gives them operating hours to 3 a.m.

And then the restaurant has the ability to close uh within their own jurisdiction within that time frame.

Okay, and that okay, and that 3 a.m.

is just on Sundays, or that's consistent across the whole week.

Uh that's their the whole week.

They they have the ability to remain open until 3 a.m.

If you visit their website, and we did, and I cannot remember the hours off the top of my head.

I apologize.

I believe they close at 10 p.m.

And they're only open, I believe, Thursdays through Sundays, not every day of the week.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions for now.

Councilwoman Green.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um my question is around the city noise inspectors.

Can you walk me through the process?

And I believe we have two now.

Can you walk me through the process of when they get a complaint?

What actually happens when that complaint is received?

Um the plant is received, either via Alex 3 and 1, phone call, what have you, the inspector, you know uh travels to the site, uh, takes a noise meter reading uh to determine whether there is a violation or not.

Um, in the case of this particular hotel, there was an SUP.

So the inspector visited the rooftop and found uh on a couple of occasions there was a DJ, which is considered live entertainment, and reported that back to planning and zoning as a violation of the SUP conditions.

But typically the noise inspector will first take a noise meter reading.

Um, and if there is a violation, provide a warning to the business, and if it continues, then it becomes citations.

Okay.

And is there a noise inspector on duty 24 hours, or how does that work?

There is not.

However, with the addition of a second noise inspector, there's a w a wider array of hours that are now covered.

Um one of the noise inspectors traditionally works Tuesdays until 11 p.m.

or sorry, Tuesday through Saturday until 11 p.m.

Uh, the other noise inspector is on duty Saturday, Sunday mornings, and then uh Monday through I think it's Monday through Thursday, uh morning to afternoon hours.

So for the most part, the hours of operation of this particular establishment will be covered under noise inspectors hours, except for I would say Sunday afternoon for a small amount of time.

Okay.

And on duty means they are physically sitting in the city of Alexandria.

They wouldn't have to travel from Woodbridge where they live to come and check on the company.

Yeah, they are in the city on the clock working, hopefully uh either in their office and if they're not in the office, they're out doing field inspections.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Aguary.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, I'm a little frustrated because the the mayor was asking the question that I asked, and I was hoping that it was going to get responded to in the compendium.

Um, however, it's not in the compendium.

So, because there's a difference between what time they're able to operate till and then what time they typically close.

And so what time they typically close is information that we need to be able to make a better decision around what we're doing.

Um for the noise governor, just for clarification, is there a difference between a noise governor versus an acoustic limiter?

It's more or less the same thing.

Uh is there anything that's a main difference that would say make uh an acoustic limiter more useful than a noise governor, or to your point, are they is it something we need to explore more?

I uh I don't know.

I have to say, yeah.

So maybe give you that information.

Okay, something we probably should probably explore a little bit more.

Um for Sundays, is there the possibility, and this is a little little weird one.

Um is it possible to have a slightly lower decibel level versus the other days, or is it because we're governed by the noise ordinance they would be able to just go to the regular limit regardless?

We are governed by the noise ordinance.

That's what I was thinking.

Okay.

I do have hours of operation for you.

They are closed Mondays and Tuesdays.

Wednesday and Thursday, they're open from 4 p.m.

to 10 p.m.

Friday, 4 p.m.

to 11 p.m.

Saturday and Sunday, 3 p.m.

to 10 p.m.

Saturday and Sunday, 3 to 10.

Okay.

That's their hours of operation.

That doesn't mean they'll have live entertainment.

Correct.

Yes.

Um okay, good.

We'll be able to take that into consideration while we're making decisions.

Thank you, Mr.

Lakula.

Come on, Chapman.

Quick question.

Um, during the review period, whether it's three months, six months, or or a year, um are they allowed to change any kind of hours or anything like that?

Whether it's um particularly for the live music.

They cannot change the hours in which live entertainment is allowed unless they come back to you for an amendment to their SUP.

They can remain open and serve diners, but they can't have live entertainment.

Okay, seeing no additional questions from council, we'll move to the public hearing portion of the process.

If the clerk could please call the first three speakers, and again, I'd ask that just one of you stand at a time at the lectern, and then the next person can take a seat behind you, and we'll move through the speakers that way.

Gary Koopman, Molly Orlando, and Hannah Williams.

I was asked by the owners of Opal Music Studio and residents neighborhood to speak.

The Hotel Heron must retain a qualified acoustical engineer to ensure compliance with the 65 DB ordinance.

Two solutions he proposed are invalid.

The first condition number five controlling amplified music on a rooftop by angling speakers downward will not reduce a sound impact on neighborhood noise on neighbors.

This is because loudspeakers at low frequencies project nearly in all equal directions.

It's called omnidirectional.

Second, measurements taken at the ground level for compliance are not valid since building itself shields the sound from the roof.

Consequently, it isn't critical that the compliance measurements be taken at the perimeter of the rooftop itself.

Please refer to my graphic, which Molly's going to hold up at the street level.

Sorry, uh note how efficiently the sound propagates at low frequencies to the surrounding neighborhood from such a high place.

You can see going from here to neighborhoods.

Nothing is there to block its path.

Even at 65 dB, the sound measurement at the location of the Opal Music Studio, the Bennett House are in the 40 to 50 DB range.

These levels are still audible, even though we're meeting this compliance at 65.

People will still find it difficult to sleep, even with the windows closed or enjoy a quiet outdoor space.

An example is shown in one of my graphics, I think in my handouts.

The systems are widely available, relatively inexpensive, a few thousand dollars, and with limit or shutdown amplified music when preset thresholds are exceeded, and they are tamper-proof.

The monitoring system would ensure that community noise levels remain at acceptable level while allowing the venue to operate successfully and in compliance with the city's noise ordinance.

Their willingness to install such a system would demonstrate the hotel's good faith to both neighboring property owners and the city.

This decision is more about more just is about more than just one hotel in the neighbors.

The condition attached to this special units permit can establish an important precedent for any rooftop and entertainment venues in Old Town.

Such a precedent would allow rooftop venues to operate successfully while also protecting neighboring businesses, residents, and community institutions from intrusive noise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Umlando, good morning to Mayor Gaskins and members of City Council and members of the planning commission.

Uh, my name is Molly Orlando, and I am one of the owners of 607 Prince Street and of Opal Music Studio, the music instruction business that is directly next door to the Hotel Heron.

Um, Opal Music Studio has been part of the Old Town neighborhood for nearly 20 years, and every year, hundreds of Alexandria families walk through our doors for music lessons, concerts, performances, and other community events.

We are loving Old Town and so proud to be a member of the community, and we want Hotel Heron to be successful as well.

I want to make that very clear.

We are not here to oppose the hotel or even to oppose rooftop entertainment.

We are here because we have already experienced what happens when the amplified music on the rooftop is not properly controlled.

Before this permit was requested, the hotel regularly hosted amplified music and DJ events that generated repeated complaints from neighbors.

Our studio parents, teachers and students, and all nearby residents experience music and bass levels that disrupted their lessons, performances, conversations, and normal business operations.

So today we are asking for safeguards based on our experience, not purely on speculation.

The planning commission took an important step by recommending that Hotel Heron retain a qualified acoustic engineer and develop a sound management plan.

We appreciate that addition.

However, the plan itself is not enough.

What matters is how compliance is verified after the permit is granted.

We are asking the city council to require objective ongoing accountability through conditions such as continuous sound monitoring, verification of sound governor settings, testing during actual DJ and live music events, and a clear complaint response process and sound records that can be independently reviewed if questions arise.

In other words, we are asking for a system that prevents problems rather than relying on an endless loop of neighbors repeatedly reporting complaints after they occur.

Dr.

Gary Koopman, an internationally recognized acoustical engineer, has explained why Rustoff sound behaves differently from sound at street level and why monitoring technology can automatically ensure compliance within the city's noise ordinance.

The technology exists, it's affordable and commonly used in entertainment venues, and it would provide confidence to everyone involved.

We believe the Hotel Heron can be successful while also being a responsible neighbor.

But for that to happen, the special use permit needs clear, measurable, and enforceable conditions, not just promises.

You all have a copy of the petition that we submitted with 212 signatures from our Opal families, parents, teachers, and students.

And those are there are many of them voting res voting Alexandria residents, and that shows their depth of concern.

On their behalf and of all others who signed our petition, we respectfully ask you to include these safeguards and any approval of rooftop entertainment.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next is Hannah Williams, followed by Virginia Bennett.

She's unmuted.

Miss Williams, you can speak when you're ready.

Are you all in touch with her?

She said that her reception was not great, so she is chosen.

Oh, okay.

We're gonna move forward then from Miss Williams to Miss Bennett.

And if Miss Williams contacts y'all to say she likes an opportunity, she's got about eight minutes to get back to us.

Thank y'all.

Good morning.

My name is Virginia Bennett, and my family and I reside at 208 South St.

ASAF in a direct site and sound line of Hotel Heron.

Three minutes is short, so I'm going to be super direct.

Reasonable or not, my neighbors and I would probably wish that Hotel Heron not received this special use permit.

Their past failure to adhere to their existing SUP by hosting DJs and live and live music repeatedly violated the city's noise ordinances, negatively impacted us as neighborhood residences, as neighborhood residents.

The Heron's rooftop patrons may have drinks or maybe they have brunch, and then they move on.

But we live here and we don't move on after just a couple of hours, especially on Sundays.

Normally a quiet and peaceful day, a persistent barbeat or amplified music for six straight hours with virtually no ambient street noise to help mask it, is intrusive, unpleasant, and deprives us of the peaceful enjoyment of our residences.

Moreover, by the time a city inspector arrives in response to a complaint to attempt to document excessive noise, the noise may be over.

It would appear to me as a layperson, I'm not an attorney that this enforcement gap is the foundation of the attorney general opinion, which cleared the way for the council to act on gas-powered blowers.

If council is inclined to approve this SUP, I believe it is incumbent upon council to recognize the enforcement gap persists and to ensure there is independent regulation of the decibel levels Hotel Heron will produce on their rooftop.

As with gas blowers, it is not plausible that the city can sufficiently regulate the Heron noise.

Prior experience has shown us that.

Hotel Heron has already amply demonstrated that they cannot or maybe they choose not to self-regulate.

The good news for us all in trying to find a way forward in the spirit of compromise.

I said it might not be reasonable, is that a mandatory certified acoustics limiter or governor, which is sat not to exceed 65 decibels on the rooftop, can be obtained for a modest amount of money.

In addition, a telemetric noise monitoring system, which is a weatherproof microphone and a transmitter mounted at the Heron rooftop will provide monitoring and real-time data access to the city at a modest cost to the operator.

The monitoring system will provide accurate evidence of any further violations.

The persistent problem of the enforcement gap would be solved if the council chooses to act in this regard.

This is reasonable and responsible policy, at least in my opinion.

And with finally protecting the city's residents, it could serve as a framework for the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um, our next speaker is Kathleen Phelps, followed by Laura Vetter.

Good morning.

My name is Kathleen Phelps, and I've lived at 514 Prince Street for over 30 years.

My husband and I raised our family there, and we love being part of Old Town.

The mix of commercial and residential property is a big part of the reason that we wanted to live there.

We were early customers at Good Fortune, the rooftop bar at the Hotel Heron, and we enjoyed wine there and glorious sunsets.

But when the live amplified club music started and wouldn't stop, the Heron began to feel less like a fun part of the neighborhood and more like a rude neighbor.

For the better part of the year, I could hear the Heron's unauthorized amplified music from the rooftop in my garden a block away, at the corner of Prince and South Pit, two blocks away, and I do think that's excessive.

And I could hear it inside my house with doors and windows shut.

It's really excessive.

It made it hard to read, sleep, work, and just generally relax.

I logged noise complaints, initially thinking the heron doesn't know how loud it is.

They'll figure it out.

But they didn't.

And for months there was always another complaint to log.

It was a long time before the amplified events stopped.

And the reason there haven't been issues this past year is that the Hotel Heron hasn't been hosting those kind of events.

It's not that they've figured out how to do it in compliance with their existing SUP.

So for these reasons, I wish the city would not approve the special use permit today.

I and other neighbors have no confidence that they'll abide by the conditions of their special use permit because they didn't before.

The trust here is broken.

But should the city decide to approve this SUP, there need to be further conditions, as have already been described.

There's nothing between the Heron's rooftop and the corner of Prince and South St.

ASAP.

You can go up there and look.

It's a tough place to hold amplified events and not disturb the peace.

Amplified music and DJ events could be held indoors at the first floor restaurant as was originally planned in the existing SUP.

And acoustic unplug performances could be held on the rooftop.

And you've heard about tools that can monitor the noise level, cut it off, and make it easier for neighbors to enjoy their private indoor and outdoor spaces without hearing the heron and make it easier for the city to enforce the SUP.

And certainly Sunday could be eliminated from the schedule.

I cannot tell you how in congress it is to be enjoying a nice family dinner outside with my kids and my mom, and then hearing the of the club beat going on in the background.

It's just kind of weird.

My family and I do want the Heron to be successful.

And we want to be able to enjoy time at the rooftop at good fortune, but not at the expense of enjoying our own home, garden, and neighborhood.

I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

Our final speaker, there's one more after okay, is Laura Vedder, and then we'll have one more speaker after that.

Okay.

My name is Laura Vedder, and I reside at 204 South St.

Asa Street.

I'm representing over 30 of my and Hotel Heron's neighbors who reside in Old Town and who object to the special use permit.

My neighbors and I were initially excited for the opening of the Hotel Heron.

We were enthusiastically among their first customers, and I actually hosted an event at the Hotel Heron.

But we are saddened by their disregard for the neighborhood.

These violations include operating unauthorized entertainment on the rooftop and generating noise, both in excess of city ordinances and outside of permissible hours.

As is the case with many of my neighbors, not only could I hear the music from the Hotel Heron's rooftop outside my home, but inside as well.

This is wholly unacceptable.

Sound carries from high points.

It is why churches have steeples with bells up high, why air raid sirens were on rooftops, why the call to pray is from a minaret, and why the Hotel Heron's request should be considered with a higher level of scrutiny than other SUP applications to play music outside.

Well, it is a commercial establishment.

The Hotel Heron is not cited in an exclusively commercial neighborhood.

It exists in the neighborhood where we live and have raised our families.

Yet, despite many documented complaints by residents and many city engagements with hotel management, the hotel harem persisted through some 14 months, causing a great deal of resident distress until finally the city enforced compliance with their existing SUP.

Well, the city staff report observes there have been no complaints in the past year.

I should point out this is because the Hotel Heron has not been playing live music.

Given the applicant's extensive history of outright disregard for its neighborhood and neighbors, its existing SUP is authorized by the city, as well as the city's noise ordinances, commercial and residential alike.

This application should only be approved with stringent conditions, incorporating technology for enforcement.

The Hotel Heron has proven itself untrustworthy to honor its commitments to the city and its neighbors.

Considering the public financing extended to the Hotel Heron, this entity should be a better neighbor.

Should city council approve this SUP.

The Hotel Heron should only be allowed to play music from the roof deck when a noise enforcement officer is on duty, as previous understaffing of this position has delayed city response to noise violations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

Madam Clark, if you could call the last speaker.

Peter Troy Triola.

He's online.

He's online.

And did Hannah Williams come back on?

Okay.

So Mr.

Triolo, you can unmute and begin your comment.

He's able to unmute himself.

Mr.

Triolo, you can begin when you're ready.

Morning.

This is uh Peter Triolo, new general manager for Hotel Heron.

Uh and just wanted to say apologize for past, as I cannot speak to the past, but uh I have been part of a smaller community in Napa, California.

Uh, and know the importance of being a part of a community in a hotel as I ran a hotel back in Napa.

Uh, and want to do my best to build trust with the community and but the better foot forward moving forward uh and working with any conditions that have been added.

Uh I do know a couple sound engineers and have already been working with a few of those.

Um to start the conversations.

Uh, but at the end of the day, we as a hotel want to be uh the best neighbor and best part of the community that we can.

So we are open to doing what our neighbors are expecting of us, as well as not having any complaints moving forward, but reacting to the best we can uh moving forward.

But the idea is obviously not to have any uh NB set up so that we are in compliance and uh able to be a part of the community as we should have from the beginning.

Uh hope that is suitable for neighbors who have spoken out in communities.

I've reached out to a couple of you already uh and hopefully looking forward to building a stronger and better relationship moving forward.

Thank you for your time, this morning.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Triolo.

Um, as the applicant, do any of my colleagues have questions for the applicant?

Uh Councilman Chapman.

Thank you.

Um first question, uh, maybe I miss this.

How long have you been on in management of the hotel?

Two weeks.

Actually, three if you include this week, but I was out of town this week.

Okay, and I'm assuming um staff, we don't have any violations during those two weeks.

Okay.

There's not thank you.

No, uh, I raised that question just uh to get understanding of the management.

I think one of the things in dealing with um a previous applicant that had Norge violations, um it I hate to say it like this, but it really does fall on the management if they do not take this seriously.

Um it is uh a gross uh just acknowledgement that you know the the property is not being handled right.

It sounds uh something as simple as uh holding to a certain decibel, um, which is very simple because we have a volume control uh that should be understood.

Um I, for one, and you know, going dealing with other restaurants that have had these issues, um, take this very seriously.

Uh, and so I think council does as well, um, because it's not oh it's not just about the sound and uh breaking that violation, it's it's really about the management of the property uh in an urban space.

And so I would hope that as you come on board, uh you are sensing the concern uh from neighbors who have already, as somebody said, already had trust broken.

And uh to your words, uh, wanting to build that up is really going to take uh let's be honest, not months, but probably years of work uh to make sure that you are in uh compliance uh and no one has to call and um kind of have to chase you down or chase the organization down to get compliance.

Um, because I'll tell you if you are back here, I I will definitely look to re uh revoke your SCP.

Uh uh again, I do not play, uh I do not want to play with uh these noise violations because again, management can handle this internally if they choose to do so.

Uh and I do not believe our staff should have to continuously chase after applicants to get them to do uh what they know to do.

Completely agree.

Uh thank you, sir.

Mayor Gaskins.

Um, sir, if you can stay online, uh, Mayor Gaskins has a question.

Certainly.

Yes.

My first question, um, we heard earlier that the hours on Sundays are usually from three to I think three to ten.

I'm curious why the request to begin approval for music at 1 p.m.

Uh more for the brunch hours.

We're not looking to do later music, especially on a Sunday evening.

It's more for the brunch hours and around a brunch uh concept.

Okay, so you would potentially your current hours that you typically open at three would be changing to earlier around one.

Is that what I'm understanding for a brunch service?

At some point in time, most likely, but not currently.

So we'd start music probably three o'clock at the beginning of the service.

Uh probably go three to five, but we're not looking to extend into the evening on a Sunday.

Okay, I guess I'm asking more on the earlier side.

The one o'clock.

My understanding is that you guys asked for approval to for one to seven.

Tell me about what's happening from one to three.

There's nothing at this point in time happening from one to three.

We have no uh no direction to open earlier at this time.

The request is in there for if we wanted to change that in the future to open earlier for doing more of a brunch mid-afternoon service.

Okay, and is that a concept you're currently exploring?

What I'm trying to get at is I don't want to approve something today, and then in a few, I don't know, in a few weeks as we start the summer season, now we're all of a sudden openings earlier at one o'clock for the brunch if that's not planned.

It is not planned right now.

Okay.

My other question was going to be earlier.

We talked about that it is on the applicant to have a clear process for how noise violation noise complaints will be documented.

Walk me through what you're thinking about that process will look like.

Uh, we will create a log at our front desk, uh, which is manned 24-7.

Uh, we will document any call that comes in to adjust uh volume levels, and we'll adjust those volume levels immediately by the MOD on property.

Uh it will have a time log for when the call came in, time log for when the volume was adjusted.

Um, and then depending on the technology and what technology we have in, we'll even time log DBI uh and any information that we can.

Okay, so there will be a process for storing and keeping the record of that log.

Is that correct?

Yes, we will have a binder.

We have a couple different logs at the front desk.

We'll just add another binder log.

That's the plan uh as part of that condition to uh keep a log.

We have pest control logs, etc.

So this will just be another log from a noise level standpoint and complaint.

Okay.

And finally, you mentioned technology.

I think you heard from a number of the nearby neighbors, uh desire to see a system implemented that can just do the logging for you.

What type of technology are you already conceived considering?

And is that type of investment one of one of them?

We well, we haven't the only thing we've looked into right now is the one on the condition, uh, which is giving uh single control.

But I after the first uh hearing reached out to a friend of mine who is a sound engineer to start working on things we are willing and open to putting in the money and investment in tech technology to uh be a good neighbor and to be a good part of the community to make sure that we are in line with the uh SUP's ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I I have um councilman um Al Nubi and Councilwoman Marks also had questions, but I understand um councilman Green might have a direct follow-up on this on this line of questions.

Yes, thank you, madam vice mayor.

Um my question, Mr.

Triello, and thank you for being on the call.

Um I'm a little confused.

Uh it says um, or I believe that your brunch, um, to clarify what the questioning from the mayor, your brunch is from 10 to 3 every Sunday, but it's held in your restaurant, correct?

Correct.

We don't have any operations of uh as a brunch up on the rooftop as of now.

Okay, all right.

I just wanted that clarified.

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you, Councilman Green.

Councilman Alnubi.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, Mr.

question.

Um in the applicant response uh to the application and one of the to where it's on the stuff report page 16.

Um the applicant says a sound meter slash reader has been installed in the pace for continuous readings.

Can you tell me a little bit more about what that is, what it does, and does it have the ability to collect data and logs?

Am I different from the governor that we're talking about?

Sorry.

I unfortunately I cannot speak to that because uh I am not aware of it as at this point in time, just being two weeks in um this whole process started prior to me, but uh I can definitely get you an answer for that.

Uh when I get back to the hotel this week.

Mr.

City Manager.

Yeah, could could add uh there are um very I'm very familiar with uh some technologies that provide uh continuous noise monitoring that can be handled fully electronically, in fact, certainly providing that technology or that noise monitoring directly via email uh to city staff, for instance, for compliance purposes as well as others.

Um that technology exists today.

It's been applied uh in other industries pretty effectively.

So should the council want to do that?

Um, that technology does exist.

And we would be happy to support that.

No, I've um one moment.

Yeah, I've I've worked with that with um water monitoring as well, you know, utility monitoring that produces a daily email showing you know usage rates.

Um, I think councilman marks was next, and then I'll turn to councilman Chapman.

Councilman Al Nubi is was that the end of okay.

All right, councilman Marks.

Uh Mr.

Triolo, thank you for being on the phone.

Um, I understand sort of the awkwardness of not being present and this line of questioning just two weeks in.

Um, I have some experience uh working in the restaurant injury industry with a restaurant group.

Um, and so I understand turnover uh and that you're you know making an effort here to to be a good neighbor.

Um I guess what I'm asking you, I'm not sure that you can guarantee here, but on behalf of sort of the restaurant group and the management and everything else, you know, when when we make this agreement with you, um, how are we ensuring that it how are we ensuring the longevity of this relationship and this agreement, understanding that you know restaurants do turn over staff.

Um, is this an agreement that we are making with you, or is this an agreement that we are making with the Hotel Heron?

Uh I would say both.

Uh, I don't plan on going anywhere.

We moved out here two years ago.

Uh this opportunity was a great opportunity for myself and my family.

Um, I think you're making it with both personally, but I will take personal uh responsibility for this currently as I am the general manager of the hotel, so the hotel's full responsibility falls on me, which includes being a good neighbor and uh being a good part of the community.

Uh, you know, the rooftop I ran, uh sorry, the hotel I ran in Napa had a rooftop.

So I have been a part of this situation before uh and believe that I was a good neighbor and a good part of the community.

I sat as the president of our downtown Napa Association board uh before I left Napa uh and had a good relationship with the community.

So uh you can make you can have the agreement with myself.

And my apologies, I wasn't able there to be there this morning.

We got in late last night.

I was on vacation on the West Coast.

No, great.

No, thank you.

Um, I also I want to point out to you and to everybody that that what this, what the conditions of approval here are asking for, and what the neighbors are asking for here is specific technology that's recording uh the noise volumes.

They're not even asking necessarily for for limitation here.

They're asking for recording because of a long history of violation.

So they want to be able to prove that this is happening in the event that somebody can't get out to see it.

So I just I want to point out the gravity of of what we're asking for here.

We want the technology or I personally want the technology coming into this and being brand new.

I personally want the technology to be able to prove the other side of that that we are in uh compliance with the SUT.

So great.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um the last thing I would I would ask, um, which is less of a question, I apologize for that, is just that you know, as you move forward in this, you know, what I'm hearing from from the community, a lot of what I'm hearing is about um the incongruence of the music that is emanating from the establishment out into the community and um the 4 p.m.

you know, club beats.

Yes.

So while it is not our place to govern the the kind and quality of music that's played at the hotel, I would ask that you know a cons that consideration be paid to the neighbors um when determining you know what kind of noise um you are permitted to play from the rooftop.

Um, you know, you've got a music studio.

Correct.

Uh who is affected by this uh with musicians and uh you know people who are skilled in this area.

Uh so I would just ask that that you as the new manager use some discretion when making decisions about what music we're playing at, you know, 10 o'clock at night in Old 10 Alexandria.

100% understand that.

Completely agree.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um seeing uh councilmanGeary Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, I'm gonna disagree a little bit with my colleague uh councilwoman marks here.

Mr.

Uh Triolo, I'm not gonna thank you for being on the phone because I need you to understand the gravity of this.

I understand you're two weeks in and you may have had vacation planned, but you and your organization should have had someone here in person.

I mean, this is a very serious offense.

The council doesn't take this lightly.

I mean, when we revoke an SUP, I I mean that could that could crush a restaurant or a hotel.

So I I the next time a conversation like this happens, we need to have someone in person.

If it's still you on on the phone, but you need some about another representative in the in in person, then that's what needs to happen.

Because this is um, yeah, uh with with the way this conversation has been going, I'm not inclined to to give you hours on Sunday, to be honest.

And I I don't need you to respond.

I just need you to understand how serious this is.

Um, this may sound a little a little off, but uh Mr.

Manager, I would like to review the ability within the historic district uh to put in windows that are more modern that can be more um insulating and they can also hold noise.

Uh a lot of the problems that we have sometimes within the historic district is that one, it's not only extremely expensive to put in historic windows, but two, it the bills for for power, for heat, for for cooling, and then now we're clearly seeing the situation as well with the noise.

I think it's something that um this council finding needs to try and address.

So if you wouldn't mind jotting that down, um and also this one might sound a little funny too, but when Virginia Tech was first coming, I I joked, you know, hopefully the students can try and figure out a way to get us a better noise monitor.

Um, but if we could try and collaborate with Virginia Tech a little bit more to see uh where we can make some advances there.

Um yeah, and I I would be in favor just to signal to my colleagues that we we look at some type of limiter or something that has some type of data collection.

Uh I think that would be very positive.

Um I would not be in favor at this point for for Sunday hours.

However, uh, if over about a year's time over the three, six and 12 month uh check-ins, if they remain in compliance, then perhaps if you come back and administratively uh planning and zoning can decide um, okay, maybe you could come back and we could give you some limited hours on Sunday.

I don't know if it's something that we would be required to look at again.

And Madam City Attorney, I'm kind of taking a look at it.

I think that if you write into the conditions what you're specifying as far as if your criteria is for the first however many months, three months, there's no Sunday hours for the live entertainment, and then say if there are no um noise violations that are recorded or um validated, and then that staff has the ability to go ahead and extend or to allow Sunday hours.

Um, I think that would be enough discretion for the the director of planning and zoning to know exactly what your intent is so that it doesn't have to come back to you.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councilman Aguirre.

And for what it's worth, um, I want to second the con the idea of reevaluating the window options in the historic district.

I think for a host of reasons, noise and energy efficiency being two of them that I completely align with.

Um seeing no further.

Oh, sorry, Councilman Chapman for the applicant.

Um, that's general question.

Yeah, we can.

Um, I'll move to a close of public hearing.

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

Any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, uh, all those in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

So we're closed the public hearing.

I'll now turn to councilman Chapman for questions for staff.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, as we pull together uh kind of a motion here, I want to understand um if we are thinking about additional technology, how specific do we need to be in terms of uh when we make that motion so we're clear uh not only on the record, but also to kind of staff, because I've heard a couple of different things here, and I don't want to get it wrong because I do want to try to give uh staff an understanding of what we're going for.

Clarity is preferred, but if we don't have the knowledge today of the detail as far as whether it's called a limiter or it's called a governor, you can leave that flexibility to staff to explore the technology that would allow you to accomplish creating the logs and that sort of thing, if that's what you're looking for.

Does that are we making sense of here of kind of what we're what we're looking for?

Yes, and I think um in the planning commission's proposed condition number 10.

We could insert into one of the sentences, probably the second sentence, decibel monitoring devices with data loud with data logging um available to city staff, something like that.

Um staff can wordsmith that to be more precise.

But essentially that would be the concept to be inserted into condition 10.

I think that's what I'm hearing from you all is that you would like to see that.

Mr.

Manager, did you have a comment?

I no, I I agree with uh Tony.

I I would uh suggest uh not specifying the specific technology, but that it that the technology used from what I'm hearing of council, it would have continuous monitoring during the operation of the rooftop.

Uh that monitoring would provide remote data directly to the city.

Um that uh the uh the date the monitoring equipment have the ability to cap the sound.

I think those would be three pieces that uh provide some assistance.

I think that's consistent with the expert uh testimony that I heard earlier.

Okay, I do um it does sound like through this process we've we're moving towards a consensus.

Um I would entertain a motion if somebody wants to attempt to capture what's been discussed with regard to condition 10 and any proposed changes to the hours.

Madam Mayor.

Um Madam Vice Mayor, sorry.

So I would go ahead and put a motion on the floor.

And uh before I put this motion, I want to give a quick disclaimer to my colleagues.

Please feel free to enter a friendly amendments so we can get this uh right to what we're looking for.

Um, but I'd go ahead and start out with a motion uh to recommend approval for SUP um 2026 0009 with amendments to condition nine requiring uh an additional three-month review of the SUP and uh and the amendment to condition 10 that the planning commission added, but also um I guess uh an additional amendment um to have a decibel monitoring uh technology that also has the ability to cap sound.

Does that uh does that capture what we're we can um wordsmith the condition to capture exactly what you said?

All right, and so I'll put that on the floor.

Oh there's a motion by Councilman Chapman, a second by councilman Aguirre.

Any further discussion, Councilman Aguirre?

Uh thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I I would add in there um uh staff, you can help me out.

Would this be under condition three if we uh deny the Sunday hours for live entertainment with a limit or you said with a limit?

I was asking.

Are you looking to remove Sunday hours?

Yeah, I was gonna deny Sunday hours completely with the caveat that um with the um 12 month full compliance, no issues, that they would be able to come back and administratively talk to staff or that would be a modification of condition.

Yeah, it'd be number three.

And I think what you would specify is to um to remove from condition three the allowance for Sunday hours, uh, or you could say um no Sunday hours uh uh until the the operator has a continuous period of operation for 12 months uh without more than two um confirm violations.

So the amendment would be to modify condition three removing Sunday hours.

The extra clauses are only if you want to have the baked in administrative approval.

I it's a simpler thing, probably just to remove the Sunday hours.

Removing Sunday hours and giving them the opportunity to come back after 12 months of compliance with no more than two um to what else?

Uh yeah, we're not yeah, because I think the problem is you could always have one violation and then they go up there, they make a correction, but really if they're walking to two, three, four violations, then it's a then it's a repeat problem.

Uh the other thing to look at is if they do have a a period of of solid performance, let's say it's six months, nine months, twelve months, they have no violations, the controls they've put in place uh are working.

Uh, then I would hope that uh uh an expansion, a modest expansion of hours is something that could be considered for them on the consent agenda.

Uh it's still a process they'd have to go through, but it would still allow for full public transparency about any changes.

With no more than two violations.

So that's a friendly amendment to move it.

Yes.

Okay.

So there's a motion now pending on the floor that has the addition to condition 10 and the addition to condition three.

Uh Madam Mayor, and then I have Councilman Marks.

Um, I two things.

One, just want to let you all know my power went out.

So I'm having a few little internet issues.

Um, but two would just say I um am support of I am in support of the friendly amendment um removing Sunday hours.

I'm also in support of the um other conditions as proposed by councilman Chapman, because I think they move us a lot closer to having a verified system of enforcement and a process for um being able to check in and really see if this applicant is being a good neighbor and if they are um abiding with the current conditions before awarding them additional flexibility or authority.

So thank you, Madam Mayor.

Councilman Marks and then Councilman Al Nubi.

Hi.

Oh, all right, Councilman Al Nuby.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

I'm also supportive, and um I apologize if this was already in the motion, um, Councilman Chapman.

So I would just add um if you would accept um this if it's not already in the motion, um, that the monitoring would be continuous, um, automated and then with remote access, and then it would retain records for 12 months um that can be verified by city staff.

I guess I don't I don't necessarily have a problem with with those.

Uh I think I I did want to leave it vague, not knowing the technology that's out there.

Um if if it if technology that we find to work does not hit on all three, I think that could be problematic.

Um, and then kind of leave staff with the issue.

But I would ask, I guess I would ask staff uh do you get a are you I'd ask the question to staff are you getting the sense kind of what we're looking at looking for based on what you're hearing from council members, including uh councilman Linubi's comments?

Yes, and I believe what the city manager alluded to is technology that would allow staff access to the data on a continuous basis.

Um I know there's other monitoring uh technology that sends staff you know data on every Monday morning at 9 a.m.

See what happened during the weekend.

So you know, something like that.

So does that um does staff staff's answer meet what you're you're yes, yes, okay, especially the last B something that can send data on you know continuous basis where because what I'm trying to avoid here is we only have two noise inspectors.

We don't want them to keep going out.

So the data can come to us, um that that's even better.

And I think as Tony as a city manager and as the experts alluded, there are some technologies out there that can be Wi-Fi access to the Wi-Fi and send logs or logs can be accessed.

So yes, that's what I'm looking for.

Okay.

Okay, so the the net result there, I think is that we're not amending the motion further, but staff understands effectively what we're looking for um in the product.

Okay, so there's uh been a motion and a second.

Seeing no further discussion, um, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilman Chapman.

All right.

Councilman Gary.

Icemar Bagley.

I councilman Alnuby.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilwoman Marks.

Aye.

All right, thank you to everyone who came in to speak today on that item.

Madam Clerk, if you could call the next item.

Public hearing, second reading, and final passage of an ordinance to amend sections 5-2-16 license.

Merchandise on or otherwise obstructing sidewalks and other public rights away in 5-2-29 street encroachments.

Okay, while staff is um swapping out here.

Madam Clerk, could you confirm that there are no speakers on there is one speaker?

Oh, we're on 16.

Sorry, thank you.

Okay, so we will have a brief public presentation, then we will have our speaker and uh move to council discussion.

With that, uh miss Riley, the floor is yours.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Uh uh Vice Mayor uh Bagley.

I'm joined also by deputy city manager Emily Baker for our presentation today on uh the proposed ordinance in front of you.

So this is a follow-up to a previous hearing on um proposing civil penalties for uh right-of-way encroachments.

So um today the ordinance before you proposes adding uh warnings and fines to those uh violating our right-of-way.

And we heard clearly from the last hearing that there was um an interest in having escalation of fines and giving more notice to cure.

So what is in front of you today is when someone is found in violation um of the right-of-way uh with an encroachment, the first thing that would happen is um that a person would receive uh a warning.

Uh, and then if they were found to be violating a second time, the penalty would be 200.

However, that 200 could be waived if the person met with staff during which they would be informed how to come into compliance and have some more education about um the uh right-of-way rules and regulations.

A third violation would also be a 200 penalty.

A fourth violation would then escalate to 500, and then for a fifth penalty, it would then escalate to 1,000, and every subsequent violation thereafter uh would be the same uh 1,000.

So uh this is a picture of an encroachment that most everyone is familiar with.

This is a parklet that's in front of a restaurant.

Uh TENS can grant permits for uh retail establishments to uh sell outside.

Um, but there are many different types of encroachments.

This is just one common example, but an encroachment is any um activity or an object that uh occupies or extends into the public right-of-way beyond its intended public use.

So there are different types of permitted encroachments.

There are administrative ones, and these are ones that Tess has the authority to issue.

So uh examples again, outdoor dining and restaurants, retail businesses.

For example, we heard in the prior hearing the shoe rack around uh comfort one that isn't allowable use.

Um, and so test issues can issue permits for that.

Um, and then we also issue permits for planters or furniture, things that can go into the right-of-way to help beautify the space.

Um, there are non-administrative encroachments, and these are a little more complex, and test does not have the authority to approve these on their own.

These typically go through a couple of other agencies and come before council for approval.

So, examples are um some architectural features like steps or stoops or ramps or decks or overhangs.

Um, and then there's also stationary encroachments like uh retaining walls.

So this is an example of a retaining wall that is currently an encroachment in the right-of-way.

Um, and unfortunately, Tess has been unsuccessful in getting uh the property owner to come into compliance because our approach without civil penalties, we try to achieve compliance through conversation.

It truly is voluntary.

So uh we've talked to this property owner several times and encouraged them to come in to get a permit, noting that they probably would be approved and they still have not.

So this is really just to point out a different type of encroachment, but also to highlight that um we really don't have any enforcement to get compliance other than encouragement and conversation with people.

So uh we also heard very clearly in the first hearing on this an interest in understanding how tests would go about communications and engagement regarding this uh ordinance if it were passed.

So our objectives in the engagement period would be uh to raise awareness among businesses and residents so they're fully aware about the upcoming increases and uh in encroachment enforcement, and we also really want to improve the public understanding of the encroachment permit requirements for parklets or other uses of the right-of-way because truly what we want to do is to have people come into compliance before this goes into effect.

So we are creating a multilingual flyer in four different languages.

This flyer is going to outline uh the enforcement levels that would be included in this ordinance, permit requirements, and also information on how to apply to have permits accrued uh approved.

Um, and then also this flyer is meant to uh sort of live in perpetuity and be iterative.

It would be issued to folks along with warnings or notices of violation.

Uh so our inspectors would always have these on hand and be um sharing them with those that are uh encroaching in the right of way.

And how we're going to uh get our information out there is we are really focusing on business districts, civic associations and community organizations that serve diverse populations.

So, for example, in business districts, we would be obviously looking to work with the construction industry because they have uh they get a lot of permits.

Um, and then also we have reached out to Chirilagua, RT's restaurant, and the tenants and workers united, but we will be uh looking to engage other uh community groups that serve diverse populations.

And the communications will be included.

Um they'll have the multilingual flyer and they'll go out in August uh e-business newsletter.

So again, we really do want to be working with brick and mortar businesses, and uh they brick and border businesses per the code can have a parklet permit to operate retail and dining within the parking lane and uh or the sidewalk.

So um the adjacent business is typically allowed to get a permit to use the right-of-way.

And just as a reminder, the city did pilot a street vendor program in the past.

Um, what we learned through that process was the regulatory framework was a little challenging for the vendors to navigate.

Only two vendors chose to participate in that pilot program.

And enforcement for the city was pretty time-consuming and costly.

So again, this is just uh a reiteration of the proposed fine structure that is in before you today.

So, first a warning, second violation could be a civil penalty, but could be waived.

Third is 200, fourth is 500, fifth is a thousand, and additional violations continue to be a thousand dollars per citation.

So today, again, we're asking you to adopt this ordinance that uh includes the graduated civil penalties, and also following up on our first hearing on this, we're proposing a delay uh until September 1st uh to have this authority uh granted to us.

And in that time, TES will be very intentional and our outreach and education, because again, we really want to try to have people in compliance before this goes into effect.

And then after September 1st, we would still continue our education activities and enforcement.

So thank you very much.

Uh thank you, Director Riley.

Any questions for staff at this time before we move to our public speaker?

Councilman Gary.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, for staff.

So, how many instances are we having of this uh in the city?

Is it in the tens, hundreds, thousands?

What are what are we kind of looking at?

Yeah, councilmember Gary, thank you for the question.

Um, we have unfortunately limited or sparse data on these types of encroachments.

Um they live in different systems, different places, or sometimes not documented.

So I'm not able to provide a robust answer to that question.

I did have uh 311 run a report with words associated with encroachment.

Uh, and there were roughly a couple of hundred that came through in the past three years.

Those are largely in uh largely related to construction enforcement.

So this is gonna make my next question more difficult then because we don't have a clear understanding of where this is being housed, how it's being tracked, which is very unfortunate.

Um frankly, kind of unacceptable.

I mean, we should be tracking this.

We have enough technology, we have enough resources, we have enough people.

So the fact that we're not tracking this doesn't really make sense to me.

But that aside, uh, do we have any idea of what the difference in numbers are?

You said maybe a couple hundred with the differences between uh structural encroachments versus a vendor or business.

Uh at this time, councilman agreer, I do not have the answer to that question, but I can follow up and get back to you.

And then uh I'm probably not gonna have an answer to this question either.

Do we know the difference between uh resident or staff initiated um responses or initiations?

Um if you could clarify a little bit more, are you asking for the number of inspections generated by those folks?

Um not just the number of inspections that are generated, but are these inspections being generated because we as a city are noticing it or because residents are bringing it to our attention?

Uh councilman, I believe, yes, is the answer to both of those, but the preponderance of uh how many fall into each category, I can't answer today.

Um so you said you have an idea of um how well I'm not even sure how many were instances were generated.

Uh again, I haven't had a chance to look.

I just got the 311 report late last evening, so I haven't had the chance to go through it.

I apologize, but I will follow up.

And might not have an answer to this question either, then.

Um from what we might or might not be tracking, do we have any idea about where this is going on in the city?

It uh sure.

So there are uh a multitude of instances throughout the city.

So construction is throughout the city, vending is throughout the city.

Um, so I don't know if there, I I know when we talked earlier this week you were interested in seeing a heat map.

I can't provide that in that information today, but I can tell you that enforcement activities happen all over the city of Alexandria.

So I'm afraid I'm gonna have to be a little bit incredulous with that response because when you say it's throughout the city, yet we're not able to capture what's actually happening or not.

I mean, it makes so sure it might be happening across the city, but is it a one-off in each section?

Is it 20 incidences in in one part of the city?

So I'm I'm sorry, but I'm a bit incredulous with that response, right?

Um I guess the my my last question, and again, this is difficult to try and figure out because we're not really tracking this.

Um, how many individuals, businesses, whatever it might be from instances where an incident has occurred that individuals or businesses have refused to comply?

Again, council member, I'm sorry I can't answer that question today.

Understood.

Uh so to my colleagues, you know when we literally can't answer any of these questions, I don't really understand what we're doing with this.

And until we can answer these questions, I don't believe that we should move forward.

I understand that, you know, the would you mind going back to the slide where uh the encroachment uh the the picture with the retaining wall?

So something like this, don't get me wrong.

I mean, this is this is very egregious.

The problem is we don't know how often this is happening.

We don't know if it's because residents are are finding it, because city staff is finding it.

We don't know how often people are complying or not.

Um so while I I do understand the need to have teeth and a stick for something like this, which is very egregious, to have this blanket policy around enforcement and uh fines.

I I can't support it because I don't there's there's no documentation.

And unfortunately, we do we do need to do a better job.

Uh thank you, my councilman Aguirre.

I'm gonna I have Councilman Al Nubi next and then Councilman Chapman.

I just on that point though, I I am I have less concerns about potential tracking of historical violations with regard to physical structures because it's so verifiable.

I mean, you know, and I think we we have agreement on this point, sort of something like this.

I mean, if this was built even farther, it would be blocking you know, pedestrian access, wheelchair access, it might you know present utility problems.

So um, I just appreciate the separation in your comment, sort of between the relative verifiability and impact of something like this wall versus some of the other activities that are um potentially subject to this ordinance.

So just wanted to acknowledge that, you know, at at the same time.

Um councilman Al Nubi next, and then councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

And along those lines, I just want to follow up to understand a bit more.

But just to set the frame here, we have a code law.

But we don't have an enforcement mechanism to this code, correct?

And what we're trying to do here is create an enforcement mechanism.

Is that accurate?

Uh yes, Councilmember Al Nubi, we do have an enforcement mechanism right now, but all it is is a written violation.

Yeah, that's not enforcement mechanism.

Um then help me bridge the gap between the two.

How did we, how did you come to the conclusion?

What came before you?

How did you decide that or find out?

Okay, we have a code, we don't have an enforcement mechanism.

We need to create an enforcement mechanism.

Walk me through the process of how you came to this conclusion and decided to bring it before council.

Did you find violations?

Did people complain?

Clearly, there's no necessarily pattern of data, but I want to understand the thought process behind you deciding to say we need an enforcement mechanism.

Let's bring this before council.

Um, Emily Baker, deputy city manager.

I'm gonna step in here because um director Riley wasn't here, hasn't been here that long.

Um we do have um a uh information about these types of things where we have complaints, some complaints from residents and business owners and some from city inspections that have happened.

And in the case of this retaining wall, this was something that was um discovered by city staff doing inspection.

This wall was built as part of a renovation of the building on this property.

And this was identified immediately.

Um, and we have not had the ability to do it.

Um we also have had complaints about encroachments, um, people putting fences in the right-of-way or other walls in residential areas where neighbors have complained.

Sometimes staff have indicated it.

In the case of vending, we have had um neighboring businesses complain.

So I think it's really just been an accumulation over recent years of recognizing that we have an issue and the inability to enforce it and a frustration on our part that we know there's something that, as you said, is the law on in the city code, but we don't have the any teeth to do that.

And it's very difficult when we receive complaints and people are asking us, you know, to enforce something that's clearly a city a violation and frustration that the city is not doing anything about it.

So that's really what has led us to this.

Got it.

Very helpful.

Thank you.

And this is what I wanted to understand.

So we we we have the code, we have the the law over the course of business, whether it's our inspectors going out or we received complaints over time, and then we realized, oh wow, this is an issue, but we don't have an enforcement mechanism for so we decided to to implement an enforcement mechanism.

Is that an accurate description of what brought us here today and where we are?

Yes.

Thank you.

I could uh please jump in with respect to an enforcement mechanism.

Uh hi, my name's Lindsay Dubin.

I'm an assistant city attorney.

Um we technically do have a couple of enforcement mechanisms, but they might be uh more dramatic than what is needed to resolve the issue, which is why we haven't necessarily jumped to them.

So one enforcement mechanism is that we could sue people for an injunction to have them remove their items.

Now, do we want people, you know, do we necessarily want to drag residents into court over this?

Uh is a question that we we've been debating with for a lot of these instances.

Uh another enforcement mechanism that we have is we have the authority under Virginia law to remove the items ourselves from the right-of-way.

But that of course involves taking people's property and again is a very dramatic resolution.

Whereas civil penalties that especially if they start with a warning, we uh I my understanding is staff thought that that might be more appropriate than immediately resolving or resorting to removing physical removal of people's property, which we have the right to do.

Uh and I will uh I I will mention also that I've been intermittently consulted with uh by with staff um uh about these issues as they come up and and remember another example that sometimes comes up is that vehicles or um truck cabins um will block driveways and making making it difficult for folks um you know who have limited um mobility um concerns to kind of get around them because they'll be entirely blocking the sidewalk.

And I know there was an instance uh I believe on Wheeler Street a couple of years ago where um staff asked folks for a couple of months now uh to these restaurant owners to remove um their their truck cabins because they were blocking people and uh for a couple of months there wasn't resolution and there was uh large debate about how to address the issue, you know, do uh and the fact that we didn't have civil penalties, so there was less of an incentive for for folks to move because of that.

Thank you.

Very helpful.

Thank you for adding that context as well.

Thank you, Madam President.

That's all I have.

No, and thank you, um, assistant city attorney Dubin.

I I think it's a it's a strong point.

I think it's important for the public to hear that yes, we could go out and knock down this wall, but then we potentially are opening up another can of worms and and legal action, and that has costs and delays for the city as well.

So this this attempt here is an inner is an intermittent level of action, I think that the staff is proposing.

With that, I'll hand it over to Councilman Chapman, then I have Councilman Marks and Councilwoman Green.

Uh thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um I think uh for the large part, most of my questions have been answered.

Um we do have a speaker on this as well.

Okay.

Um I think the last one.

Well, no, I think everything's been answered.

Thank you.

Okay, so we'll go to Councilman Marks, Councilwoman Green.

I saw Councilman Agary's hand, and then I do want to get to our public speaker, and we can return to discussion at that point.

Hi, thank you.

Uh, so first of all, I appreciate the incorporation of some of the feedback from the last meeting, uh, delaying the the timeline for enforcement, including community education, uh, you know, creating multilingual flyers and things like that.

Um, I know we were really concerned about this sort of being sprung on the community, especially the business community, and them not realizing this was going to happen after sort of a history and pattern of this behavior, not knowing uh that they were in violation of anything and then finding out with a citation.

And I also appreciate you writing in the warning and making clear that the first financial penal penalty has the ability to be withdrawn after you know a conversation and compliance.

So thank you for including that and for hearing that and incorporating it into this.

Um I do appreciate the spirit of what we're talking about here.

And I agree with Councilman Aguirre and would like to entertain the idea and ask you about the option to sort of separate out the two types of penalty we have here because we have you know property owners putting in substantial, you know, making substantial uh uh purchases and um financial improvements to their homes, which increases the value of their property potentially, um, and our significant investment in the right of way, the people's right of way.

And then we have people with a fruit cart, and they're both committing the same violation.

Um, you know, making a really exaggerated case here, which I don't expect to come up, but um, a lemonade stand.

Is it the same violation as this retaining wall uh in the public right of way?

And uh while I don't anticipate that coming up, we are writing law here and penalizing people in the same way at the same levels, where a person creating a 15, 20,000, 30,000 structure around their home in the right of way, may write off a financial citation of 200 or $1,000 as sort of the cost of doing business.

Uh, this type of penalty is something insubstantial, especially repeatedly for somebody who um who is is in a different lane.

So I'm wondering what the impact is here of separating out the architectural and non-architectural uh teeth to the existing ordinance.

Um I think that's something that we would look to the city attorney's office to help guide us on.

I you know, I think that the that vending is what I hear you saying.

You would that would be the question to that if that were carved out.

And um, I would suspect that's something we could do in the language, but I would defer to the city attorney's office.

Um, so I think at this point, um, I would like our office to be able to look at that further, whether there are other legal implications if we are um treating those types of encroachments differently.

So I would recommend that note that you defer it so that staff has additional time to study that instead of trying to make changes that that treat them differently today.

I mean, I I want to be clear and specific in that I'm not I don't want to delay something that I know staff has been really interested in pushing forward because it's like we have violations that need some kind of, you know, as Councilman Gary called it, like a stick, right?

We need something uh to push forward and allow you to do your jobs, which is to protect the public's right of way from encroachment.

Uh, at the same time, I'm just not convinced that painting with such a broad stroke across, you know, such a wide swath of violation makes sense here if we have the opportunity to be more specific.

That's all.

Okay, I want to go to councilwoman Green, who was in the queue.

Um, and then I will return to Councilman Alnuby, but I do want to remind you we have one public speaker, and then we can come back and finish up our discussion.

Okay, so we'll go to councilman Green first.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Bagley.

Um, Director Riley or uh Deput City Manager Baker.

I have a question about businesses that utilize the fronts of their stores for the displays that is is clearly or should be clear that that is a part of their store.

So should an inspector come and give them a warning?

Would they have to show something to say that that is my property that is still a part of my store?

Councilwoman Green, um they would likely have a permit, which they could demonstrate for their authority to be vending in the right of way in that instance.

So why would they need a permit if it is a part of their location?

Yeah, I think in some cases, um, the property line extends beyond the face of the building, and that may be what you're referring to.

And if we have property owners, store owners who are displaying items in front of their businesses that's on their own property, that would not fall under this encroachment because they're not on the public right-of-way.

Um I think we have access to land records that would allow us to identify that.

If a business owner were to say, no, actually, my property line is somewhere else, we would verify that before we would issue any sort of violation.

And if it was in the public right of way and it was a um the code does allow for property owners, businesses to display in front of their property in the right of way with a permit.

Um so we would certainly work with them and encourage them to go through the permitting process to be able to do that legally.

So they would still have to get a permit to display on their own property.

No, I'm sorry, if it's in a public right-of-way, they would need a permit.

If it's on their own property, they would not get a permit from the city.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna go to the city manager before I come back to Councilman.

Yeah, it might be helpful to the community to hear this.

The one of the basic reasons for an encroachment permit in that type of situation where someone is in the right of way is the protection of accessibility and you know, some of the basics of being able for patrons of the business or in the area, including residents, to be able to safely uh traverse that area.

That's the basic reason for a typical encroachment permit um in the right-of-way.

But as we pointed out, if you're not in the right of way, you don't need that.

So one of my favorite local small businesses are the lemonade stand.

And I think it's just a it's a nice um representation of what we're getting at here, which is if the stand is on the let's say homeowner's lot, no permit.

If the stand is set up on the sidewalk, that you know, that is right of way.

Ostensibly they would need a permit for that, you know, because it's otherwise blocking, you know, ingress and egress.

Um, and so that's for me how I visualize that that discussion.

I'm gonna go to councilmanal Nubay, and then if uh Mr.

Hernandez could be ready to step forward um for his public statement.

Can we turn on something you just said?

Uh that's possible.

Quick briefly, please.

Very briefly.

And I think that's also why staff has always talked about the the value of being flexible when it comes to warning for citations, because I think we have all seen those news stories about uh some person getting a little bit uh overactive with the a limit stand and calling the cops on a kid because they're in the right-of-way and trying to enforce what is frankly law, but understanding that while this is um a liminate stand that's a temporary use, it's it might be violating law, but in the spirit of letting a child uh run a lemonade stand, most staff aren't gonna come out and cite uh a liminate stand.

So I think there's there's definitely some flexibility on that too.

Thank you.

Um I think to to councilwoman Mark's point.

I think she she makes a good point, but for me, I'm trying to understand um a little bit more of what we're trying to do.

Because what I'm hearing is the the punishment, frankly, for lack of better words, the punishment should fit the crime, right?

So if someone puts an in a retaining wall out there, we don't want the penalty to be so low that they just like, well, I'll just pay the penalty, whatever, and keep the wall, right?

We want the penalty to essentially force them to comply, whether by taking it down or by applying for for the encroachment.

So with that context, how if you can go back to the slide, in that case, for example, are they gonna keep getting fined until they comply?

Yes.

Okay.

If I could ask it just on this point, um, if attorney Dubin might step in, because I think that's also helpful in terms of the compliance and repeated enforcement.

Uh yes.

So uh it's built um it as a default in the code.

And then we also include it in this ordinance that um each day that uh there's a recurring violation or um that the violation persists, they could be um penalized for it.

Now, does that mean that staff are in you know practic for practical purposes are staff gonna go out there every single day until it's gone and find them?

That's probably unlikely.

Um that but I can't speak for staff, but the there is something written both into this ordinance, but also as the default in the code that says each day a violation persists, um, the is it counts as a separate violation.

Thank you.

And can just please um if I just conclude.

Um so thank you for that.

And that's that's helpful for me.

So for me, I would just respectfully disagree with the idea of separating the fines because it seems like we have if someone has a permanent that we are going to keep finding them until they comply.

If a vendor is out there encroaching, it's much easier.

They can just pull back or the remedy is much easier.

So for me, I don't necessarily agree that we should separate the two because in it the way we have it structured right now, they we have a mechanism to have them comply.

So um, I I just I think I would be against separating um um the two um between a permanent structure and uh non-permanent structure, as my colleague had suggested, just because of the way we have it structured, then as you eloquently described um how the fines are going to work.

Thank you.

I will mention uh in case this is uh might partially address your concern that uh if if it's documented that somebody is in the process of rectifying the the issue, then um staff have the discretion to no longer issue civil penalties, even if the encroachment persists.

But if they're in the process of resolving the issue, then um staff would uh have the discretion not to find them.

Uh councilman Agarry hasn't patiently waiting, but I understand councilman Marks has a directly on point follow-up.

Can you go back to the slide with the the actual penalties, the fees?

So in the case of a structural encroachment in the public right of way, I understand that we're gonna continue to find a thousand dollars per citation.

Um what happens when we're building and we encroach in the public right of way and we're building to sell a home?

So we build, we encroach in the public right of way, and then we sell the home.

Is the buyer now paying a thousand dollars per citation?

Does it pass on?

Uh my understanding is that it would go with the property.

Okay, councilman Aguirre.

Um sorry, that one got me.

Um let me regather myself.

Uh so for the city attorneys, um how many ordinances do we have?

You could just say a lot if you want.

Please go ahead, Lindsay.

Uh a lot of ordinances.

A lot of ordinances.

Um would it be a fair statement to say that some of them are either lacking enforcement mechanisms or lacking uh what we would feel is probably an appropriate mechanism, you know, instead of nothing versus taking them to court, right?

Some of them are because uh of the timing of when the city was given the authority to uh write civil penalties in the into the code.

The the city code was written, and then I think around early 1990s, the city was then given the authority to um issue civil penalties for violations of the code.

So because of that, some of the older on older ordinances were kind of playing catch-up with in terms of issuing civil penalties or the ability to do so.

Would you say that's a very small number, or do we still have a long ways to go?

Um, well, in terms of um kind of day-to-day, in terms of the what I hear per what fill the complaints that filter up to me, um uh this is probably the ordinance that I hear the most complaints about from residents, um, where we don't necessarily have a targeted enforcement mechanism like civil penalties.

So out of all the the complaints I do hear, this is the one that's kind of been a recurring problem in terms of ability to enforce with civil penalties.

So, Ms.

Duban, you just opened yourself to this question then.

Oh no.

How many complaints have you gotten?

So the the complaints go to staff and then they are um kind of filtered up to me when people do not comply.

So it's often recurring issues, but I I can't say that.

So how many complaints have you gotten this year?

This year not so many, but I think because it was winter last year.

Um I think it was probably two sets of circumstances where people were not complying despite staff regularly engaging with them asking them to remove the um the uh uh encroachments.

So two complaints.

Yes, but that that does that's not necess that's not remotely reflective of the the 311 um complaints that staff get uh about these issues, those happen more regularly.

Um and they also I'm my understanding is some of them also are um go to planning and zoning, and I'm I'm not an attorney for planning and zoning.

So um just as far as the the complaints that get filtered up to me, but that again that's not necessarily reflective of the number of complaints that are submitted to staff.

Because we don't know how many there are um so I I am sorry, but I'm gonna beat this one to death.

And you know, deputy city manager Baker, I I took some issue with what something that you mentioned because while anecdotally we know that there are complaints and there's been accumulation.

You can't give me a number.

No department can.

That's absolutely correct.

Um while I'm not arguing the egregiousness of some of these items.

If there's one person that's not complying, yeah, that doesn't look good.

Um as uh councilwoman Marks kind of separated out.

There's one thing if we have a lemonade stand and a vendor, and there's another thing if it's someone who's actually built a structure within the right-of-way.

Um, and honestly, I mean there's violations every day with some vendors uh who have their businesses, and then they put as uh councilman chapman brought up, you know, shoes on on King Street, right?

Um residents have never complained about it, the city's never brought it up, uh, but technically they're not in compliance.

Um I'm not saying that we need to go down there right now to have a permit.

Sorry to interrupt if Councilmember McGurry.

Um after the last hearing, we did talk to Comfort One Shoes, and they did come in to seek a permit.

So they currently have a permit?

Uh I don't know if it's current right now.

They don't currently have a permit.

I don't know.

They're trying to come into compliance, but this is what I'm saying, because how many years have they been doing this without a permit?

Okay.

Um I'm sorry, Councilman Gary.

Did you have other questions?

No, I'm I'm just reiterating my point here.

Um, you know, we keep on saying, oh, there's all these complaints.

Okay, how many are they?

Oh, we don't know.

Okay, well, there's an accumulation.

Well, how many have there been this year?

How many have there been last year?

So, you know, Director Riley, WC Manager Baker, Mr.

City Manager, I think I'm making my clear abundant my point abundantly clear.

This is unacceptable that we are not tracking things.

This is unacceptable that we don't have numbers for any of this.

We're trying to move forward when there might only be one person that's the problem.

And you know what?

Maybe we need to take that sledgehammer and sue them.

Because if it's just one person, why are we doing this to everybody else?

And I think we also need to separate out the difference between a structural encroachment versus a vendor.

I'll stop there since we knew we still have a public speaker.

No, I appreciate that.

Um, and so if we can, uh we're gonna move forward with the public uh speaker.

I'm gonna call Mr.

Jose Hernandez.

Um your time will begin when you begin speaking.

And are there any other people signed up?

Okay.

Mr.

Mr.

You're ready.

Good morning, my name is Costa Hernandez.

And uh recently I noticed that they have passed a new regulation and law indicating that uh they would no longer I will no longer be allowed to sell fruits on the streets.

So I just want I was just wondering what's going to happen to that permit that I was issued.

And um I mean I just wanted to see whether or not you will allow me to still uh be able to sell fruits because that's my only financial uh support system uh per se.

I mean I need that in order to be able to pay for my rent in order to eat in order to feed myself because I have been disabled for the last 16 years.

Uh that's it.

Uh councilman, uh wait one.

Can you ask him to stay for one moment?

Uh senor Hernandez, when you start con supuesto, um see alguien in una silla de ruedas sta passando, wouldn't pass or lose.

Yeah, so my my question was if there's um someone in a uh in a wheelchair if they're going by his his post if they're able to pass or if they are blocking.

Uh no, I'm not blocking them.

They can pass by uh simply fine.

Questions, councilman?

Um if you were to receive a 200 or 500 penalty, how would that impact you financially?

Uh uh yes, I mean naturally it would affect me.

Uh practically la venta no es mucho que se diga que la venta.

Uh yes, I mean the thing is that my sales there don't amount to much per se.

They don't amount to much.

I sell very little over there, and it will definitely affect me because I mean if you were to impose uh 200, 500, 300, 1000 dollar fine, I mean uh it would uh not allow me to uh keep up with my other expenses and my business itself.

Last question, Madam Vice Mayor.

Yeah, but Councilman Gary.

Um, Mr.

Hernandez, uh, you were a part of the pilot program.

So you have uh been trying to work with the city to be able to keep your business going.

Yes, that's right.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um I appreciate my colleague's question because about the vendor program wanted to know about that.

Um, how long you've been in business?

Practically speaking, it's been going for four years already.

Okay, and um I'm assuming you probably have multiple permits, so like a business permit and then the health permit that you mentioned as well.

No, no, no.

Uh no, I don't have uh all those permits.

I just have the uh the permit from for the business for the one that I just mentioned, only one.

Are there any other questions for this speaker?

I don't know what they want to be.

Uh councilman Marks.

Uh Mr.

Handis, are you aware of any reports of violations from neighbors or businesses?

We're trying to figure out where these uh violation reports are coming from.

Are you aware of where they're coming from?

Yes, I mean at the beginning there was a mister right across in front.

Uh his name is Sergio Sergio's uh from the Belén store.

Uh he has called the police twice on me.

He has repeatedly called the police so that they can completely displace us from there.

Um thank you for your time, sir, and for speaking with us today.

Um, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Okay.

I realized um to our participants online.

Do either of you have questions for the speaker?

No.

Okay.

All right.

So um there's a motion as a second.

Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor.

I posed.

Okay.

So we have closed the public hearing.

We're now back to council discussion.

Um, Councilman Chapman.

Um, question for uh Ms.

Baker.

Um several years ago, probably close to a decade, um, we had a uh a different vendor program that was on Market Square.

Um if you recall, uh or or we tried.

We tried to have like a um I guess a cart, I don't know how you describe it, like a cart vendor program that also did not live very long.

Um if can you recall kind of the reasons why that also uh kind of fell apart and any similarities between that program and the one we tried um as well.

Um Councilman Chapman, I would have to go back and do some research on this.

I do recall the program you're talking about, and I believe we required carts, vendor carts for um for that, and they're also it was related to whether you already had a business in the area.

Um I don't want to misspeak, but I believe there were there was not a lot of participation in that program, and it may have been related to the requirements that were associated with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I think my I think we have a couple of challenges here, right?

Uh I think we have um, and I raised that question just to let people know that we have in the past tried a creative vendor program as well that uh kind of met failure.

Uh and so trying this new program, I I think staff tried it meant, but but there's a uh a good number of hurdles to uh uh an exceptional program like that.

Um I think this is the second time we've tried something like that to be able to be creative, allow for um some compliance with uh a creative way of you know expanding your business or or having your business there.

Um I do think there is uh a challenge in in terms of what councilwoman marks was talking about and kind of separating the two, kind of where do you draw the line between the smaller, maybe temporary vendor um versus kind of the brick and mortar?

Um and I think the challenge that I would be worried about is um as we break break apart those two.

Sorry, um, as we break apart those two um kind of fairness within the marketplace.

Um I think we already hear and have heard whether it's a food truck conversation, whether it's this cart, uh the cart vendor program concerns, particularly about from brick and mortar businesses, um, around the hurdles that they have to go through to uh host a business in the city and other competitors, frankly, don't have that same concern.

Um, because they don't have that same hurdle.

Um and I do think that is a challenge uh along with um the enforcement mechanism.

Uh I appreciate staff's uh flexibility because I I think we haven't been in the news lately for uh any enforcement issues around um businesses that probably would be uh like a lemonade stand that people kind of understand uh the value of uh and so I mean I I'm more apt to uh approve this at this point um versus uh defer, but I'm glad to hear from my colleagues around uh thoughts on this.

Is that a motion on the floor to further the conversation?

Madam Vice Mayor, I'll go ahead and put a motion on the floor uh to approve the ordinance.

All right, so there's a motion and a second to approve the ordinance as proposed.

Any further discussion?

Um I'd like to add a friendly amendment to that.

Um can we add to that that over the summer with the time limit being our first meeting back um after the recess that we will study what it would look like to amend this ordinance further to separate out these two uh these two pieces, the structural and the the vending.

So as I understand it, we could defer or we could move forward, uh defer and study this and and see what the legal ramifications would be of separating out these two things.

I mean, listen to us, we're talking about vastly different things here.

Yeah, so I would suggest that that's not friendly, but you I think you could put in a substitute.

Okay.

Um if you're not inclined to do that at this time, I'm gonna go to Mayor Gaskins and then I'll follow that with uh Councilwoman Green.

Uh thank you, Vice Mayor Bagley.

I guess where I'm at on this is I do think it is clear that we need greater tools for enforcement.

Uh whether we're talking about this issue or the past case where we were just talking about noise issues.

So I just want to say to the manager, I think that this is a broader challenge that if we're going to be using the summer to focus on something, I think really having a deeper look at like what is our enforcement capacity across these various types of issues that impact both our businesses and quality of life.

Do we have the capacity from a staff capacity, but also what technology or tools do we need in order to be able to do this?

Because I think to Councilman Agiri's point, I don't think we should ever be in any of these cases at a point where we don't have the data we need to show clear tracking on how these issues are showing up in our community.

With that being said, um I am I am hesitant to um go towards further deferral um with move because I do think we need we need something, like we just need something on the book.

So if there was a path, and maybe Lindsay, this comes back to you.

If there was a path where we don't have to defer the whole thing, but could move forward with the structural pieces and study the other part, I'd love to figure out if that is a path that could be like I guess I'm I'm unclear why we have to defer the whole package and couldn't begin to figure out some clearer distinction.

Because I think even in the examples we've given, we've already started to demarcate a distinction already.

Uh from a legality standpoint, yeah, I think it would be more appropriate if we did want to create separation uh between different between penalties based stuff of the type of violation.

I think it would be more appropriate to defer just because we would be giving different people different treatment and we want to just ensure of the legality of it and make sure there's a rational basis for that.

Uh so that's why we would defer just to make to uh ensure of the legality for separating out violations.

Um, but I do understand why people want to separate it out because we want to ensure of equitability, because uh like folks have described some types of encroachments are very expensive and it's a lot uh easier for some people to afford tickets than others.

Um, but yeah, so I I think I it it sounds like the options are either approve this, you know, the package uh the way it's being presented today, uh, and then um choose to amend it later, look into it, or otherwise we would uh defer the package uh if we if we are uncomfortable passing this ordinance um as written.

Okay, so there's no path that is not all or nothing, like either.

Okay.

Then let me ask you.

Um so we are, I mean, we're about to go on council recess.

So this is not something that would be ready by July 1.

This I'm not sure, Lindsay, if this is a question for you or Director Riley and City Manager Baker, but then is this September that the earliest would come back, or when what amount of timing would be needed in order to do that type of research and legal review?

Um as far as the legal research goes, probably just a couple of weeks.

So not too long.

Uh so it could be, you know, docketed for you know the the first meeting back if you guys want.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all my questions.

Okay, councilwoman Green.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

And um, I'm not comfortable voting with this as is.

I think we need a deferral.

Um, another deferral, unfortunately.

I do agree with Councilman O'Geary that um staff should have all answers to questions.

And I do understand there is also a need, but we need to get it right as well.

So my vote would be uh to defer this at this time.

Councilwoman Green, is that a substitute motion you are putting on the floor to move to defer?

Yes, it is.

Um Vice Mayor Bagley.

Okay, so there is a motion, a substitute motion to defer from Councilwoman Green, a second by councilman Aguirre.

That is now the motion on the floor.

Any discussion on the substitute motion?

Councilman.

Madam Vice Mayor, I would recommend because it it's getting into a territory of whether it's a substitute motion to actually defer that we take a vote on the motion to approve first.

And then if that fails, then the motion to defer can be made.

Can I make it even easier and just pull my motion?

Um you've it's already been spread out into the sorry about that.

Okay.

So before I we we call for a vote though, um, I want to just play out a scenario quickly.

It is there an opportunity for a motion to approve to to be made subsequent in the dialogue.

Should this motion to approve fail?

I mean, what I'm what I'm getting at here is if we if if we vote on the the pending motion, the motion to approve as it would it would fail, and so you would ultimately need to come to a decision that has a majority vote.

Okay.

But that could be some version of negative or right, right.

Right.

That means the version of uh of approving something could still prevail potentially if this vote fails.

That's correct.

Okay.

So the motion on the floor is the motion to approve the ordinance as proposed.

Um, Madam Clark, this is a roll call vote.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman Al Newby.

Uh Mayor Gaskins.

Yeah.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Nay.

Councilman Green.

Nay.

Councilman Agiri.

Nay.

Councilwoman Marks.

Nay.

Okay.

So I would return to Councilwoman Green and ask if she has a motion she'd like to put on the floor.

Yes, Vice Mayor Backley.

I would like to move to defer.

Um I don't know if I need to put specifics in there, but to defer um the ordinance at hand until um we have answers to clarifying questions that have been asked during this discussion.

Okay.

Is staff comfortable that they understand the questions pending in that motion?

I um I'll speak for staff.

I think we understand the data requests.

I think that's very clear.

What I want to see if I can summarize um sort of the deferral and where we're trying to get um I'm hearing that the permanent structure and making sure we have a enforcement tool for the types of things that are of permanent encroachment that need to go through a permit process.

And if they don't, there needs to be a level of enforcement to comply compel compliance.

That's one piece.

The second piece that I think is more open, and I think council is asking us for more information is the temporary nature of an encroachment.

What are some of the options available besides this current approach that might address temporary encroachments?

Is it the ability to allow for those in a some level of permit way, or the ability uh for a different level of compliance?

Is that my understanding of the council's the separation between temporary and non and and part more permanent?

So I'm gonna return to councilman green who's made the motion to see if that accurately reflects her intention.

Yes, that is correct.

Um, with the data also included, I believe Jim said that at the beginning.

So is there a second to councilwoman Green's motion?

Second.

Okay.

So there's been a motion by councilwoman Green to defer for the reasons stated, a second by councilman Aguirre.

Any further discussion on the motion, I'll go to Councilman Marks and then El New.

Oh, L newbi.

Thank you.

Um question for staff for the specific situation that the public speaker raised.

If this would pass, may not pass, looks like it won't pass, but hypothetically, if this would pass under this um proposed change.

But it's just they find it cumbersome, or there's no path at all for them to get a permit.

Um under the current code, there is no path that would allow vending in the public right-of-way for um that is not associated with an adjacent business.

And and for a while it was because we had the pilot program, but it's no longer the case.

That's correct.

And the pilot program was expensive and all the stuff that was still well that was presented to us.

That's correct.

It was permitted under the pilot program, um, which was done by ordinance, I believe.

Um, but there is no current path.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madame May.

Thank you.

Okay, so we've got a motion and a second.

I think I I haven't said much, and I think the only comment I'd want to make is that one of the things I think I'm most cognizant of is the regressive nature of the penalties depending on the person being penalized.

And so that is where I, you know, I appreciate the concern that Councilman Agiri has raised and recognize that even when you talk about you know speeding tickets and other matters, I mean, they affect individual budgets much differently.

Um so that's the concern that I hope can be creatively evaluated potentially, um, how we move forward.

And the other thing I would uh just to the extent people are participating and watching and and and evaluating what we're discussing here, um, if there are other opportunities for businesses like the speakers business to where they might be welcome, you know, the people have private property in the city and and are free to to use it and invite people to you know to to do things um on their private property.

And so that is certainly something that the public marketplace can respond to as well in the interim.

Um seeing no further discussion, there's been a motion and a second to defer for the reasons stated.

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

Councilman Aguirre.

I excuse me, Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilman Aguirre.

Aye.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Councilman Chapman.

Councilman L Newby.

Aye.

Councilwoman Marks.

Hi.

Okay.

The matter is deferred.

Thank you very much to staff for your time and work on this.

Madam Clerk, if you could call the next item.

Public hearing consideration and authorization of the execution of proposed comprehensive agreement for the waterfront implementation project.

Madam Clerk, are there any speakers on this item?

I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Yeah.

There's been a motion and a second.

Any discussion.

Um, all those in favor of closing a public hearing.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

The public hearing is closed.

Welcome to staff.

Um, does council need a presentation on this item?

Okay.

Uh, we don't need a presentation.

Does council have questions for staff on this item?

Um, and I want to look at our colleagues online.

Um Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

If staff could could just quickly summarize kind of changes for the public.

I think uh to the public, council has received uh individual briefings by staff members.

That's why we don't really have questions.

We certainly understand, at least have the opportunity to kind of engage staff about the changes made, but for the for the purposes of the public, if there could be something kind of summarized and then hopefully move to uh action.

Would you like the supportive graphic or just a verbal um?

In short, uh, due to the National Park Service reversal on our project, we've needed to make some significant modifications to the infrastructure that was included with it.

Primarily that is to include the deferral or elimination of the pump station that was originally proposed for waterfront park.

We are unable to proceed with that infrastructure as planned.

And so we've pivoted to uh a much enhanced gravity uh storm sewer system and uh still include the original bulkhead improvements uh to the same elevation.

So, in short, we're meeting the same performance um stormwater and rivering flood protection with a proposed pivot, but with just different infrastructure.

So there'll still be public amenities provided.

Um there is some flexibility also to continue to um come into a specific project budget and existing levels of funding.

And so we are continuing to identify value engineering options that could include some deferral of some park improvements, uh, but largely um the main core elements of the performance is the same as you've seen before, short of the pump station.

Madam President.

Uh yes, please.

And while um, Councilman Chapman, um, if staff is able to bring up the presentation and there's a slide in there, there's one really great sort of overview visual slide.

If we're gonna have a little bit of dialogue, it might be useful to have it up.

Councilman Chapman.

Uh I was gonna go ahead and uh make a motion to approve the docket item.

Okay.

Okay.

There's been a motion from Councilman Chapman, a second by Councilman Aguirre.

Any discussion on that motion?

Okay.

Uh I so I I just wanted to add, I since we're not gonna have the the image brought up.

I did this is on the docket.

Um, there's good updated information.

Mr.

Landis went over sort of what some of those changes are.

Um, we will have um ongoing uh engagement, not so much sort of uh which version do you prefer style engagement, but um awareness, signage, engagement with the business community um as this project moves forward.

Um I'm gonna pause to make sure that my colleagues online uh before I call for a vote.

I'm also slow rolling a little bit.

So Councilwoman Marks has an opportunity to return.

Yes, Councilman Anubi.

Well, since we're waiting, um, can you pull up the slide, the one with the table that shows the different options?

And also to add to that, as you're getting there, this option does not preclude a pump station, the future.

But I wanted the public to see the difference between the options that we were given and the eventual direction we'll go into right now.

Yep, that one.

Thank you.

That's it.

Okay.

Well, um sensing we uh can move this forward with those present.

Um, there's been a motion and a second.

Madam Clerk, if you could please call the role.

Council New Chapman.

Aye.

Councilman Aguirre.

Mayor Gaskins.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bagley.

Aye.

Councilman L.

Newby.

Aye.

Councilwoman Green.

Aye.

Councilwoman Marks.

Okay, the motion passes.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Landis.

I know you were here briefly today, but you spent hours before us previously, and we appreciate all the work on the project.

Thank you for your support.

Okay.

If the clerk could call the next Master Plan Amendment 2026-0001 Housing 2040 plan.

Planning Commission Action Initiate and recommend approval 7 to 0.

Okay, while staff is getting settled, um, we are going to have a presentation.

We do have several public speakers on this item.

So we'll do a staff presentation, some um potential questions with my colleagues, then we'll move to our public speakers, and then we'll return to council discussion.

And when uh staff is ready, the floor is yours.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor Gaskins, Vice Mayor Bagley, and members of the council.

Thank you for the opportunity to present a housing 2040 to you today.

My name is Space Cipolly, and I'm the acting director at the Office of Housing.

Before we begin, I want to recognize the remarkable partnerships that brought us to this point.

For nearly two years, residents, advocates, constituents, and stakeholders have pulled time and energy into shape in this plan.

Thank you to everyone who came out here today.

Everyone who stayed very late with us last Tuesday at the public commission hearing to speak on record, and everyone who has provided comments throughout this process.

Some as recently as yesterday.

That level of engagement speaks volumes about how much this community cares and how critical stable affordable housing is for Alexandrians.

I also want to recognize the staff of the Office of Housing, our colleagues at Planning and Zoning, and every other department that contributed to this effort.

This plan reflects an enormous amount of work, much of it behind the scenes, and we're grateful for it.

I would also like to note that Helen McLean, our former director of housing, is in the audience with us since this morning.

And it's safe to say that Helen can never fully leave us and will always show up at housing more than work.

The comments we received reflected the full range of perspectives you would expect on an issue this important.

Strong support, request to go further, and some that after careful consideration, we approached differently.

But that's exactly what makes our work better.

That rigorous exchange of ideas from every point of view helps us deliver the strongest possible plan for the city.

Today marks the culmination of two years of planning.

But the truth is that the plan itself isn't the finish line.

It's the starting point.

The real measure of housing 2040 will be in what we build and preserve in the policies we adopt, the partnerships with strengthen and the systems we put in place to support Alexandrians for the next 14 years.

That implementation work is where we hope to focus starting today, and we're committed to bringing the same transparency and rigor that has defined this process to the to the work ahead, doing it together with all of you.

With that, I will turn it over to Tamara Jovowitz, who will walk us through the plan's recommendation and introduce the rest of our team.

Good afternoon, Mayor Gaskins and Vice Mayor Bagley and members of the city council.

My name is Tamara Yovovich.

I'm with the Office of Housing.

I'm here today with part of the team that helped create the Housing 2040 plan, my colleagues Chris Doe, Gypsy Roberts, Mary Horner, Kim Kadina, as well as Justin Smith.

There are many other hands and voices that participated in this plan.

Aspasia mentioned our sister departments and offices that have that have worked with us, but we also wanted to recognize the collaboration of many boards and commissions, in particular the Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, community groups, and a range of local stakeholders.

We're here today to recommend City Council approve the amendment to the city's master plan that adopts housing 2040 and replaces the city's first master plan in 2013.

Housing 2040 builds upon the successes and lessons of our current plan.

It celebrates the accomplishments of its goal to create new affordability in 2,000 units.

We have over 350 new affordable units being delivered this year alone, another approximately 300 being preserved, and an additional 900 plus new units anticipated in the following two years.

Housing 2040 also importantly advances several new topics in response to identified housing needs.

Our presentation will briefly walk through our process, our guiding vision and principles and resulting implementation recommendations and strategies.

Housing 2040 positions us collectively in partnership with the community and state, federal, and private partners to tackle Alexandria's current and protected housing needs over the next 15 years.

It'll inform legislative priorities, small area plans, and the development of new financial and regulatory tools, as well as to guide housing programs, services, and investments.

As Espasia mentioned, Housing 2040 represents the culmination of almost two years of interdepartmental collaboration and engagement.

But our work again is just starting.

Phase two will commence immediately following adoption with a kickoff of the development of our Housing 2040 dashboard and affordable housing production and preservation targets, as well as several priority action items.

Our process is structured on three pillars, education to build a common language and understanding of housing issues, listening and learning from the community and partners, and an iterative input and feedback loop that shaped and refined our recommendations and strategies.

With support from Virginia Housing and Local Partners, engagement with both low-tech and high-tech and strove to meet stakeholders and locations and in ways that work best for them.

It leveraged other city events, in particular those held by the health department and the Department of Planning and Zoning to maximize awareness and participation.

Key themes identified during this process were, as you can imagine, the high cost of housing in the city, the need for greater housing supply and options, fear of displacement and housing instability, poor housing quality, the attainability of homeownership, and the need for greater supports for common interest communities.

A guiding vision in five principles, chart our course forward.

Housing 2040 envisions in Alexandria in which residents and workers of all incomes, ages, abilities, and backgrounds have a place in our city and have access to healthy, safe, resilient, and affordable housing.

Housing 2040 principles advance our housing values.

They position us for both the housing challenges of today and those of the near future while preparing us to pivot as needed to adjust to changes in housing priorities or underlying local and regional market conditions.

Jumping to our goals, goal number one.

Our housing needs and community priorities build off of our current work in the housing master plan while also undertaking new topics.

Our first goal speaks to the importance of expanding and diversifying housing supply to help moderate increases in housing costs and provide options for Alexandrians of different incomes and in different life stages across our neighborhoods.

It recognizes the importance of continued innovation and exploration of opportunities to lower housing production costs.

For example, by continuing to build a skilled labor force in the construction and property operations and maintenance industries.

As part of our conversations, community members also underscored the importance of continuing to provide the infrastructure and services needed to support new residential development.

The fear of displacement was a dominant theme heard throughout our engagement process.

Housing 2040 addresses this challenge head-on through several goals, in particular goals two, three, four, and nine.

Goal two focuses on preservation.

This work, led by my colleague, Chris Doe and informed by a working group composed of a variety of perspectives, property owners, housing advocates, investors really broadens the concept of preservation to affordability, livability, and financial sustainability of both our committed affordable and our market affordable communities.

Market affordable properties, or some folks refer to them as naturally affordable housing, are a vital source of affordability up to 60% of the area median income.

But their numbers fluctuate with market pressures.

Such properties are more likely to struggle with aging building conditions, translating to higher utility and maintenance costs.

As a result, goal two pursues a range of approaches to preservation.

These include working proactively with property owners to extend affordability and our committed affordable properties in particular, working collaboratively with our market affordable property owners to maximize a replacement of units in case of redevelopment.

Housing 2040 recognizes that in those types of scenarios, each site considering redevelopment is unique.

It's differentiated by its size, underlying level of affordability, density, the small area, smaller area plan recommendations and other factors.

Replacement of impacted units, affordable up to 60% of the area median income will hinge on the availability and adequacy of optional regulatory incentives.

And in the case of priority preservation sites, it will also call for the strategic application of financial tools to preserve deeper levels of affordability and leverage state and federal resources.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mary Horner.

I'm and I am the division chief of the landlord tenant division within the Office of Housing.

As you are likely aware, the previous housing master plan focused primarily on affordable housing development.

As Tamara mentioned, Housing 2040 builds on that foundation by addressing the day-to-day realities for tenants who make up nearly 60% of the city's city's households.

Goal three lays out seven recommendations specific to landlord tenant issues that are organized around several interconnected themes.

The first is education, including the creation of multilingual materials and accessible resources so that tenants and landlords alike understand their rights and responsibilities.

The second is legislative advocacy, pursuing state level reforms to increase tenant protections and expand local authority.

The third, we hope to strengthen eviction prevention and diversion efforts, continuing emergency rental assistance and expanding link legal support for residents facing housing stability and poor housing conditions.

Fourth, investing in better data tracking and infrastructure so that we can be more responsive and proactive in addressing resident concerns.

Fifth, and this connects closely to the work in goals two and four, pursuing anti-displacement strategies like an anti-displacement or a displacement risk index and community preference policies that are for areas determined to be at the highest risk of displacement.

And finally, deepening both landlord and tenant support and engagement, including continuing our mediation services and improving how we communicate with the broader public.

Three out of four renters in the city of Alexandria with incomes up to 60% of the area median income are housing cost burdened.

Many workers, in particular, those that serve as the backbone of our economy live paycheck to paycheck.

To address this challenge, goal number four continues to build on the work of our current housing master plan with a focus of expanding housing affordability and opportunity in the housing market through several steps.

Our established small area planning processes, expanding regulatory incentives by strengthening our public-private partnerships, including those with the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority, and by exploring financial tools to maximize depth of affordability.

Deeper levels of affordability are essential to the vibrancy and economic resilience of our city.

Roughly 58% of the renters in the city at 40% of the area median income are severely causing cost burden, which means that they pay more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs.

We did want to acknowledge, though, as part of this process that providing deeper levels of affordability is particularly challenging to finance and requires concerted efforts involving public investment, including the use of public land when available, and tapping into state and federal resources to leverage city resources, as well as a lot of creative thinking, including the co-location of potential uses.

The attainability of homeownership is slipping further out of reach for more and more Alexandria renters and workers, including the city's workforce and essential employees.

Home values exacerbated by limited supply and compounded by homeownership costs, condominium fees, HOA fees, maintenance utilities, continue to outpace income growth.

Enhancing home ownership is particularly challenging as it involves both preparing aspiring home buyers for homeownership while also supporting the production of homeownership options at a variety of price points and sizes.

This work, led by our homeownership team, Gypsy Roberts and Anelva Corcos Biltron reveals that there's really again no size, no one size fits all solution.

You'll hear that message a lot in our work.

It requires again a complex layering of funding, down payment assistance combined with creative partnerships and the exploration of remnant parcels that might otherwise be challenging to redevelop.

To support the city's workforce with downpayment and closing cost assistance, Housing 2040 recommends continuing financial incentives for public sector employees, as well as to continue to hone its marketing efforts to maximize awareness of available homeownership units.

Staying with the theme of housing stability for existing residents, goal six turns to condominium and common interest communities.

This project was led by my colleague Kim Cadenas and our partner with in partnership with Mercer Triggiani.

Many of our condo communities are aging with an average age of 45 years, and boards often struggle with the financial and administrative complexity of managing capital major capital improvements.

Goal six addresses this through a combination of education to build board capacity and knowledge, legislative advocacy to strengthen state requirements around condo governance and reserve funds, and exploration of new financial programs and partnerships that could help condo communities tackle long-fred maintenance.

This works work connects directly to what Tamra described in goal two, supporting the livability and financial sustainability of existing housing.

Our city has experienced pronounced changes in its inage age composition since 2010.

Our median age of a residence has increased, and our share of residents 65 and plus has outpaced that of all other age groups.

In addition, approximately 7% of Alexandrians identified as having some type of impairment or limitation.

Both serve as indicators of potential housing insecurity and potential heightened housing need.

Building off of the input and feedback of these two bodies, Housing 2040 recognizes that supporting independence and dignity and quality of life amongst our seniors and residents with disabilities again requires a range of approaches.

There is no one size fits all.

This can range from extending services to support aging in place to expanding options for single floor living to looking at different models to support a kind of a mix of incomes within assisted living.

We did want to note again that all of these, all of these solutions are complex and typically require a range of funding sources, and continuing to build our partnerships, in particular with organizations such as Senior Services of Alexandria.

The complexity and again cost of all of these opportunities also creates opportunities for collaboration at the state level.

Goal eight addresses housing quality, safety, and livability.

This goal recognizes something that our that residents told us clearly.

Affordability isn't alone isn't enough.

A home that is affordable but unhealthy or unsafe is truly not a stable home.

Our sole recommendation under this goal is to support initiatives and programs that enhance housing quality and habitability standards.

That includes supporting the Healthy Homes Action Plan in collaboration with our health department colleagues, conducting proactive rent residential rental inspections, and using data and other interdepartmental partnerships to strengthen landlord accountability.

Housing stability and economic mobility are deeply interconnected.

When residents have access to job and training and services, they're better positioned to afford and maintain housing.

Policies and programs that reduce cost burden also help vulnerable households weather financial shocks and avoid displacement.

Fostering pathways are equally important for homeowners to sustain wealth and for renters to access new avenues to build wealth.

This work memorialized in goal number nine, elevates the work of our colleagues engaged in the workforce development center and with the economic mobility initiatives, as well as DNES's mobility services.

It proposes new models to be explored to support renters, build savings and wealth through self-sufficiency counseling and retirement planning, for example.

And also elevates the importance of partnerships with our affordable housing properties, really to help create opportunities, for example, to build credit scores by offering rent reporting to credit agencies.

The focus of goal number 10 is sustainability.

Sustainability plays an important role in advancing affordability and livability and health in our city.

Many of these are caused to outdated building systems.

These various systems can also have harmful impacts on living conditions, for example, impacting air quality and potentially cultivating mold.

Goal number 10 is a collaboration with the Office of Climate Action and was developed with input from the Environmental Policy Commission.

It adopts a two-pronged approach with the first supporting energy efficiency and weatherization rehab in our existing properties, and the second continu and the second endorses the continued advancement of green building practices and new construction as required by the recently adopted green building plan.

Housing 2040's implementation strategy outlines action, lead-in supporting actors, and proposed timeframes with projects subject to reprioritization through the city's annual work program and budget.

The Office of Housing will continue to provide regular updates to the Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, again, the body that was tasked with monitoring the implementation of our current plan.

It also proposes three-year public reports and five-year check-ins with planning commission and city council to evaluate how we're doing, what our housing conditions are at that time, and whether or not any adjustments need to be made.

One of our immediate priorities for FY27 will be the development of affordable housing production and preservation goals.

These will be grounded in current and projected need, existing resources and potential resources generated over the medium to longer term through potential future new financial tools and importantly public-private partnerships with the state and federal and other entities.

Other near-term activities range broadly from continued collaboration with the health department and the Department of Code Administration on housing quality issues, the development of a framework to address new legislative authority that creates a mechanism for the preservation of committed affordable properties that are facing expiration, as well as kick-starting conversations with the state to explore potential financial vehicles to support capital improvements in our common interest communities.

And with this, um, this concludes our presentation.

Staff recommends city council consider approving the amendment to the city's master plan that adopts the housing 2040 plan, uh replacing our current uh 2013 housing master plan.

Thank you for the presentation and all the work that went into it.

Do uh my colleagues have questions now for staff.

Councilman Chapman.

Um, thank you for your work on this.

I know uh as we update this, uh the conditions around housing change, whether it's uh the amount of space, the the quality of housing, the price, uh all of those things go into it.

Um, and so I know kind of coming up with a numbers goal might be uh kind of difficult thing in this situation.

But I think is there have we come up with a numbers goal of how many units we want to try to um get?

Um, and if we haven't, why not?

So the development of our housing uh affordable housing production and preservation targets is going to be our primary primary focus in FY27, kind of on the policy planning and development side.

And there are a couple of things that are going to help to inform that.

So we're going to be looking at the findings from our quantitative housing needs analysis as well as projected needs with the understanding that things can change over time depending on the market.

We're also going to be looking at our current pipeline, uh the financial tools that the city currently has.

Um, and I think our job is also to think creatively as well.

So over the medium to longer term, what types of financial tools might be available to us.

Um, I think the guidance that we get from our advocates is to be ambitious.

We obviously know there is a middle road and there's a lot to consider, but that is a priority action item for um FY27.

Okay, I've got Mayor Gaskins followed by Councilwoman Green.

Uh thank you, Vice Baron Bagley.

The first question I have sort of picks up where Councilman Chapman left off.

When you were talking about in the um next steps phase and developing clear goals for production and preservation.

I know as part of zoning for housing, we asked for the creation of a dashboard that began to track sort of how we're moving within each of those areas.

Have you guys thought through what might be the intersection between the goals that are there and the goals that we're trying to track through the zoning for housing dashboard?

Thank you for that question.

Uh, this is intended to be an interdisciplinary effort.

We are envisioning that the housing 2040 dashboard, which would be a publicly accessible uh website, would be incorporating um all kind of city actions that would support uh really the expansion of affordable housing opportunities.

So we we would anticipate working very closely with director um start on on that.

Okay.

And then the other question I just had under goal three of the plan and section 5C, it talks about this new platform that will track evictions, code and for code violations, and tenant protections.

And I'm really, really excited about that.

But one area that I I think is missing is rent increases.

And I'm curious, what would it take to be able to add like data on changes in how rent is being increased across the city to that platform?

Thank you for that question, Mary Gaskins.

Um, so at present, we do not currently have the authority or the data infrastructure to reliably uh report all rent increases across the city for for every property.

Um there are certain things that we can do in the meantime.

Um, some of the recommendations that we have heard and that we are looking at um implementing our um expanded reporting requirements for our partner properties, those that we already have a relationship with and that have to report to us for other reasons.

Um second.

Um issue we we also have some self-reported data through our 311 system, but the risk there is some risk um with reporting that.

Um, it could potentially produce incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading data because there's it's not necessarily verified.

Um, again, there are other interim steps that we can look at.

Some of those are third-party data, such as COSTAR.

They do have some information on data rent increases, but we do need to acknowledge the limitations of those data sources.

Um, also with regard to eviction data.

That is something that's already shared in a separate dashboard.

So that's something that we look forward to linking in with that.

To truly establish uh a citywide data infrastructure, we do need um legislative authority to do so.

We have looked at how other localities that are reporting this information are able to um report this reliably.

What have they used?

And this typically they seem to start or create that infrastructure through the use of um landlord registries.

So that's that would require landlords to register before they can rent out their property.

This is this is really helpful for inspection as well.

We know that there are some localities outside of Virginia where this enables them to um not only gather this information and this data on rent increases and rent histories, but also their inspection history and and monitoring and and who is the owner, how do we reach out to that owner and getting that information as well?

Um, but that is something that is already included in our legislative proposals under goal three recommendation 2D, um, because we do understand that this is something that is that has been asked for from the community, and we want to make sure that we are looking at it both in the short term and the long term.

How can we accomplish this and create that data infrastructure?

Um, this vision will take time.

Um, and we but we are looking forward to creating this dashboard and um hopefully getting the data infrastructure necessary to report that information.

Okay.

Um let me ask you a couple follow-up questions, just to make sure I'm tracking.

So the landlord registry, we need state authority to be able to do that.

Was that something we've previously asked for?

Or this is a new proposal for our um fall package.

So um pre previously through uh the legislative process, we have not asked for that that I can recall.

This would be something new in response directly to this desire for better understanding of rent rent increases and inspection tracking.

So this would be a new proposal that we have not yet um put forward.

Okay.

And then the second question, you mentioned that perhaps we could use third party data as long as we put sort of an asterisk or something recognizing the limitations.

Is that something we have examples from other localities are doing?

And I guess I'm asking because like I do hear the limitations.

I do hear there's more research here, but I think that if we have something and we can make it clear to the public sort of where there are gaps, I do think it's better than nothing to put something out there about how we are studying and tracking these increases, because that's probably the number one like question we continue to get from people.

Um, is like how high some of these increases are uh Mayor Gaskin.

So right now we have two primary sources of data.

Um, so uh my colleague uh Kim Kadina now on an annual basis does our apartment survey, which is a critical source of information for us when we're calculating what our market affordable housing stock is.

I will acknowledge it is a very thorough effort, but it is a point-in-time analysis of of data.

Um it is uh incredibly comprehensive now.

We've learned a lot over the last couple of years and we've refined it.

We are building off of CoStar and also adding utility allowances to try to make sure that we are capturing um uh as much of the housing cost as we can, excluding uh uh the application of fees.

So we have our annual sort of point-in-time analysis, and then we do have licenses with COSTAR.

And I think what the point that Mary was relaying is that uh CoStar is pulling information, for example, from apartments.com.

So when you go on apartments.com, that is what CoStar is pulling, but it is uh average aggregated data.

Um it is not it is not going to reflect necessarily the individual experience of a renter who really might uh you know be facing a substantial increase uh due to a particular circumstance, or maybe they don't have a 20 uh, you know, a 12-month lease.

So co star is a great source of information to track high-level trends, but we did want to acknowledge that there are limit limitations and sort of helping to tell the story of individual renters.

But I guess couldn't we?

Because our apartment, my understanding is the apartment data survey is more detailed.

And even though it's a point in time, I mean, our what is it?

Our um we do the point in time count for our homelessness count, and we still use that with clarification that it's just a point in time.

So couldn't we essentially have a block on this platform that also includes the apartment data survey um information as it relates to rent increases?

I I I certainly think that we could we could, yes.

Okay.

In order to move that forward, would that need to be um like a formal condition change to 5C?

And I'm not sure if this is a question for you, Christina.

Um but yeah, just trying to understand what would be the best way to make sure that language is in there.

I I mean, I I I defer to the city attorney.

I mean, uh, I think staff staff understands your direction that it's part of the housing 2040 dashboard that we want to make sure that we have um that we have rental, that we track rental trends uh currently based on our annual apartment analysis.

Okay.

Um, Madam City attorney, I just want to get guidance.

I'm prepared after the public hearing.

Is there anything for but I need to formalize that in the motion or is this clear enough?

Um I believe what um I believe that there doesn't need to be an amendment to the language in the housing master plan.

I think that staff will take your guidance and apply it.

Okay, thank you.

No further questions.

Okay, thank you, Mayor Gaskins.

Councilwoman Green.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor, and thank you so much for the work that's gone into this plan.

I think it's very comprehensive.

Um I look forward to getting to work on it.

Um very happy with the calling out of the healthy housing um plan.

And I I truly think with partnership and true activation of that plan, it can truly benefit our residents.

And then um I'll always very happy with the work that we've done around tenant protection.

And uh Alexandra led the way um with working with the Virginia at the legislature this year.

So very happy with the things that were um implemented and voted on down there.

One thing that I really would like to see more creativity around, and you know, this is no um nothing new, because I talk about it all the time with you all is workforce housing.

And you know, I was hoping to see more creativity around it in this plan, and I know there's stuff implemented in here for that, but I truly believe it would help us um in you know, in the long run by putting calling it out more in this plan to help our teachers, to help our firefighters, to help our police officers to be able to live and work here.

And that's just not happening with rent increases and the inability of them being able to afford to buy a house here.

So I would just like to hear from you in as we implement this plan, how we keep that segment of our population almost that a missing middle.

How do we keep them top of mind and be able to keep them and allow them to live here in Alexandria?

Thank you, Councilwoman Green.

Uh this is definitely a message that we have been hearing and and we do acknowledge the the challenges associated kind of with meeting a very broad range of needs in in the city.

Um so I will note that uh we have over the last couple of years made concerted efforts first and foremost to improve our communication and marketing of units.

Um I think we're fortunate now to have established um a strong connection with uh one of the coordinations team members at ACPS.

I mean, I I personally have been sending out our e-news releases with respect to new affordable homeownership units, and they have been acknowledging receipt of those emails.

And I actually noticed it.

I checked recently in one of their newsletters and I noticed the posting.

Um I I I will note though that there are always opportunities to improve communications across the board.

Um our office um and our my colleague Gypsy Roberts is here to answer more specifics, but we do administer the employee homeownership incentive program, which provides up to $15,000 um for the purchase of um eligible uh homeownership units um in the city that can be layered on top of our existing um down payment assistance.

Uh we do also in the housing 2040 specifically um endorses the continuation of that eHIP program and also kind of leaves open the door in the medium to longer term um for an evaluation of that amount, $15,000 today.

We'll not go as far as $15,000 five or 10 years from now.

Um we also do recognize that you know our workforce uh earns a broad range of incomes.

Um I mean, we have we have staff who work at ACPS who are also kind of closer to that 40 to 50 percent AMI range, so they would benefit from the committed affordable rental units um and our emphasis on creating deeper levels of affordability.

Um and I think the last thing I'll add is that um uh public-private partnerships and conversions, such as the Victory Center really is now kind of helping to expand some of our rental housing up to that 80% AMI mark.

So we've we're working to kind of expand affordability uh on that point.

I will uh I'll keep asking about this.

Um, because I mean, you know, it's it's been an issue for a very long time, and I think it it does need greater focus.

So I will continue to keep the focus on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Green.

I've got councilman El Nubi and then Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

And to continue on the home ownership, I appreciate my colleague bringing it up and stressing it.

Um under so the plan talks about strategies for home ownership and um talks about the gap, the stock gap that we have, um, ethnicity and racial gap and home ownership.

So I would like us, if we're not planning to, I would like us to track outcomes by race and ethnicity to see if the tools that we have in the plan are actually narrowing and closing that gap.

We do.

So we do, as part of our home ownership assistance programs, we we do have um data by race and ethnicity that we'll be able to share with you.

But but I think your point's taken that you're interested in seeing whether or not that glap gap is closing over time.

Yes.

Yes.

With every effort, obviously, we need to be measuring outcomes.

So that's where my point is appreciate that.

My second question is about the financial impact.

Um, so the plan, um, there's so many strategies that have funding and fiscal impacts, um, especially for years one to five.

Um, but I don't I didn't see anything that consolidates or adds up the costs of that.

So I I would like at one point um to get a sense of the near-term fiscal impacts of the plan and also the strategy and the approaches of how we're going to incorporate that in the next budget years, the next several budget years.

No, that's a great point.

And uh as we are uh setting up targets for affordable housing uh production and preservation the next year, we will be taking a very close look to our uh tools.

A lot of things will be through partnerships, closer partnerships with the state, with the uh below market capital uh lenders and investors, and we will definitely working closely with uh the city manager's office and our finance team to see what are the creative things we haven't explored yet.

Yeah, and just to plan ahead, you know, and if we can plan several yields ahead for our budgets, as budgets are getting tight, I think that would make a lot of sense.

Absolutely.

That's it.

Thank you, Madam Voiceman.

Thank you.

Councilman Chapman.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, a couple of quick questions I had.

Um, so in the plan, we talked about um working on legislation.

One of the things that I just wanted to kind of make sure is that um some of the work that we're I think we are going to do and probably evident by some of the rate cases we've uh focused on in the last uh couple of months.

Looking at um and tying together the conversation around working on legislation with housing, but also utilities, with utilities being such a big deal, um, making sure that we as an organization are kind of intertwining that work.

Uh, because I think council is very interested in um making sure that we try to push for affordability in the utility space, and of course, that uh commits to housing.

And so I definitely want I I didn't see that necessarily called out per se, but I I'm assuming um that type of communication is going to happen between um, I think it's uh I guess the city attorney's office or office of climate action and housing.

So making sure that that work is happening.

Um also one of the things that I've I've seen over the uh I guess the last 10 years is uh a movement by some of our let me just be direct by folks like ARHA to move from uh dealing and primarily working on housing for the zero to 30 percent uh to moving up.

Obviously, I I know there's funding issues and things of that nature there, but is there an opportunity, and maybe it's not in this plan, or maybe it's a at a future opportunity, to really sit down with them and and help carve out kind of where they where they stand in that space of zero to 60, um, and how much the the city and the community can reasonably rely on them to work on some of the more challenging areas uh of housing funding, um, because and maybe I could be wrong on this, but with their access to federal capital or federal programming uh and some funds, they're a little bit more adept than other partners and being able to fund opportunities for zero to 30 or zero to 50.

Um depending on who's on the board and what their thoughts are, that goal sometimes shifts.

And uh I'm very worried about that goal shifting away from the zero to 30, them using those resources to attack areas where we have partners, but now leaving a full gap um on the lower end of the AMI spectrum where the city does not have the resources, most nonprofit partners don't have the resources.

Um, and so how how can we get that conversation to a place where we've crystallize what that looks like for this community and the housing landscape in Alexandria?

Uh I think that would be an excellent discussion in one of our work groups and to strengthen the partnerships with the city.

Uh I would say you're spot on on identifying that anywhere in the country where uh successful endeavors have happened for creating new 30% and below uh units.

It has always been interagency collaboration with housing authorities.

And the concept of mixing that with other incomes is is not about concept that it helps gross ups cross absidize and also um, you know, with the mixed income approach that we endeavor for everything makes sense.

But the your spot on in um in identifying that there is a way for us to maximize our impact by evaluating our strategies collectively moving forward, and that seems something we'll have a lot of opportunity at the work group uh level to discuss.

Oh sorry.

Um the last thing, sorry.

The last thing, um, and I appreciate the the conversation around senior housing.

I think one of the other things that we probably need to invite um to our legislative packet is uh really directing um or seeing how much movement we can get enrichment around specific senior housing funding uh and legislation.

Um right now I think we all throw it all in the same pot.

Um but as you all know, there's a much more significant cost um to senior housing.

And uh, as I understand, we don't really have a senior housing strategy in the commonwealth.

Um, and a lot of us are getting older.

All of us are getting older, so let me say that.

Um I might be getting it.

Yeah.

Uh but either way, um, all of us are gonna get to the stage where senior housing, whether in our own homes or uh in various opportunities across the commonwealth are going to be needed.

And right now we are not at a place where we are uh even gathering to be ready for that.

And so uh us maybe being a lot more vocal uh legislatively uh and hopefully working with community partners and other localities can start to push us that way.

And so um kind of calling that out in the plan and the work that we do going forward, I think would be meaningful.

Want to give Ms.

Horner a second to catch up.

Fingers are flying over there.

Uh Councilman Aguerre.

I'll I'll speak slowly.

Um, I mean, first of all, I agree with uh a lot of the comments from my colleagues and also want to echo, you know, my sentiments to staff for really amazing job well done and all the effort and time that's gone into this.

Um my only thing that I would I would add in um I really like co-ops.

And so just throwing it out there for uh some support resources for co-ops.

I know they're difficult and not easy.

Um, but at one point we had one of the largest co-ops on the East Coast.

Um and so I would really like to see us try and explore that a little bit more.

So thank you.

Um I think Councilman Marks has a comment, but I I wanted to just join into the senior conversation briefly.

Um that I I appreciate our desire to create sort of mixed income communities and um, but I also am curious if the plan um is has given thought to the benefits of particularly senior committed housing, um, the opportunities that that provides for services when you do have a critical mass of seniors because the services type or you know, to bring a podiatrist out to bring somebody out to go through insurance plans um is is just so much um easier uh to do when you have a critical mass of people.

So I I don't know, I don't I don't deem to know like what the expert best practice is with regard to it, but I did just want to express that um from an aging in place perspective, designing housing types with seniors in mind, but also recognizing if you sprinkle them two here and two here and two there, it can actually make it harder.

Um just in my, you know, my professional day job experience to then serve those two households here and there.

And so as we're advocating, I understand the mixed income approach generally speaking, but I think having some committed senior housing developments that actually creates a critical mass of numbers, has you know tertiary benefits um from a services delivery perspective that may not be quite as necessary in in other um demographics or other um uh income and you know, you're just looking at from an income perspective.

Um, so it's not so much a question as just um uh if if in the work group context or as we're attracting partnerships or thinking about housing typologies, um, if we can try to put seniors closer together, I think we can actually make it easier to deliver services to them.

Ms.

Marks.

I'm gonna ask a question that is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum here, uh, both in terms of age of the Alexandrians we're focused on and also the the timeline.

Uh what I really appreciate about this plan is the scope and the broad and forward-looking view.

Uh on page 19 of the master plan, there is a slide.

I don't know if I'm sure everybody has has it memorized.

Everybody's rather this whole thing.

Um, it's 100 pages long.

Uh but on page 19, there is a slide called Alexandrians by the numbers, and it goes through who lives in Alexandria, what types of housing, um, you know, the distribution of households by AMI, racial and ethnic diversity, all of that.

Um, you know, I think, and I'm sure that most, if not all of my colleagues, believe that a child born in Alexandria today should be able to retire in Alexandria.

And so I wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about what this plan, you know, first of all, where are the kids?

Um we know the answer to that up here, but I'd love to share with the public, you know, our kids uh the children of homeowners, are they living in apartments?

Are they living in condos?

Are they living in these 45-year-old buildings?

Um, where are the children in Alexandria?

And what does this plan do for the child born in Alexandria today?

How does it affect uh the outcome of their ability to live in Alexandria in the future?

Um, I have to acknowledge I I don't have demographic data for the residency of children.

Um I I I'd say that my understanding as we've engaged through the small area planning process that on average, um a higher percentage of our children uh live in our rental communities, uh, which is not to say that single family homeowners are condominium owners don't have children as well, but that children um on average are are living in rental communities.

That would also be reflective of the fact that the city is predominantly renter.

So we're almost at that uh 58, 59% mark.

Um in terms of in terms of what we're doing, so I'd say that we're we're approaching the challenge in several ways.

Um there is again no one size it's all solution.

Um, so one of it is making sure that we have a diversity of housing typologies, and by that I mean different unit sizes and really ranging from the studio up to that family size unit.

And a family size unit can be a two-bedroom unit.

It can be a 10 10, 10, sorry, 10 but a two-bedroom unit and or a two-bedroom unit in Dun, for example, which is a new model that Housing Alexandria is exploring to help keep costs low, but also have a little bit more space in each of the units.

Um, it also calls for the diversification of our homeownership opportunities as well, right?

Uh exploring the two over two model, perhaps instead of just the townhouse model, or having condominium communities and so and supporting our existing condominium communities that are an important source of first-time um homebuyer opportunities, but maybe struggling with deferred capital maintenance, which translates to really high monthly um condominium fees or special assessments.

So I say um uh diversifying housing typologies, diversifying um price board price points, and also expanding housing supply in the city overall to help moderate um housing costs.

Uh our challenges are not unique.

Um all of the region is facing the uh parts of parts of the region that are closest to the District of Columbia are really facing a very similar challenge.

But you will note here that the uh the age group that's experiencing the greatest rate of decline um are is that really sort of uh college and post-college um as opposed to our families with um with with younger children.

It's it's those individuals um who are um either not finding what they need in the city or are being priced um priced out.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think everybody has had an opportunity to ask a question here.

And I'm gonna now move to the public comment portion of the docket.

Um we have 10 speakers um scheduled.

Uh the first is Michael Schuster, followed by Scott Petowitz.

If y'all could move towards the front, again, we're having one person standing at a time.

Um, and then I want to make a general announcement for people who are here on docket items 19, 20, and 21.

Um, given that the number of speakers and then council discussion after, we're gonna break after this item for about 30 minutes for a lunch break, and then we will come back and take item 19, 20, and 21.

Um, Takaria Picoso is just around the corner.

If you need a delicious local uh lunch.

Uh with that is Okay, good to go then, Mr.

Schuster.

The floor is yours.

Uh thank you.

Uh good morning, uh, Mayor Gaskins and Vice Mayor Bagley and members of the city council.

My name is Michael Schuster, and I'm the co-chair of the Alexandria Commission on Aging.

We support the housing 2040 plan, particularly goals three and seven, promoting tenant uh protections and affordable housing options for older adults, respectively.

Let me start by putting the uh issue of affordable housing for older Alexandrias in in context.

The percentage of Alexandria residents over the age of 65 grew by 60% between 2010 and 2023 from about 12,300 to almost 20,000.

These numbers will expand significantly.

According to the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission or JLARC, more than 600,000 Virginians are projected to be 80 years of age or older by 2040, the end date of this plan.

My uh as a plan notes dealing with the increasing older population with various fiscal needs and price points, the solutions for addressing older Alexandrians' desire to appropriate affordable homes will take creative policy and a long time.

Although the Commission on Aging has supported a mixed income affordable assisted facility in Alexandria, the uh like the Chester Book uh residences in Killane, uh Virginia, we know that the financial resources to purchase a suitable location in Alexandria and having sustaining funds to operate such a facility would take creative financing and time.

Uh, nonetheless, we have some incremental uh uh approaches, um, which I'll mention right now.

First, uh, we think there should be an increase in the auxiliary grant benefit, which is about 2400,000, 2400 in Northern Virginia.

This is the only public funding for uh assisted living in in the Commonwealth.

Secondly, we recommend a comprehensive study on adult housing options and services allowing older individuals to age in their communities.

And JLARC is actually conducting a survey um as I'm speaking today and is scheduled to uh be released in 2000 later on this uh year or 2027.

Thirdly, uh, we recommend legislation expanding the Medicaid waivers for both in-home services and assisted living, getting to some of the points that uh council uh member uh uh um Chapman and also Vice Mayor uh Bagley mentioned.

And then finally, the promotion of universal design uh policies and incentives to support all of us as we age, such as as expanding the Virginia Livable uh home tax credit.

Uh that concludes my testimony, but uh I have 30 seconds.

I just want to I just want to uh take a moment to um congratulate uh Helen McElvain, who is the uh 2026 Commission on Aging, uh Existence and Aging Award winner for public service.

She couldn't attend the uh public ceremony, but she's here now, so I'm gonna take that as a point of privilege.

Uh thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Schuster.

And still bringing it in on time.

Um next we have Scott Pedowitz, followed by Melissa Kuhnan.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor, members of the council.

My name is Scott Petowitz.

I work with the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington.

Our members provide more than 32,000 rental housing units here in the city of Alexandria, amongst about 490,000 across the DMV.

I sent y'all a fairly comprehensive letter on Monday going into all 10 goals.

I will not walk you through all of that this afternoon.

Uh, but I will note kind of the one takeaway, you know, I hope you all have is that housing benefits from a mutually constructive relationship amongst housing providers, residents, and the city.

Um, you know, that is how we all succeed, and that's what we really want to take out of this.

And indeed, there is much to like in the draft plan.

Um, build more housing.

Let's do it.

Uh, more supply is our only sustainable way to create more and persistent affordability.

Uh, we talked about housing typologies a moment ago.

It's a way to keep our city and our economy thriving for the long term.

I we love the way the proposal looks to use city resources to bridge the gaps that are still going to be there in the private market to set ambitious but achievable goals that we can all work on together, and our members look forward to working with you on that.

It's important, though, that we maintain Alexandria as a place that housing providers will be able to thrive so that we get that housing development we seek to have.

And against that backdrop, it's important to remember that housing providers and residents both have rights and both have responsibilities.

And that duality is very important to a successful and long-term thriving housing market.

And at times, the plan unfortunately does seem to overlook that duality.

And let me be clear.

Residents absolutely should be able to assert their rights when housing providers fall short.

And housing providers should also be able to assert their rights when residents fall short.

No housing provider wants to be filing for an eviction or having to non-renew a resident or you know, finding themselves in points of tension, but we rely on timely payment of rent to be able to make our expenses to pay our staff, to pay our maintenance, to pay our financing.

We rely on good behavior from all parties to keep our fellow residents safe.

And so as we think about that, let's make sure we're working together.

We have worked tremendously in Richmond with other stakeholders to come to Peace in the Valley on a lot of the issues in the plan.

Let's work together with the city.

I look forward to continuing.

Our members look forward to continuing to work with you all over the course of the next 15 years and beyond.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Padowitz, for your comments.

Um, next speaker is Melissa Kuhnan, followed by Marsha Ray.

I'll be fast, Sarah.

Hi, I'm Melissa Kennan.

I live at 525 Montgomery Street.

Um, the uh I want to talk about increasing affordable housing in every neighborhood.

Um, the housing 2040 begins with a clear statement of values.

Alexandria's strength lies in the diversity of its people and housing, and it promises that by 2040 residents of all incomes will live in strong and inclusive communities.

Most small area plans promote mixed income neighborhoods.

But today our development practices undermine net promise.

So the amendments to the original language of Section 770 7700 allow bonus density while giving developers the option to push these units off-site by either making monetary contributions of comparable value or claiming market conditions are not right.

These amendments have turned a tool designed for integration into a mechanism that produces segregation.

The results that allow developers to move the units off-site are exactly what research predicts.

The um uh peer-reviewed studies over the past three decades by national regional housing advocates are unequivocal.

Standalone affordable buildings increase economic segregation and can lead to social segregation to racial segregation.

Mixed income units in market rate buildings reduce it.

The CA the units that could have been integrated into neighborhoods in the 7700 plan for bonus density are overwhelmingly located in standalone income-identifiable buildings concentrated in a handful of low-cost neighborhoods, usually far from neighborhood services and open space that market rate residents take for granted, and they replicate the very patterns of segregation that housing 2040 warns us to avoid.

If we're serious about the values in housing 2040, then we must align our goal, our tools with our goals.

I urge council to recommend three actions.

Require all committed affordable units generated through bonus density and private development be built on site.

This is the most immediate uh tactic we have to create new units and allow residents to choose an opportunity to choose their affordable unit in the neighborhood of their choice.

Two, eliminate or sharply limit off-site alternatives.

This long-term solution requires the city to find additional funding, land and partners for all and all affordable building that is built years later in neighborhoods with fewer resources.

Three, require proportional unit sizes, including family-sized units.

Housing 2040 calls for it, our families deserve it.

Alexandria's strength does lie in its diversity, but diversity doesn't happen by accident.

It happens by policy.

If we want mixed income neighborhoods, we must require mixed income buildings, not just mixed income, all affordable buildings.

Thank you for your time and your commitment.

Thank you, Ms.

Kennan.

I know I have one more time to get your name pronounced right as well this afternoon.

Is it Kennan or Cunan?

Kennan.

Okay.

Okay.

The next speaker is Marsha Ray.

Is she online?

Yes.

Uh, whenever you're ready.

Okay, thank you.

I'm Marcia Ray, Housing Team Co-Chair for Voice in Alexandria.

Voice is 48 faith and community organizations working in Alexandria, Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince William Counties.

For almost our 20 years, we've prioritized safe and affordable housing as our fight for justice.

We participated in shaping this 2040 Master Housing Plan, and I'm speaking today to applaud the plan's boldness and support approval.

We also pledge to continue working with the Office of Housing and this council to set housing targets and take the steps to execute this plan.

This is a good vision, but we have much work yet to do.

I'd like to highlight what voice likes about the plan and what you can expect us to do to support it.

Voice advocated goal one, the supply goal.

As a community, we need to be open to building more homes of all types and sizes in all our neighborhoods over the next 15 years.

Voice is part of the Commonwealth Housing Coalition, and we heartily agree with the sentiment and the slogan, yes, in all our backyards.

Voice supports goal three on tenant protections and wants to see Alexandria do everything it can do within its current authority to eliminate abuses and press the state for authority to do more.

More than half our residents are renters and their rights and quality of life are essential to Alexandria's well-being.

Voice supports goal four on creating affordable rental housing.

The city needs to start immediately writing its ordinance to implement the faith in housing legislation.

And voice urges you to take advantage of a new law that allows you to create an expedited pathway for all affordable housing.

Streamlining our approval processes drives some unnecessary expense from these projects.

Voice continues to advocate for committed affordable housing.

If we want to build at lower levels of average median income, we need to find more money than we have now.

We want Alexander to use its bonding authority to generate new revenue to build our pipeline of approved projects.

I suspect if anybody did price this housing plan, you would conclude we need more money to execute all the good ideas contained in it.

Voice commends the 2040 master housing plan and pledges to work with you step by step to set specific targets, put the details into this plan, and find the resources required to build more homes for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Ray.

If you could hold on one moment.

Oh never mind.

It is a question.

Thank you, Miss Ray.

Uh, Councilman Alnubi has a question.

Yeah, and a question for staff on the couple of things that I just heard from Miss Ray.

Um, the faith in housing um and the streamline of affordable housing approval under the new state legislations.

Can someone talk about that?

And what's the timeline?

Are we working on it?

Where do we stand?

And I see Paul is all in there.

So planning on zoning needs to step in.

Hi, thank you for the question, Paul Stotter, director with planning and zoning.

Uh the speaker's correct that at the state level there was recently passed legislation uh that that requires all localities in the Virginia uh to establish a buy right approval process for affordable housing projects that meet certain affordability requirements.

Uh the effective date for that is January 1 of 2027.

Uh, and staff is working diligently to bring a zoning text amendment before council that would that would accommodate that requirement.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Phoebe Coy.

And then following Phoebe Koy will be Elliot Waters and then Tariq DeFala.

All right, good afternoon, members of council.

Um, I'm one of the Alexandria leads for Yimbees of Northern Virginia, and we are excited to support the housing 2040 plan.

So you have my personal comments as well, where there are a few small details of the plan that I believe could be changed to make it even better.

Um, but we're very happy with all the hard work from staff to develop a plan that takes our housing affordability emergency seriously and makes a plan to fix it.

So thanks to the data in the plan, um, we know that the median income in Alexandria has increased by 98% since 2000.

So it has about doubled.

Um, and in that same period of time, the rent and utilities on a one-bedroom apartment has increased 169%.

Uh, a two-bedroom has increased 182%.

The price of a single family home has increased 284%.

And the price of a condo has increased 319%.

So that's more than triple the rate of increase in income.

So this can't be explained away as uh young adults having money management issues or unrealistic expectations.

This is a systematic failure in our region to build enough homes to keep pace with population and job growth.

And it has caused so much harm to so many people as you have seen in all the different facets of the plan.

So, as members of council, um, we hope you appreciate the important role you play in taking urgent action to build more homes in Alexandria.

So, as the plan states, we need to use the small area plan process to maximize housing supply, streamline development review, continue zoning for housing implementation, and fast track part two, uh, review our zoning and parking rules and encourage innovative technology to build more quickly and with lower costs.

So please vote yes and let's build homes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cloyen.

Um, I have a quick question.

Just I know you're not an economist, but I assume wages have not increased by 116 and 284 and 30%.

So, what the what the data in the plan says is that median income has increased by 98% since 2000.

Which is lower than the right.

So the rent and utilities on a one-bedroom apartment has increased by 169%, and it just goes up from there for other types of housing.

Thanks.

So, yeah, significantly outpaced increase in income.

Thank you very much for your time today.

Uh, next is Elliot Waters.

Good afternoon, council.

Thank you in advance for your time and service.

My name is Elliot Waters, and I live on the West End, and I'm here as a stakeholder to plea for five enhancements to the housing plan.

First, use a smarting framework developed by the management center throughout the housing plan, which expands on the traditional SMART model by adding two critical elements to help set specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely goals, objectives, and tasks that meet inclusive and equitable expectations.

Next, bio date certain.

Add three objectives for reasons cited in the package that I provided you earlier.

Undergoal one, strengthen affordable workforce housing protections at the 560% AMI.

Second, undergo three, prohibit inhumane evictions, and add fully funded right to council to residents needing specific humanitarian help to avoid eviction.

Next, undergo four, increase achievable housing production and relevant subsidies for low-income workers and seniors in partnership with local housing heroes.

Next, add a new goal.

A new goal establishing a framework or action plan to address housing remediation for the spirit impacts.

A step in that direction, I believe, and as a help in developing that goal would be something along the line that reads as follows.

By December 2030, a city team self-identifying as Titans United, will be encouraged and spend remediation funds to equip a documented number of families of color who were misled during the 1960s through six 1930s through 60s, causing them to suffer loss of their property and needless pain and being denied the right to buy or rent a home in a neighborhood of choice.

Why do I bring up this matter now?

Why not now?

Given our understanding that justice delayed equates to justice denied in communities and neighborhoods, where imperfect people are striving to co-create a more perfect union and a line of free because of a growing number of brave and courageous legislators.

Now is an excellent time in which Titans United, which in 1971 did so, to do the impossible and to develop a goal that serves to remediate harms that need to be.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And I I want to follow, I want to ask staff a quick question about on one of the items mentioned.

We touched on our legislative package.

His right to counsel been something we've included in the past and that we intend to include moving forward.

I I know it's complicated, but I don't I cannot recall in over the past handful of years that that has been an explicit uh recommendation that has made it through to as a a named um recommendation, but it is something that we've looked at both from a kind of a programmatic and partnership perspective.

And I appreciate that.

I know there's been conversations, I just couldn't remember if it made it into the package.

And then um, so I appreciate you raising it, sir.

I think it's a conversation that is ongoing at the General Assembly level.

Um and then does anybody uh like on on the panel here uh the the Titans United Fund, I mean essentially it sounds like it's a reper it's a reparations acknowledgement um for past harm.

It is is there discussion about that at the General Assembly level?

I mean, is this something I've just not heard that idea enunciated in the way it just was, and I'm just curious if any of y'all who work in this space have have heard of anything like that.

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Well, thank you for raising it, sir.

I appreciate that.

If I may comment briefly.

Okay, briefly.

Uh Titans United is a is a term that I can't came up with.

Okay.

And it it's uh it's been uh in formation in my mind since um having served.

I presume some of you know that I serve on the landlord tenant relations board for 10 years, and uh in collaborating with uh some people that might be considered housing heroes.

Now the term has come up and is a way to um shall we say use uh creative uh pragmatic ingenuity to deal with a Dillon rule.

Uh a community, as I shared in in the packet, there are other communities uh that have used creative ingenuity to deal with uh stifling legislation like the Dillon rule.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate your time.

I understand Mr.

Tariq Defala is online.

Do we have him?

Yes, he's online.

He can speak now, and he also has a translator named by Saba.

I have unmuted both of them.

They can unmute themselves.

Okay, so if Mr.

Defala would like to give his statement in his preferred language, and then if his translator can provide the translation.

We're ready when you are ready.

Hello.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Please go ahead.

Um Starik on.

You're on.

Uh I am the translator.

I don't really care.

Mr.

Tariq, can you unmute yourself?

Could the translator ask in his um native language if he could unmute himself and begin his statement?

So I am a community organizer with African communities together.

My name is Saba.

I'm not a professional um Arabic interpreter, but I have his speech in English, so I'm I'm going to fill the gap.

Hello, you hear me?

Ah, there we go.

Go ahead, Mr.

Dafala.

Okay, uh good afternoon.

My my uh Anna is me, Tariq uh Daf Allah good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

Um, my name is Tariq Dafala.

Uh just one second, Saba.

I don't know what's happening.

Just one second.

Uh my name is Dafala.

Uh Sabam's happy to call them into Allah.

My name uh my name is Tariq Defala, and I'm uh an Alexandra resident.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Uh uh, Medina.

I'm asking you today to make rental assistant and utility assistant a long term a long-term priority in the 2040 housing master plan.

Uh like in Nato Aga Mutizada Fatakali Namalat, a guru na easy other many families in our community are working hard, but they are feeling behind.

Rent keeps going up, utility bill keeps going up, the cost of food and everyday needs keep going up, but our pay does not.

Today many families are only one Miss Paycheck away from losing their home.

They should not have to choose between play uh paying rent, keeping the light on, or feeding their children.

Rent and utility assistant are not just emergency programs.

Uh they help keep families stable and prevent homelessness before it happens.

So Mr.

Guru Mijana to now mean home.

I also hope the city will consider uh increasing this the supply of Diflia for double housing.

Renters in our city, including me, with the greatest need of uh for below 40% of the area media income, and we need support now more than ever.

Please include long-term rent assistant utility support in more deeply affordable housing in the 2040 housing master plan.

So working families can continue to live in the city.

They call home.

Thank you.

Thank you all for listening and for uh for standing with Alexandria Families.

Thank you, sir, for your uh words today.

And thank you for the translation, Saba.

The next speaker is Jonathan Kral, followed by Shelly McCabe.

Um, mayor, vice mayor, members of city council, good to see you here.

Uh, first, I thank city staff for their wonderful and extensive work uh on this plan and for meeting with us in Grassroots Alexandria and with our friends in African communities together.

Um, some of one of whom uh just spoke.

Um I feel that the this plan includes many helpful and important goals that will at least somewhat mitigate the housing crisis that is uh that affects our city and affects our entire nation.

Nobody should have to work more than a full-time job to afford dignified housing.

To strengthen tenant protections goal three, it is not enough to advocate for state level reforms, which is what are the recommendations.

We must gather data on bad faith but still legal practices such as eviction or least non-renewal without good cause, excessive fees, misleading or excessive utility bill billing, misleading or non-transparent applications or leases, or failure to work with non-English speaking tenants, but simply we are asking that the data gathered under goal eight um or goal three recommendation five.

There's a number of places where we collect data in this plan, be gathered and reported so as to support our reform efforts as we go to Richmond to advocate for stronger tenant protections.

Um we also ask that the data be organized so as to develop a public-facing reports about landlords based on the absence of these and other complaints.

In other words, we can say these are good landlords.

Um I am glad to see that the rent ready program, uh that was original that's what it was originally called.

I don't remember what it's called in this plan, which helps people in a neighborhood access designated affordable housing in that same neighborhood is included as goal through recommendation 5D as an anti-displacement tool.

I think we could do more.

I believe recommendation 5C should include develop 30% and 40% AMI designated affordable housing in vulnerable working class neighborhoods and increase the supply of such housing.

Um, in this way, culturally rich working class neighborhoods can be strengthened instead of displaced.

Um, I thank you for your time.

Um since it was mentioned earlier, I will say that I am willing to pay more taxes for a reparations program.

Disparate impacts are systemic, they're ongoing, they're historic, they have uh facts that extend to the present day, and I would love to see some program such as the gentleman mentioned.

Um thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments.

Um, our final speaker, because I think speaker 10 is a duplicate.

Okay, our final speaker is Shelley McCabe.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

Um, I'm here today representing AHAC as its co-chair, and um my comments are a supplement to the letter that you received from us on uh May 26th.

First of all, we strongly support approval of the Housing 2040 master plan and are so appreciative of the hundreds and hundreds of man hours of work that staff put into this very comprehensive plan.

And as someone who has done community outreach, I am so uh amazed at the level of community outreach that was done as part of the development of this plan, and it truly is best practices.

The plan becomes real once the targets are adopted, which I know is in the work plan for year-end.

We would ask staff and council to challenge yourselves to develop targets that are ambitious but attainable and truly address moving the needle on the housing gap and not just looking backwards from what we think we can afford.

In the meantime, there are over 1,300 units in the pipeline that don't have any existing funding.

So we would ask you to strongly support the use of tax abatement, development fee relief updates to 7700, and to leverage the recently passed state legislation to find ways to move these languishing projects forward to help fill the gap.

We would also look ask you to look at funding sources to move these projects forward because all of that isn't enough to do it.

And we're really hoping to find some creative approaches to bond financing.

We were dismayed to hear that the soonest that there can be a housing bond is 2031.

I know we had talked about dates 2028 before.

Um I understand the pressures, but the need is real for affordable housing.

And you've all indicated it is one of your strongest priorities.

We strongly support both the inclusion of affordable units in market rate projects, which serve slightly higher levels of affordability and the development of standalone affordable projects, which is where the city's scarce resources should be focused to reach the lowest levels of affordability, which is one of the greatest needs.

Finally, where there is a need, there is a need for greater focus on preservation of market affordable housing and committed affordable housing that is reaching the end of its compliance period.

And we urge you to quickly put the rofer policy in place as a top priority.

I know the comment is that it costs money, but there are creative approaches to partnering to help finance preservation of those units.

With that, I want to thank you again for your continued commitment to affordable housing and appreciate working with you going forward.

Thank you so much, Ms.

McCabe.

Um, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

There's a motion by councilman on Nubia, a second by councilman Chapman to close the public hearing.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Uh so we've closed the public hearing.

We are back to council discussion.

I just wanted to start actually briefly with a point the last speaker made.

And if the manager could speak to the bond um opportunities and what the current thinking about time frames is on that.

Yeah, I think there was a budget question, I think in your last budget.

Um, a small bond can be done in the next few years.

A larger bond would take take longer or require council to reshuffle some of the currently bonded projects in the next three years.

Okay, I thank you for the clarification.

And um, I think speaking from only for myself, I'm I'm excited about that opportunity.

Um my colleagues have any other questions.

And if not, I believe the mayor um had some comments.

Sure, I didn't know if you were calling on.

I can't see if you're looking at other people.

Um there.

I guess uh so before I want to go ahead and put a motion on the table.

Before I do, I did want to um just ask uh Tamar if you might be able to speak to one of the previous speakers talked about a right to return.

And I know that we have tried to do some extensive work in this space, even trying to work with previous HUD administrations to see what we might be able to do here.

I wondered if you could just kind of speak to some of that history and maybe the I know we've had some administration changes, but any status on where those conversations are currently.

Uh Mayor Gaskins, I'll I I I will take that question.

Um, so Tamara is obviously she's worked very hard on this for a long time about um what can we do absent legislative authority?

Um, it is also we do um include relocation support and advocating for right to return policies as a part of our legislative package as well for tenant protections and anti-displacement work.

And I'll just add to that as part of any redevelopment project that's impacting committed affordable units or existing tenants.

We do work collaboratively with uh the property owners and the applicants to make sure that there is a relocation plan developed and we encourage compliance with our um voluntary tenant relocation policies.

Um, also uh if there are committed affordable units, in particular if they trigger um federal funding, they're also subject to a heightened heightened level of expectation as well.

But our goal is really to help minimize and mitigate the impacts of displacement um within our current authority.

Thank you.

Well, let me just say this.

I want to first thank staff.

Um, if you haven't heard it enough, I think at this point from all seven of us, we I just want you to know how grateful we are of the work that has gone into this plan.

Um, I think everyone knows that this is something that has been years in the making.

And so we appreciate the ways in which you have led various types of community engagements, all of the research that has gone into each of the different principles, and honestly, the way in which you've been able to communicate back with people how their feedback is showing up in this plan and the ways in which their feedback has helped really shaped get us from what was a concept just a year ago, a year more ago, to such a concrete and comprehensive plan.

To the public, I would say thank you for your engagement over this process as well, but also say there's still more to come.

I think as you heard everything from utilities to co-ops to senior housing to home ownership to right of return to land using our own land, community land trust, to how we measure um you know rental increases.

There's still more work, and so there's still going to be more conversations, and just like we did with our previous master plan, we continue to host community summits, we continue to host opportunities for feedback, and we did even do some modifications along the way.

So I hope that you will continue to be a part of this process as this moves forward, but also as this moves into that space of implementation.

And so with that, Madam Vice Mayor, I'd like to put a motion on the table to approve the amendment to the city's master plan.

Um specifically master plan amendment number two zero two six-000 one to create the housing 24 plan chapter, replacing the 2013 housing master plan chapter.

All right, there's been a motion and a second.

Any further discussion on this item.

Um, Councilman Anuby.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, I certainly also echo the thanks to everybody who was involved in this.

It was a long um heavy undertaking.

Um, everyone who provides feedback from the community, one defense, all of that stuff, of course, all the hard work, all the department, all the coordination.

Um also coming to us several times for check-ins and taking our directions.

So of course that that's also always appreciated as well.

Um my brief last comment on this as we develop the targets and the metrics and everything.

Again, I just want us to make sure we're very intentional in doing that, making sure we're measuring things that are actually moving the needle or whether we're moving the needle or not, be very result-oriented.

Um so um that would be just my uh my recommendation here.

Uh thank you very much, Councilman Alnubi.

Um, I just add for anyone who participated either today or in previous sessions and doesn't necessarily see their specific asks reflected, that that doesn't mean it won't become reflected over time or isn't a part of um future small area plans or future code and ordinance changes.

Um, sometimes these things just take time, sometimes they need more analysis, but I think even today we had other ideas brought forward um that might reappear again, um, if not in our overall master plan, but in individual projects, because what this is is a is really a template for what's possible, um, but it's not prescriptive or limiting of of what's um what what the potential is.

Um so I appreciate as well the the commentary today and the ideas that the community brought forward.

Um I'm not seeing any other uh raised hands.

There's been a motion by Mayor Gaskins and a second by Councilman Chapman.

Um Madam Clerk, if you could call the roll.

Mayor Gaskins.

Hi, Councilman Chapman.

Vice Mayor Bagley, Councilman Age, Councilman Al Nuby, Councilwoman Green.

Aye, Councilwoman Marks.

Hi.

Okay, that item passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

That's worth like an um so what's gonna happen next is I'm gonna entertain a motion to recess and reconvene at uh I'm gonna call it 155.

Um that's 30 minutes.

And there's a motion by councilman marks, second by councilman Anubi.

All those in favor?

All right, opposed.

All right, we are recessed until 1550.

We are reconvening at 15.

We are reconvening at 156.

Thank you.

Councilman Alnuby.

I'm Madam Clerk.

If you could call the next item.

Special use permit 2026-000134A East Alexandria Avenue commission planning commission action.

Recommend approval seven to zero.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Staff is here.

I'd ask that we give a brief presentation.

We are all fairly familiar with this project.

Then we'll move into public speakers and come back for council discussion.

Director Stoddard and staff, it's I'm sorry, I just you're oh it's okay.

Rachel Drusher.

Rachel, thank you.

Please begin.

Yes, absolutely.

Um you all are very familiar familiar with this request as a single unit dwelling.

Um the proposal is a single unit dwelling on a vacant substandard lot without public street frontage.

Uh so just some quick background.

The property is owned R25, um, and it is surrounded by single unit, two-unit townhomes and multi-unit dwellings.

The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story dwelling uh on the vacant substandard lot.

Uh it's the roughly the uh dwelling would be around 1100 square feet.

Site plan of the property.

Uh so jumping into the SUP considerations.

So there's two SUPs in front of you today.

The first is an SUP for a substandard lot.

Uh so in order for a substandard lot and lot without frontage to be developed, uh they have to meet their requirements of Section 11500 and 12402 for the substandard law criteria uh in terms of light and air, the property complies the proposal complies with the R25 setbacks and the height requirements, uh, which ensure adequate light and air supply.

Uh regarding property values, uh it's similar in size to other dwellings in the neighborhood.

Uh, it would not reduce uh impact property values, and then in terms of height bulk and design, uh the dwelling is one of the shorter in the surrounding dwellings.

Uh floor area is compatible with surrounding dwellings, and as for design, the architectural design is contemporary with a brick exterior, which is similar to others on the block.

Jumping to the SUP with lot without public street frontage.

Uh so in terms of the considerations, uh, the background's important here because the SUP uh when it was created, the intent behind it was to evaluate the use of the property in terms of um whether accessing the lot was appropriate, and specifically staff at the time uh were citing concerns of a use with heavy truck traffic accessing the lot.

So in this case, uh the proposal is a single unit dwelling, and we find that the 10-foot alley is sufficient for the proposed single unit dwelling.

Uh, this alley is being used uh already by other surrounding properties.

Uh we also find that there are other properties that don't necessarily front on a public street uh and other properties in Del Rey that use alleys to access their property by just driving a vehicle down, parking to the rear of their property, and that's how they are accessing their home.

So, yeah, and just to kind of wrap everything up here, uh staff finds the proposal meets the SUP criteria.

It meets the substandard lot, SUP criteria, the access is sufficient to use the property.

Um all city departments are satisfied that with the grading plan, building permit review process will sufficiently address all of our building safety, stormwater, and other concerns.

Uh you know, that we have dwellings that do function very similar in the city.

Um, you know, whether that's ADU units, alley lots in Old Town, and then of course, right across the street with the vicinity of this property.

Uh we find that the project is compatible with the neighborhood, and the bulk of design and location of the dwelling is consistent with others in the neighborhood.

Uh, and for these reasons, uh both staff and planning commission recommended approval.

And I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.

Okay, do my colleagues have questions for staff uh at this moment?

Seeing none, we're gonna move into the public hearing.

Um, we'll take one speaker at a time.

Um, others can line up and sit in the chairs behind them.

Our first three speakers are Catherine Rice, Matthew Kim, and Yasheen Lin.

She can unmute yourself.

She's right here.

As a homeowner at 424 East Alexandria Avenue, I'm here to oppose this SUP, to communicate the swelling neighborhood opposition to it, and to repeat my question.

Why are we here again?

When the same SUP was twice, has twice now been rejected by the city council.

It is on the same lot with the same lack of street frontage, and so remains out of character with the neighborhood, which is the standard, the neighborhood.

I know you've received neighbors' written descriptions about why this SUP fails all the rules for approval, but perhaps you haven't heard of the enormous neighborhood opposition to this development.

When this SUP was first presented in early 2024, one planning commissioner commented that because they only saw a handful of neighbors at the meeting, there must not be much community opposition.

The truth is it has raised enormous neighborhood opposition, which has grown with each SUP filing.

This year, in direct response to the Mr.

Mayor letters that the applicant asked his friends who don't live in the neighborhood to submit, East Alexandria neighbors created a petition and invited the community to visit the lot, review our concerns, and simply sign our petition to deny.

On June 2nd, 118 informed written signatures were submitted after seven days, which now total more than 166 signatures, the majority of which are from the neighborhood.

If you add in the signatures from an electronic petition that we started, we are now at 228 unique people opposed to this SUP in less than three weeks.

That outpouring is because it doesn't take much listening and looking to realize that 404A was never meant to be a buildable lot and should not be.

Neighbors know it is not on a public street, and that that is the heart of all its development problems.

They know if 404A were to catch fire, fire trucks and emergency vehicles can't get down the narrow alleys on which it depends.

They know it is situated in a flood-prone area, an underground uh above an underground stream that will exacerbate our flood issues, all these stagnating our neighboring home values, and they know an approval will set an historic new building precedent for Del Ray.

So why are we here?

We're told it's because we need more homes built in Alexandria because the demand exceeds supply and people want to live here.

But we the neighbors created the value.

For instance, the 16 East Alley Alexandria Avenue homes out of the 18 on the block who actively oppose this SUP represent more than a quarter of a million dollars a year in property tax revenue and fees.

Compare that to the single tax income from the applicant who and I ask you, please say no.

Thank you, Miss Rice.

Um the next speaker is Matthew Kame, followed by Yasheen Lim.

Is Matthew online?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Kame, you can unmute yourself and begin.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me okay?

You're ready to go.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Um, I would like to address a few of the very selective and without context statements made by staff in the public record.

Staff mentions there are also other dwellings in Del Ray that don't have street frontage.

They mention townhomes 300 feet away.

They also make the claim other dwellings near this lot that do not have direct public street frontage.

Please ask the staff what dwellings they're talking about.

This discussion is about a substandard lot without frontage, not a dwelling not facing a street.

Assuming it's a townhomes across Mount Vernon Avenue, they're talking about the lot the townhomes were built on has 114 feet of direct street frontage.

They also have parking on site.

And by the way, I think foot access is used to get into your home for pretty much every single property, but the rest all have street frontage of the lot, regardless of which way the homes face.

In planning commission, this was asked, and these answers given.

Planning commission chair.

Is a parcel having public street frontage a requirement to apply for an SUP for a substandard lot?

Ms.

Mrs.

Rusher, no.

Street frontage is not one of the criteria listed in section 12.12-402.

The eligibility test is simply to compare lot width and lot size with the surrounding lots.

Well, by definition, and per the code, it isn't a lot without street frontage.

Street frontage is a requirement for every home in Alexander City, even a complying lot.

It could not get a building permit without without an SUP for frontage.

If this weren't true, there would be no need for section 7 1007.

That in the code is written around the threshold test of lot width at the front lot line, defined in the code as street frontage and a lot with at the building line.

Block face is defining in the code as the area between two intersecting streets along the same side of the street on which the subject parcel is located.

On the same street, street frontage.

On the block face, on the street, street frontage, not in the block face, on the block face.

Words matter.

The intent of the ordinance matters.

Presenting the ordinance in the proper context and in the least unambiguous way possible is a governmental responsibility as a landowner with private property rights.

You've denied this application twice.

It's no different today.

Nothing has changed.

It's still severely small and substandard.

It continues as it has since it was recorded to have no street frontage.

And I'd like to make two very uh important points also.

One is, you know, I bought this property in 2009, based in large part on the premise on the um determination 1995 that the lot was not buildable and it did not was not eligible for an SUP.

I also want to point out that this 1,000 square foot um basement that's proposed is only gonna exhaust exacerbate the the flooding that's that's um prevalent even even more.

I've spent thousands of dollars on um flood mitigation already, and this is just gonna make the problem much much worse.

Thank you, Mr.

Kiss.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Yashin Lynn.

Are they online?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Do y'all see her online in the back?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Uh Miss Lin, are you able to unmute yourself and provide your testimony?

Yes, I'm able to.

Hello.

Okay, go ahead.

You're on.

Good morning, Mayor Gaskins and Mayors of Council.

My name is Yashin Lin, and I le I live at 1407 Mount Vernon Avenue with my partner Mark Lim.

We moved to Bill Ray in 2018 to a home immediately adjacent to the proposed development.

We oppose this SUP and asked the council to deny this application.

The current application has not changed the physical constraints of this property, and our core question is a question that has never been asked.

Our home is adjacent to the slot and slightly lower during heavy rain, or sump pump runs continuously and sometimes struggles to keep up.

That is our current reality.

Now the proposed development requires excavation to nearly 10 feet across most of this lot.

Try to picture that.

And our home and this entire area sit in the hoose run watershed, a low-lying area known to be prone to flooding.

Now here's a problem.

Alexandria has no requirement to evaluate how below grade construction affects neighboring properties.

Because no evaluation has been required, none exists.

And that matters because Section 12-402C requires the council to make affirmative findings that this development will not quote, diminish or impair the established property value in the surrounding areas.

Well, a property that floods is a property that loses value.

Code compliance is a floor, not a ceiling.

So staff determination that no existing regulation is violated, does not by itself satisfy the council's duty to find that no harm will result.

Where evidence is absent, that finding cannot honestly be made.

Remember what planning director Carl Moritz told this council in November 2024 that the SUP process exists precisely to address stormwater concerns not otherwise covered by the city's requirements.

We ask that you use that authority by requiring an independent engineering evaluation before any vote, not after.

Three additional issues have been gone have gone unresolved across every prior meeting.

First, the staff report exempts this project from stormwater development review.

But the applicant's own plans show a basement courtyard found out foundation walls and graded surfaces on a lot that's 2,662 square feet.

The exemption threshold for land disturbing activity is 2500 square feet.

The math doesn't work.

Second, fire apparatus cannot reach the structure through a 10-foot alley.

Third, survey discrepancies acknowledged by staff remain unresolved.

Please deny this application.

If the council is not prepared prepared to deny, require an independent engineering evaluation of subsurface hydrological impacts if you already vote.

Again, the absence of the evaluation is not a reason to approve.

It is rather a reason to pause.

We would ask that the council to confirm that the public we would also like to ask a council to confirm that the public record is complete as of yesterday afternoon, it was not.

Now attending these meetings, these hearings have only deepened our investment in the city.

We have watched this council work hard on issues that we care about, and it's because we trust this process that we are asking you to use it.

Thank you for your time and your service to this community.

Thank you, Miss Lynn.

Uh, the next speaker is Bridget Donahue, followed by Angela Rice.

Am I live?

Okay, I'm still kind of soft voiced, sorry.

So my name's Bridget Donahue.

I live at 422 East Alexandria Avenue, and um I'm a 30-year resident of the city.

Um, I'd say heavily invested in the quality of living in Alexandria.

I volunteer, I volunteered with some of you, either through the MRC or through Carpenter Shelter or for the scholarship fund of Alexandria.

Um I want what's best for my community as a whole.

I have nothing, I don't have a dog in the race here.

I'm not directly impacted by what could happen if the SUP is granted and if the property FCPs are granted, and if the property is uh the project goes on as proposed.

Um, I guess the problem is the city said or the staff describes this as an 1,100 square foot house, but in reality, it's well over 2,000 square feet because a good more than 50% of the house is underground.

And it's interesting that someone made the remark that we have a nice eclectic neighborhood, but the result of this the approval of these SUPs and the construction that would follow would result in a unique house in our community because it's the only one I know of that has more than 50% of its living space underground.

It is not within the character of our neighborhood.

Um, sec uh additionally, when you think about that over, I'd slight, I'll just quote 1100 square feet of basement space.

Assuming they're digging down 10 feet, we're talking about 1,200 cubic yards of fill that was previously there to absorb runoff and echoing prior comments about the known storm water problems we've had and the fact that we're over underground streams.

My house is over one.

I can tell you I've done some work abating flooding.

So I think that approving the SUP knowing that this is the project that is going to move forward would be reckless.

The other speakers have spoken about how the waters flows down.

Um I wholeheartedly believe that it does.

This project as proposed um negatively impacts the quality of living and probably the cost of living for people who living in a known floodplain are only going to face higher insurance rates and larger damage repair costs.

So with that, I ask that the council uh vote against approving these SUPs.

And um, I also would like to add I applaud the city's efforts for looking for creative ways to get more housing.

We need it, we need more taxes.

Thank you.

Well timed, Miss Donahue.

Um, the next speaker is Angela Rice, followed by Heidi Gish.

All right.

All right, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of council.

My name is Angela Rice.

I live immediately next door to this property and have called Del Ray home for nearly 20 years.

My husband and I are raising our three children in Delray because we love its character, walkability, and the strong sense of community that make Delray special.

Today I will focus on one issue, neighborhood character.

Because under the zoning ordinance, that determination belongs to you, not staff, not the applicant, not consultants, but to council.

And what makes this case unusual is that council has already considered this property before, not once, twice.

And on both occasions, council concluded that development of this lot was not compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

Those decisions reflected council's independent judgment about neighborhood character, and that same judgment is being asked of you again today.

That history matters, not because council is bound by prior decisions, but because residents deserve to understand what is materially different today.

The lot has not changed.

It remains a small, undersized substandard lot.

It still has no public street frontage, it's still located behind existing homes.

It's still accessed by a narrow alley.

The surrounding neighborhood has not changed.

Delray remains a neighborhood developed on lots with public street frontage.

Homes may face different directions.

Some are on corner lots, some sit at unusual angles, but they were all developed on lots with street frontage.

That is the neighborhood pattern and character.

This proposal is fundamentally different.

This is a non-street frontage parcel located behind existing homes.

Staff has attempted to compare it to nearby townhomes located roughly 300 feet away.

But those townhomes sit on a lot containing approximately 114 feet of street frontage.

This property has none.

Those situations are not remotely comparable.

And for decades, the city itself appeared to recognize that distinction.

Planning and zonings citywide review in the 1990s treated this property differently.

The Board of Zoning Appeals was told frontage was a threshold consideration.

As recently as 2024, the city's own valuation memorandum described the lot as clearly non-buildable.

All those records point in the same direction.

They recognize that this parcel does not fit the historic development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood.

And that brings me back to the central question.

If council determined twice before that this proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood in character, what has materially changed?

Not what has been reinterpreted, argued differently or reclassified.

What has actually changed?

The lot has not changed.

The neighborhood has not changed.

The development pattern has not changed.

The lack of street frontage has not and cannot change.

If the property is fundamentally the same property that council previously found incompatible with the neighborhood, I respectfully submit that it should not.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate your comments.

Um Heidi Geish is the next speaker, followed by Monica Perry.

Okay.

You can unmute yourself and begin.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

All right.

Good afternoon.

My name is Heidi Gesch.

I live on the 400 block of East Alexandria Avenue on the same side of the street as this proposed um as this lot.

Um I want to echo some of the statements that Mrs.

Rice just made, but I uh I I just want to kind of go through the history of this a little bit.

So for decades, the city has treated this lot 404A East Alexandria as a site that was not eligible for development.

In fact, in 1995, it was determined that it was not even eligible to apply for a special use permit.

And nothing has changed that would alter that determination.

And the city should not change decades of precedent on which home buyers like Mr.

Kime earlier, uh, relied to now reach a different conclusion.

The history is important.

In 1995, there was a citywide review of substandard lots, including this particular lot, and planning and zoning determined that the lot failed the eligibility requirements, specifically of zoning ordinance section 12402, and that the lot was not eligible to even apply for a special use permit.

This was a conclusion that was reached following two years of coordinated effort across city departments, including planning and zoning, real estate assessments, and finance.

The results were presented to the city council, and they've been relied upon for assessment and taxation purposes for decades.

In fact, the city adjusted assessments and even issued retroactive tax refunds to the substandard lot owners based upon those term determinations, which substantially reduced the assessment value of the lots.

Then in 2012, the city reaffirmed the requirements for building on a substandard lot.

The former planning and zoning director, Barbara Ross stated to the Board of Zoning Appeals that frontage was one of three criteria considered in determining substandard lot eligibility.

And I quote, she said, I would also like the record to be clear that there are actually three prongs to each test.

Lot area, lot width measured at the building line, and lot frontage at the front lot line.

This lot, as everyone acknowledges, does not have any public street frontage.

And the current staff acknowledge that as well.

In spite of that, this the planning and zoning commission has come to a conclusion that's entirely inconsistent with the requirements for developing a substandard lot.