Planning Commission - public_hearing

I'm not formally starting our hearing because we have a discussion item first, but I'm welcoming folks tonight to our 630 discussion of the implementation of our green building plan. And we can get that started.

All right. I'm Rob Kearns with Planning and Zoning. And I'm going to be presenting this evening. But I'm joined by colleagues from the Climate Action Office. This is definitely a collaborative process of working through and implementing the Green Building Plan. I am really pleased to be here looking at turning the page and implementing this new plan. I was heavily involved in the 2019 Green Building Policy. So actually progressing, updating, it's very satisfying to see us moving forward. So looking at the agenda for tonight, we're going to go just do a quick refresher of the plan elements, what's in the plan, just so we're all on the same page. And then we're going to quickly dive into looking at the regulatory tools and the processes that we anticipate using as developing cases come in, how we're going to weave this part of the city's requirements into all the rest of our development review process. Looking at the plan components that were adopted by council, first, there were a number of components. Probably the most talked about one was energy use intensity. And you can see up to the table on the right the various building topologies and their various EUIs that are expected to be targeted for this particular element. Renewable energy, 3% generation on site or contribute to a clean energy fund. ELECTRIFICATION OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF PROJECTS, SO HEATING AND COOLING, ELECTRIFICATION, APPLIANCES, ET CETERA. AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL RESILIENCE PROVISIONS, EV CHARGING, ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES, INDOOR AIR QUALITY, WHOLE BUILDING METERS, A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE HANDLED BY SEPARATE CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY AND NOW ARE GETTING ROLLED INTO THE ENTIRE GREEN BUILDING PLAN AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE WHOLE EFFORT. So there are now five compliance options or pathways, as we refer to them. Number one, the standard one, will be the one that probably 85% of our cases we anticipate will go through. And this is where they're meeting the criteria that I just walked through in the last slide, EUI, renewable energy, et cetera. But there are four others a project could choose to reach for a higher certification, a sort of market-leading certification like Passive House. and work through that certification process as an option. Affordable housing is a pathway. There's a small project pathway, and it's defined on the slide just to scale things properly. And then public projects have been a separate pathway and continue to be in our new plan. So in terms of implementing the plan, we're at the stage now where we're looking to update our materials, such as the menu of standardized development conditions and a memo to industry. We're also educating all the stakeholders, so Planning Commission, EPC. We're making the rounds with staff. The development community and NAEP we're going to be meeting with again. And we're also developing a toolkit regarding improved EUI as part of education and helping with the stakeholder communities. So on this chart here, you can see sort of our development review process, the typical five stages that projects go through. And we have the 2019 requirements and the 2026 just for comparison so people could check those out. But I'm going to focus on the 2026 ones tonight. So in the concept stage, we are asking for a narrative. Basically, what is the applicant plan to do? in terms of their pathway. How do they anticipate getting there? What are the key elements and thoughts they have and considerations for that? And then we will continue that conversation from concept one to concept two. Perhaps some projects will look at conceptual energy modeling at this stage. That will still be something that will be on a case-by-case basis. But they will be developing their skins, their architectural elements. So they will be starting to engage in that thinking. At the prelim stage, we are going to be looking for the refined EUI modeling, absolutely having that EU modeling at that stage, and looking for a renewable energy plan and other anticipated elements that they need to meet, including EV parking and other documenting combustion uses, et cetera. So that following the prelim stage and moving into completeness at your hearing, you can expect to have a report out on the EUI model and the target for that particular project. That's been something this board's been asking for and talking about for quite a few years. So that's being achieved with this process. And then looking at final site plan. and building permits, occupancy, we're essentially documenting. We're going to be asking the applicants to document any design changes that would impact the implementation, things that they put into their approval. The same thing with building permit and occupancy so we can see them continuing to meet their targets and progress towards compliance of what they got approved in the prelim plan. I have a standard condition as well as the memo to industry in this new slide deck. You did not see these during the briefing because this is like real time. We're working as we're going along. But I wanted to at least show you these tonight as additional information. And obviously, we sent you the memo to industry also in this afternoon's update. So you have that document and you have the slide deck with the condition here in front of you. But essentially, the standard condition is going to replace 12 sustainability conditions that we previously had into one single green building plan condition. And you can see the condition here. It references the new memo to industry. And what we're doing here, referring to the condition now, basically you name your pathway and you name your target EUI with that pathway. as well as your renewable energy requirements that you're going for. So that gets documented as part of your standard condition package, as part of the overall conditions package. We are looking at, well, I'll get to the number C in a minute, but D is kind of a fail safe we've had in all of our conditions, where if you can't meet it for some other unforeseen reason, there's documentation and a relief valve if needed. So it's a very clean, simple condition, similar to what we had for the 2019 plan. It's just shorter and combining a few more elements into this new combined condition. So while the condition's compact and clean, it's referring to the memo to industry. And this is where the horsepower comes in. It's the technical document, so to speak. And we had this with the 2019. We had the nice clean charts and frames, but then it referred to notes that the consultants and the specialists obviously had to refer to in terms of doing their work. So there's two charts in the memo to industry. And the first is the green building matrix option one. We're using the standard one here because that's what most people will use. Table one goes across the top, each of the development stages. And then all of the requirements per stage are checked. So you just look at concept one, you can see all you need is the general narrative. Concept two, there's a few more things. Concept three, we keep adding as we go through the iterative process. But making it clear what you need at what stage in this first chart. The second chart is saying of all of the different elements of green building, EUI, renewable energy, et cetera, it lists out what the technical requirements are to actually work at that item. So you have both the technical information and what you need at each stage laid out in these charts in the memo to industry. In terms of the implementation schedule, in January, city council adopted the plan. We're approaching the end of the February to June period here, where we're incorporating the plan into the development review process. So we're finalizing the materials that are being presented tonight, the standard conditions, memo to industry. And we're anticipating July 1 being our start date. We didn't want to leave a lot of time to get the start date going for the green building plan. And so these elements will go into effect for all concepts that are submitted, concept ones that are submitted after July 1st. That's our anticipated target at this time. So I did want to go back to this one element, 16C, where we say we're going to be inserting additional flexibility criteria. We are working with a consultant that actually helped us do the 2019 plan. They changed their name. It's now Entrova. But they're a leading firm in the green building space as consultants. And one of the tasks that council asked us to look at was, Looking at EUI in particular, if an applicant is falling short for whatever reason of meeting that target, and staff and people are seeing that a good faith effort is being made, we wanted to create some criteria to say that if the applicant has achieved these five to 10 things, if they've done good windows, if they've done good building orientation, if they've done the building massing, the things that really push the envelope in terms of achieving green building, if we can see that they're doing that and they're still not quite there, it gives council the option to say, okay, We want this project. You've done 90% to get there on this particular element. We're still going to entertain this and go forward with this project. And you'll have made that good faith as high a bar as you can effort while still delivering the project that we want. That was something specific that council asked us to look at, and so we're continuing on that. But you can expect to see that as we go along through this month. And with that, I open the floor to questions and discussion.

Yeah, go for it, Ms. Harris. And pardon me if I've missed anything. This may just be because I'm new to the commission. But are these tied to mandatory deliverables, or are they tied to developer incentives?

These are required. These are standards.

Commissioner Manor.

And this is for DSPs and DSUPs, not grading plans or single-family homes.

First off, I'd like to say bravo for having the acronym translation at the bottom of the screen. We love to speak acronyms. Oh, yeah. We all love our acronyms. Yes. And sometimes I don't always get them. You mentioned the... THE WHOLE BUILDING METER. WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? EARLY ON.

YOU SPOKE ABOUT THAT. I CAN GO BACK TO THE.

SURE. I'M DUSTIN SMITH, GREEN BUILDING MANAGER. So whole building meters are an important tool that property owners can utilize once the building is opened to monitor energy and water consumption into occupancy to hopefully identify energy spikes, potential equipment issues, leaks, other issues that would affect the amount of energy and water the building is consuming. And so having those in place Whether it's a utility meter or there's some other metering scheme, we see it's a fundamental part of being a green building so that you can manage the consumption.

I see so it's you're getting data that you wouldn't get individually from tenants or correct and it will be so we will not be getting the data as the city.

It's just to ensure the owner or the property manager has the tools they need once the building is you know see those are released to monitor that that makes sense when people see how much they're using the tend to like to come back.

I have a quick clarifying question on the matrices. The easiest one to view is the one in your slide set, so I'll swing back to that too.

Oh, do you want me to go back?

That'd be great, just for the folks online. Yeah, one more, two more.

Sorry.

Yeah, the matrix one, option one standard matrix. That one. There we go. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS DESCRIBING THE SUBMITTALS AS CUMULATIVE ELEMENTS OR SINGULARLY AT EACH STAGE. SO I READ THIS AS BEING A TIMELINE OF SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS ACROSS THE TOP FROM CONCEPT ONE ALL THE WAY TO FINAL CO.

Correct.

And then elements of a submittal down the left-hand side. But some of them have checks in more than one stage, like energy use intensity has four checks for four different stages. But then I presume it's not submitted in concept one and it's not submitted at COs. But other ones only are submitted once. Like, let's see. Well, the general information is only part of the submittal at concept one and two, and never thereafter. So is that intentional, that it's like bits and pieces, but as you move forward, like by the time you get to final site plan, we only have a package that has EUI, energy and water meters, outdoor water conservation, and EV charging? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret that, whereas some of the other things that were submitted prior are no longer in the package?

They will be part of the record, like the narrative will have and keep. But what will happen is the site plan will be cumulative. So once we have water meters, let's say, on a particular, it will continue to be there then in subsequent submissions thereafter.

So I guess that that that's a question like if final site plan, energy and water meters is submitted, but it's not checked for building permit submission, then does that mean it's not in the building permit submission? Or does that mean it is also in the building permit submission?

It would be sorry, it would be included in the building permit submission because it would be reflected on the site plans, but it would not be something that staff would be kind of back checking unless it was missing in the previous submission for some reason. Does that make sense?

Sort of. So I guess I ask this because if I were trying to figure out what I'm submitting to you, I wouldn't know what to do. Because I wouldn't know if you want me to submit you a package. By the time we get to final site plan, you want to see a package that includes general energy use intensity, renewable energy, electrification, and energy and water, and everything that came before. or just the things that are checked at that stage.

Ryan Freed, Climate Action Officer. The intent here is that at each stage, the check is what we will need. So energy and water meters, for instance, we need that at final site plan.

But you don't need it before?

We won't need it before, and then we won't need it after, because that will be the point where we have decided that. You'll see the break in renewable energy, for instance. At preliminary plan, they will be providing us the indication of which path they're going with. And then at certificate of occupancy, we verify that that was done. Um, so it's likely that like renewable energy, solar panels will show up on next ones, but it's not necessary.

It's like, it's not under review at that stage. So there may be documents in the record that are showing it, but at each stage, this is not, it's, so I guess I'm, I'm reading it's not just what's required to be submitted, but it's what is under review with the submittal.

Right. And we don't expect most of these things, we don't expect to change from stage to stage. At EUI, for instance, the building design changes pretty regularly. So as that design changes, we expect new EUI to be submitted to us, so a new energy model to be submitted as a part of that.

Okay, great. That's good feedback, though. We could probably add some notes to the user so that they can understand that logic.

To the extent that this is your memo to them telling them what to do, I think just like having that directions at the top be a little more explicit about what that means in its substance, then they know that that's the stage when the rubber meets the road. Like for EUI, building permit submission really shouldn't be changing after that because it's shifted and now this is the final design. Great. And on my second question, 16C, if you want to flip back to that screen just for following along. 16C is your blank slate right now. There's nothing in there. Are you envisioning this as being blank like that until the moment that it's ready to come to planning commission because staff have been working with the applicant in all those prior phases and have decided that flexibility is needed and that's what goes in to see in an expression of what's agreed to as the flexibility or is it envisioned to be a broader list that staff selects from when finding that project fails to fully conform but a good faith effort has been demonstrated and then that would be like covered in narrative format as far as like a staff or the staff report often says like why staff make a recommendation and how the proposal is found to meet XYZ expectations. So I'm not totally clear which of those is going to happen here.

We're still sort of figuring that out because we don't exactly know what the product of that is yet. But I think we're anticipating that we're going to have like a separate sort of set of design standards or strategies or combination thereof that would be actually like a separate document. And then when we do the conditions, we'll be putting in on this project what have they done, you know, what flexibility are we looking at so we can inform you all as well as council based on what the applicant has done with that product that we're still finishing.

Okay. So it's sort of like you anticipate on the as a separate deliverable or a separate piece of material that's useful, it's kind of like a menu of best practice. And the final design might not meet the EUI. I mean, primarily, I think that's the fear, right? It's like if it can't quite meet the EUI, what are the reasons why we're justifying it? Well, they did this and this and this, and they still couldn't meet it because of something. and we feel like they put enough effort in. But it's selecting out of that best practice.

Correct. That's the idea.

Commissioner Dubé.

Thank you, Chair. The same basic question. C&D, it seems like to me, and you said that council asked for this piece to be put in there, or did I not hear that right?

Yeah, council was wrestling with what should the EUI number be, and then this idea came up of having this C and producing something that could sort of guide that that decision making and perhaps horse trading of various priorities.

It seems to me C and D are the same thing. So I mean, you could kind of combine that. I mean, if you're going to have that criteria, I guess my concern is that that criteria is going to be out there and then we're going to end up using that C and D all the time. I guess that's just my concern.

Well, with the 2019 plan, we had a flexibility criteria. And honestly, because I was the one usually administering it, it came down to being very clear that it was a high standard to ask for flexibility. And it was supported by the boards and council. So it's really something that is calibrated by when the applications go forward, how much leeway are you all going to allow. But we're trying to provide the tools for you all to make that decision. with the good faith effort and project specific information.

OK, thank you.

So I'm going to keep going on that idea. I think, A, I think I would absolutely want more clarity than just insert additional flexibility as needed. So pushing for that clarity, I think, is very important. I also think that saying you picked the right windows and things like that isn't sufficient because building a building that meets an EUI requires construction standards. And so you're not going to have the building built yet. And so you're sort of listing pieces, but not, in fact, necessarily, I think, holding that standard to a test that I think is sufficient. Because I do think, I'm skeptical about, and I've seen it already on, and we'll talk about it later tonight, about that flexibility essentially meaning the target is not met. because that flexibility is there. And the priority typically is going to be in favor of development in this jurisdiction. And so holding a line on something like this, and some of us wanted even a sort of stronger line, especially in terms of cost the dodge to doing it on site. So I would like to be able to see that list. I'd like to be able to comment on that list. I think there's enough of us up here that have a type of knowledge of this that we make sure that it is the policy that we would like to have in place.

Yeah, I hear you. We're sharing this information now. We'll share the rest because it will all be public.

So you think you want to go online at July 1st, which I love. I love that. I'm afraid it's going to be a year from now. But having said that, to rush without some of these things inserted then also leaves the door open for interpretation.

I just want to clarify a couple of things. The renewable energy flexibility is that C in this is not intended as a It's not intended necessarily for B. Renewable energy, that flexibility was created in its own provision by saying you install on site or you provide the coverage.

I was just using that as an example of where some of us wanted to push harder. I expect that the C has to do with EUI.

I think most certainly will. I would add that while we can give some direction about what some of those flexibility provisions might be, it's going to be very specific to the site because EUI is not an easy thing to quantify, right? If it's a smaller building, I can't say that adding a shaded bus stop is worth two EUI points because two EUI on a large building is considerably more carbon than two EUI on a small building. So putting that list of things together with that level of specificity is not going to be that useful for the commission. I think we can give you broad ideas to say it's meeting the city's general climate goals, like mitigating urban heat island and addressing environmental justice and those kinds of things, but giving you a specific list to say,

But that's how we started the conversation, was we heard windows. So the specificity that was first put out there was why I was reacting to a specificity. But then my question back to you is, how do you see that flexibility being ensuring in some way, that's not a legal term I should use, but that you in fact are putting something behind the words of kind of acceptable flexibility if you say, well, There's no way to really define how we do that.

So that's why it's so important to look at each specific site as it comes in. So if it's a larger property and they need extensive flexibility on the EUI, then one would be determining how far they went. Like, what is the reason they need the flexibility for? And then the second is, how do we find a reasonable alternative to the EUI that gets us a similar mitigation of the impact of the development? THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THE GREEN BUILDING PLAN IS SPECIFIC PROJECT BY PROJECT. THAT'S OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY ON THIS IS TO LOOK AT IT PROJECT BY PROJECT AND THE IMPACT EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT HAS. THAT'S WHY EUI WAS THE METRIC BECAUSE IT IS FLEXIBLE FOR THE SITE.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT LARGER PROJECTS WHICH WILL GET A LOT OF SUPPORT TO BE APPROVED MAY IN FACT LESSEN THE LEVERAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PORTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS is not as important as other things. So I would say it's probably easier to meet EUI on smaller projects. There's more control. A house is easier to build to pass the standards than potentially a 400-unit multifamily building. But again, I think there is, I think we heard that there was going to be some kind of guidebook, so that was part of my response. What is that guidebook going to look like, and how is it going to help us ensure that we are... We have a mechanism to be true to the intent of this, especially because a number of us may understand how things are built better than others, but the others have an equal vote and deserve that level of ability to judge. That's all I'm saying.

And that's fair. And we will be bringing those things forward for discussion to look at.

Oh, I have one other minor question. Before I hand it over, I'll lateral the ball shortly. In the development review process, concept one, conceptual energy modeling with EUI estimate, I thought I heard you say that was optional. In one of your sentences, it sounded like they may choose to do it then or not.

In concept one, I said they may choose to do some conceptual energy modeling right at the beginning, depending on the project and what they're striving for. Yeah, but a prelim is definitely required.

Excellent. Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I want to make sure, Vice Chair, do you have any comments or questions that haven't been hit on before we transition to our next part of the evening?

The only things I would say real quickly are I completely agree with Commissioner DeBay and Linehan's observations about 16C and that the danger there is it just becomes an alternative path to approval. It also seems to me that right now those two things are redundant. I have the same interest in the level of understanding about how the memo is actually going to be finalized and maybe that's all something we can follow up on later or we can see another version. I'm very happy that you're getting to the July 1 date. My last comment or observation is about the renewable energy and I wasn't sure in your memo to industry here you have renewable energy shows up at preliminary site plan and then it shows up again at late in the day, building permit or final site plan. What shows up on the preliminary package when the DSUP is voted on? Is it literally just which path they're taking, that they're going to meet the criteria, or they're going to take the alternative payout path? Or is there actually a conceptual design that indicates how they're actually intending to meet, at a conceptual design level, the 3% requirement?

I can try to answer that. It's outlined in the memoed industry that's on the docket. To answer your question, if they are planning to do panels on the site plan, it would be shown there.

What's in the package when Planning Commission and Council vote on it as a DSUP? How much information about the actual proposed design and performance of the renewable energy is in the package that gets voted at DSUP? That's the question. And it may not be answerable now, and I'm happy to follow it later.

Yeah, I mean, at this point, we haven't drilled down to that level of detail. But there's a placeholder in the memo that you have. If there's specific things you want to see for that submission for your consideration, we welcome that input.

My observation would be you need a well-developed conceptual renewable energy plan that actually indicates what the design is intended to be, what the performance is intended to be, and is matched up with the anticipated energy load enough to recognize that the 3% is actually intended to be met at the time it's voted on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you all for the update. Thank you. And we'll continue with the evening. All right. So welcome again, especially because the room got more busy. It's 7.01 PM and we are starting the main hearing for this evening. Welcome to the June 2, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing. I am Melissa McMahon, Chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission. Before we begin, I have just a few announcements about participating in tonight's meeting. If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out a speaker form online by following the Sign Up to Speak hyperlink on the cover page of this evening's public hearing docket, or in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form which can be found on the tables located immediately outside the chambers, and providing it to Ms. Jacobs, who has her hand raised. Please note, comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker, except for applicants and their representation. To make your public comment through the Zoom application, please click on the Raise Hand button located on the Zoom taskbar once you hear your name called to let staff know you need to be unmuted. If you are dialing into tonight's meeting via phone, please press star nine to execute the raise hand function once you hear your name called upon to make your statement, followed by star six to toggle the unmute function. For those here in person, please step up to the podium located at the front of chambers when your name is called and identify yourself by first and last name. The city encourages and welcomes public comments from all residents on planning commission matters. In keeping with that principle, And with the principle of inclusiveness, this is a reminder of the shared expectation that the content and tenor of public comments always be civil and respectful. Thank you for honoring those principles. A reminder to all, including commissioners, staff, and speakers in the chambers, please speak directly into the microphone to ensure all can hear you clearly. If you are here to speak on docket item 8, 404A East Alexandria Avenue, and you signed up to speak in May, Please be sure that you complete a new speaker form if you wish to speak tonight. So don't rely on a speaker form you may have filled out last month. And with that, do we have any changes to the docket tonight?

Madam Chair, we do not have any deferrals or withdrawals. All right.

Then that brings us to our consent calendar. Are there any items that we need to pull from consent?

Yes, docket item number three. A member of the public has requested to pull that from consent.

Okay. Are there any commissioners who wish to pull any other items from consent tonight? Hearing none, I'll take a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar, which is items two. We have a long one tonight. Two, four, five, six, and seven.

Madam Chair, I move to approve consent calendar items 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

I'll second that.

All right. I have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve the rest of the consent calendar. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0. That brings us to item 3 on the consent calendar.

Docket item number 3. Special use permit 2026-0009, 699 Prince Street. Public hearing and consideration of a request for a special use permit for outdoor live entertainment. Property is zoned CD, commercial downtown. The applicant is J. River, 699 Prince Street, LLC.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR MCMANN, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS LANNING BLASER. I'LL BE PRESENTING ON SUP 2026-0009, REQUEST FOR OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 699 PRINCE STREET. A BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION WILL GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL, RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, AND I WILL SLIDE INTO OUR SUMMARY. So special use permit request is to obtain live outdoor entertainment at the rooftop restaurant at 699 Prince Street. An overview of this request will highlight the mixed-use environment of the King Street Retail Strategy, and the commercial downtown of Alexandria. The live entertainment hours are limited to afternoon and evenings, Thursday to Sunday, and staff have added SEP conditions to mitigate noise concerns related to the live entertainment use. The site is located in the CD commercial downtown zone. The site is in the Old Town Small Area Plan and its subsection, the King Street Retail Strategy. The rooftop is surrounded by a variety of uses that are representative of the CD zone. These include commercial, institutional, office, mixed use, and residential uses. So the request for live entertainment is from Thursday to Sunday. The business operator would hire DJs and other musical guests to perform Thursday to Sunday. The hours are outlined in this table to the right. And the hours here are also outlined in condition three of the staff report. The use is accessory to the restaurant, and no other changes are proposed. All right. So staff recommend approval of the SUP based on some outlined SUP noise conditions here. I'll expand into these conditions and their noise mitigation. So condition number three restricts the hours of operation. If I go back just a slide. THURSDAY TO SUNDAY FOR AFTERNOON AND EVENING HOURS. THESE HOURS PENDING APPROVAL WOULD RESTRICT WHEN LIVE ENTERTAINMENT COULD OCCUR AND ANY EXPANSION OF THOSE HOURS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUP. CONDITION NUMBER FOUR REQUIRES THE USE OF AN IN-HOUSE SOUND SYSTEM AND NOISE GOVERNOR. THIS WOULD PERMIT THE ON-DUTY basically be in full control of the volume instead of musical entertainers coming and being able to control the volume based on who is there. Condition five requires the rooftop speakers to face downward. This was based on a staff site visit and is intended for their speakers that are on mechanical equipment that can be angled downward. Condition number six requires a community liaison to respond to noise concerns. Part of this condition involves adding business contact to their web page so that if they receive calls, they're able to handle those complaints in real time. And lastly, condition nine adds a six-month review to the standard one-year review. This has been common for some other live entertainment uses to take back and have staff look at it ahead of a standard one-year review. just to confirm compliance with the conditions of the SUP. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. Commissioner Manor.

Could you get into a little more detail about condition number six, please? Absolutely.

Condition number six will require a community liaison. And who is that? Yeah, of course. So it will be up to the business to designate which person. I've heard that it will be their front desk attendant. They operate 24 hours a day. and that pathway would be, you know, the front-end tenant would receive a call complaint and would be able to report it immediately to the on-duty manager to be able to lower volume basically in real time as opposed to, well, there are also staff's mechanisms to receive complaints, but this is another way to handle them in real time.

Okay, great.

Thank you. Yes.

Commissioner Harris? Yeah, can you please go back to the slide that shows the aerial view? Where on that roof is the entertainment area? Is it closer to Washington Street or is it towards the back of the block?

It is, if you, on this little red rectangle, it is basically where the white block is on the top right corner of it. The entertainment area, I have it slightly shown here too. It's that same white block. That's where their plug-in is for the noise. And that's basically where they would house their entertainer guests in that section.

AND THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LOT CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL USES THAN IT WOULD BE IF THEY USED THE OPPOSITE END OF THE ROOF.

YES, AND I THINK POTENTIALLY THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO CHANGING THAT LOCATION IF POSSIBLE.

COULD I ADD SOMETHING? TONY PLANNING AND ZONING, THERE ARE SPEAKERS SCATTERED ALL OVER THE ROOF. anchored in place. So it doesn't matter where the DJ is or the entertainer. The music is coming out of the speakers, which are permanently affixed to specific locations around the roof. The entertainer could be downstairs and be playing, and it's still going to project the same volume on the rooftop.

And I have one more question, please and that is in reading the the history of this request and and you know the the kind of What the neighbors have been going through up to this time. It seems like there was sort of a pattern of you know There were complaints and they were taken to the management and there wasn't really anything done about them for it seems like a solid year so when you talk about having the community liaison and and checking for violations, what is the enforcement mechanism and was it ever used in the past and how does it get used now?

Existing mechanisms were somewhat related to the restaurant's SUP 2018 use, which doesn't permit live entertainment. We had received complaints, and we would go out and inspect those complaints. And there were times where, during that time, between 2024 and 2025, where we only had one noise operator, which limited our ability to check the site at that time. But since then, we have two noise operators with basically more availability to inspect.

Yeah, I read that. And that does seem like a good step to take. But my question really is about they were operating without an SUP for live entertainment. And it seemed like, from reading what I read, that the city would go to them and say, you don't have a permit to do this, and you shouldn't do this. And they would say, OK. And then they'd just keep doing it. So my question really is about, it's great that you have sort of noise operators that are going to go and check this out, but then what do they do?

So if I could speak to that, yes. There was a period of several months where there were complaints coming in from the nearby residential properties. Noise inspectors did inspect on every occasion except for one. It was a Sunday afternoon. We did not have an inspector on duty at that time. When noise inspectors went out there, the volume was lowered. I think there was one occasion where it was increased again when the inspector left. After a period of time, and for the past year, a full year now, they have not had any violations. The management of the hotel, after we met with them on, what is it, June 3, 2025, we actually met with them. They took our advice. ended live entertainment on the rooftop. And we've had no issues since then. So they want to do right. That's why they're submitting this application. We reminded them in January, springtime is coming up, summer's coming around. If you do plan on having live entertainment like you have had in the past, you should submit an SUP application. And that's what you see before you today.

All right. If there are no other questions for staff, we can move to our public hearing.

First speaker is Hannah Williams, followed by Laura Vetter.

This is where I go.

Hi. My name is Hannah Williams. I own the building next door, directly next door to the right there, 607 Prince. And I run a music studio out of there. So we have about 300 students, and we've been in Old Town about 20 years running this business. And... uh we i want to start by saying that i support a vibrant old town i genuinely want the hotel heron to succeed i love the rooftop bar it's super fun up there and my concern is not the hotel or the bar it's the impact that the amplified rooftop music has already had and will still have on the neighboring businesses and residents So for the past two years, while they were doing music up there, yeah, we experienced extremely loud noises from the rooftop. Like the DJ events, the amplified music, the alley, they had so much loud music. And you can clearly hear the music, especially the bass. And you know what I mean, that like thump. It's in your building, the doors are closed, the windows are closed, and that is like thump, thump, thump. It's us, it's our neighbors around us that are hearing that. And we teach classical music, so our students and our teachers need to be able to hear subtle details in pitch, tone, rhythm, dynamics. But when the bass is thumping through the building, it directly affects our ability to teach our jobs. And it doesn't make the parents happy who are paying. And when there has been super loud bass, we've contacted the hotel management. And, you know, we've gone to the desk attendant who often has not known how to reach the manager. Or we've contacted managers directly and in real time. So I know they're saying to have a lead eyes on, but we've done this in real time. And really, despite those complaints, the problems have continued. And often they would turn down for two minutes and turn it right back up. And that's why I'm concerned that the proposed conditions don't go far enough. Does the hotel have a plan for keeping the amplified rooftop noise within the city's noise limits at our properties? So not just what it sounds like up there, but what it sounds like in our homes, in our buildings, particularly with respect to that low frequency base. And then the question all of us neighbors are asking, what is going to happen when the noise continues? What's going to happen when it's loud? And we're like, turn it down, please. We've talked to your liaison. We can show you the decibels. And then it keeps going. So my concern is the proposed conditions leave too many unanswered questions. We've heard before that the noise would be managed, but when problems occurred and all of us complained, we didn't see any meaningful change, except for when they had to stop completely, which was great. So it's difficult for us to simply trust that these conditions are going to solve the problem. So based on our experience with the rooftop amplified music, I respectfully ask you to either deny the application or amend it to include stronger safeguards in place from the beginning. And I would like those safeguards to include Clear sound limit at adjacent properties, not just up there on the rooftop, but at our properties. Independent sound testing, not their governor, but like independent sound testing at neighboring properties when the rooftop is operating. Restrictions on amplified base and subwoofers, let's stay within the city recommended decibels. And how about a 30-day review period instead of a one-year and six-month review period? Really, let's look at it like as it goes on. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Please, please amend it so we can be happy neighbors and not hear the thump-thump.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker, next to final speaker, is Laura Vedder.

Good evening. My name is Laura Vetter, and I reside at 204 South St. Asaph Street. I am representing 13 of my and Hotel Heron's neighbors who reside on Prince and South St. Asaph Streets, who have already shared their objections in writing to Special Use Permit 2026-9. 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. The applicant has a long and persistent history of violating the city's noise ordinances outside of the scope of its existing special use permit to the great dismay of those of us who are adjacent residents and depriving us of the peaceful enjoyment of our homes. These violations include operating unauthorized entertainment on their rooftop and generating noise both in excess of sitting ordinances and outside of permissible hours. As is the case with many of my neighbors, not only can I hear the music from the Hotel Heron's rooftop outside my house, but inside as well. with the sound having been measured inside 208 South St. Asaph Street at 60 decibels after 10 p.m. This is wholly unacceptable. While it is a commercial establishment, the Hotel Heron is not sited in an exclusively commercial neighborhood. It exists in the neighborhood where all the signatories of our objection reside. Yet, despite many documented complaints by residents and many city engagements with hotel management, the Hotel Heron persisted through some 14 months, causing a great deal of resident distress until finally the city enforced compliance with their existing SUP. 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 be denied. The Hotel Heron has proved itself untrustworthy to honor its commitments to the city and its neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Move to close the public hearing. Second.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Manor to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And that brings us to commissioner discussion. I have some questions for staff. And is the applicant in the house tonight? Can staff describe what happens if noise is not managed?

in this under this sup situation so we have the ability to bring the sup back to the planning commission and city council um there is a six month and one year review but there's nothing that precludes us from coming back to you uh for a review uh either to revoke the sup altogether or include additional conditions okay thank you and um

Does our city, where does our city noise operator measure the sound?

The noise inspector measures the sound at the property line of the subject property.

So we have standards that basically say, and I don't know the number, let's say it's 65 decibels or something, at the property line of the subject property. So anywhere beyond that, it should be lower than that, but that's the standard that we're holding them to? Yes, it is. Okay. And does... And this is just me not having any expertise in this technical engineering area. We heard concerns about vibration because of the nature of prior entertainers having low base and how that carries. And I know what that feels like in a building. Is that something that's measured or otherwise controlled for in our ordinance?

I don't know enough about the noise ordinance and how measurements take place to answer that question. I will say that when staff visited the hotel, we did talk with hotel staff about how the speakers are aimed. They were actually aimed outward toward the neighborhood instead of projected downward. So we think projecting the speakers downward will help with the volume. We're not sure it's going to be 100% effective, but we have to see how it works, and we'll go from there.

And I might, staff may or may not know the answer to this one. Do we know if the applicant, other than the speaker angle, Is there anything else about the applicant set up for live entertainment that is different under the SUP that was the practice during those 14 months of non-compliance?

Other than the angling of the speakers, no.

So they were already using a, what do we call it, a house sound system?

They were, however, the house sound system was not hooked into a noise governor, which limits the ability to turn the speaker up or down. If you're familiar with Hopps and Shine, in the past, we required them to install a noise governor. And only the management of that restaurant, and in this case, the management of the hotel, would have access to the volume control.

OK. And we have that in condition four. equipped and operated through a noise governor. But it doesn't say anything about who has access to that, right? We don't have that in the condition right now.

No, we don't have that in the condition. But the musicians themselves should not have access to that. In other locations where we've had outdoor live entertainment and musicians have had access to a noise governor or they've had access to the volume control or they've brought their own sound equipment is where we have the most issues. Once we control who has access to the volume control, It seems that most establishments get a handle on the noise.

And then one more quick one before I pass on for conversation or other questions folks might have. I want to observe that we have outdoor live entertainment, SUPs before us in the past in other parts of town, other circumstances, other neighbors dealing with it. And I just want to acknowledge that it's a neighbor-to-neighbor learning process, too, because often the businesses that are doing this don't know the impacts that they have until they work with staff with data on noise and with neighbors to figure that out and to adjust their processes. So it's my understanding that the conditions that we have here, other than maybe the rooftop speakers facing down, are pretty consistent. with conditions that we use for other outdoor live entertainment environments, is that correct?

Yes, the conditions which are included in this SUP are more or less standard conditions which we've included in other outdoor live entertainment SUPs. If there continue to be issues in the future going beyond the decibel level, we would require the hotel operator to hire a sound engineer, figure out a better solution. That would be step one. Step two would probably be coming back to you guys to ask for a revocation or revision of the conditions. But with other establishments, they've hired sound engineer, and the sound engineer has been pretty effective in finding a way to manage sound around the neighborhood.

OK. Thoughts? Yes, Commissioner Dubé.

Thank you. Back to Chair McMahon's question about how and where it's measured. And it says, obviously, in condition seven, it's measured at the property line. Is there a way to put in there specifically that it would be at the east property line? Not the west property line which is Washington Street?

I believe the sound, the noise inspectors will take measurements at various locations around the building. So it's not just one. And in previous complaints, the noise inspector has taken noise measurements not only at the property line but across the street from the property as well, not at the property line but even further away.

Okay, and given the testimony tonight, we can certainly count on that to happen.

Given that TESS now has two noise inspectors, there are double the number of hours that will be covered, and TESS has the ability to adjust the schedules of the noise inspectors so that they can do random inspections at later hours in the evening if need be. One noise inspector works essentially Tuesday through Saturday until 11.30 PM. And then the second noise inspector would cover most of Sunday.

And condition seven says no sound audible after 11 p.m., but in this case, it's after 10, right?

The current SEP includes a condition that says no audible sound after 9 p.m., but the city standard now is generally 11 p.m. That's when the city expects a lower level of noise across the board, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial, what have you.

Do you happen to know the capacity of the roof? I don't. I named you.

Okay.

Thank you. That's it.

Yes. I just have a question. Given the experience of the neighbors, would it be possible to consider a three-month review instead of waiting for a six-month review? Yes, definitely.

If you would like to add that condition or add that to the condition.

I mean, it's going to be summer. I don't know exactly when it's going to start, but people like to be outside in their homes.

Yeah, I think there will probably be... I hate to say it, but there will probably be some complaints in the beginning. The hotel is going to have to figure out the best way to manage its speaker system so that it has the least impact on the neighborhood.

But we don't want repeating of the sound being turned down and turned back up.

Yeah, we don't want that. That's the purpose of the noise governor, having only one person having access to it.

Commissioner Harris and then Commissioner Manor.

You mentioned in the past that you have required businesses to hire a sound engineer. And I take it that's only after there have been multiple problems? Yes. Is it possible to include that as a condition of this SUP, that they would need to hire a sound engineer before they even get going?

You could include that if you'd like.

I think it would be worthwhile given the history.

It's not a typical condition that we add. We only require that once there's an identified issue.

Right, but I don't think this is a typical case.

I mean, they didn't have an SEP for outdoor live entertainment either, but you can include the condition.

Commissioner Manning.

Can you go through the history of complaints again? You said that in the last year there's been none?

There have been no complaints since May 24th, 2025. We are now at, I believe, June 2nd, 2026. So for a year there have been no complaints. Complaints ended after staff met with hotel management. To go over the complaints from the previous year, we had a complaint on July 8th, September 8th, October 4th, November 1st, and then we had three complaints in May 2025. So we had a series of complaints in the fall and then we had a series of complaints in the spring of 2025. So 2024 and 2025. The memo that was sent to you details each of the complaints and the city's response and the hotel's response.

But I'm sorry to jump in here, Commissioner Mano, but is it correct that there have been no complaints since June 2025, but they also have not had live music since June 2025?

I don't believe they've had live music. They were put on notice during our 2025 meeting that they needed to cease live music altogether. And they have. They have followed the rules. I will say in past cases, you know, We generally say, if you can follow the rules for a year, we'll let you go forward with an SUP.

But they have been operating with music.

They do have music, yes. They can have outdoor music in the form of background music.

Tell me again about, did you all adjust the speakers down?

While we were there, yes, staff did.

And when did that happen?

It's literally, you can take the speakers and... Yeah, I'm just wondering when you did that. What day was that that we were there? It was like May 20th. This year? Yes. A few weeks ago.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, well, I'm happy for a commissioner to make a motion, including we've heard some discussion of... modifications to conditions, so if anyone wants to take a stab at what they'd like others to consider, and then we can discuss. Okay, Commissioner Linehan.

The modification that I suggested was a review at three months. Not to wait to six months. Do I need to state it more formally?

Do you want it to replace six months? Because it reads six and one year, right? So do you want three, six, and one year? Or do you want three and one year?

Three, six, twelve.

Okay. And Commissioner Harris, you had a request to make sure.

I had a request to retain a sound engineer as a condition of getting the permit. Okay. They would do whatever assessment they have done with problematic properties in the past and help make sure this is not going to be a problem for the neighborhood.

Okay. I think we're going to need some actual language. What do staff think about how you would normally implement a request for them to use the services of a sound engineer and what that might look like?

If you trust us, we can develop language related to that condition after this meeting, based on previous work we've done with other venues or establishments that have outgrown live entertainment. But generally it's, you know, work with a sound engineer or licensed sound engineer

study the sound system and create a system that generally is in compliance or that is in compliance with the city's noise ordinance i i would have to really say something so if they engaged with a sound engineer and they engaged ran ran the system and tested to ensure it was meeting the city's noise requirements at the at the right locations it might be that might be the end of it. Like the sound engineer is there to verify that they are in fact doing that.

The sound engineer might suggest other speakers, re-aiming the speakers, putting speakers in different locations. They can far better address a sound system and how it impacts neighbors than I can or our noise inspectors.

Yes, Commissioner Lanyon. I'm back to a question. In other venues, if you have a six-month and a 12-month review, you basically look at noise complaints at six months of noise. So you'd basically just be doing this at three months to make sure that there weren't a lot of noise complaints. And if there were none, then you would just go into your six-month review. Yes.

OK. So again, I'll need someone to make a motion that includes these revisions. I will just observe that it has not been uncommon for us in the past to ask for like an additional earlier review so to acknowledge that we've done that for other locations and that what we're what ms harris and ms lenahan are acknowledging here is that this is not a blank slate sup request it's one that comes in with some baggage for lack of better term and we want to make sure that we're acknowledging that starting point And yet, their good faith effort to get themselves in a position where they can apply for an SUP and follow the rules until they have the SUP, but also our understanding that at this rooftop location, they're gonna have some work to do to make sure that when they use that system in the way that they've used it in the past, that it doesn't have negative impacts. So, with respect, I guess I wanna also observe It is only with that in mind that there is a history of struggling to meet the noise needs of the neighbors that I would be willing to go along with an additional requirement around engaging a noise engineer, sound engineer, whatever was the term that we talked about. And that is because I don't like to put the burden ahead of the process a lot of the time. But because this is not truly ahead, but it is, in fact, right in the middle where there's a precedent of not meeting engineering standards for noise mitigation, we want the applicant to take the best effort to kick off on the right foot and have a good design so that the noise performance will be better going forward. So I'm OK to support both of those revisions if someone would like to propose them.

Madam Chair? Yes, Vice Chair Cady. I would just observe that I concur with the observations you just made. I think it's quite unusual to consider not the shorter time period, but this additional sort of operational requirement. But I agree that given the history that exists on the site, it's worthwhile to consider that exception to support it. And I'm happy to defer to either of those who suggested these adjustments or take a pass at the motion. Please take a pass. It's not midnight yet. um i move to recommend council approval of special use permit 2026 0009 for 699 prince street based on the staff report and the discussion of the hearings with the addition to the conditions which would include adding a three-month review to the already defined additional reviews in Condition 9, and also adding a Condition 10, which would address the requirement to bring a licensed sound engineer onto the owner's team to assist in refining a system that can comply with the requirements, with the actual language of that condition to be refined by staff before it goes to council.

A second.

All right, I have a motion by Vice Chair Candy and a second by Commissioner Harris. All of those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0. Thank you. All right, that brings us to our unfinished business and items previously deferred, Dr. O'Neill.

Item number eight, special use permit 202600013, 404A East Alexandria Avenue, public hearing and consideration of a request for special use permits to construct a single unit dwelling on a vacant substandard lot and for a lot without frontage on a public street, property of zone R25 residential. The applicant is Eric Tarrant and Daniela Gross.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Rachel Drescher with the Department of Planning and Zoning. The SUP requests are to develop a dwelling unit on a vacant substandard lot without street frontage at 404A East Alexandria. Just some background. This is the third submission to develop this property. The previous two applications were denied by City Council in 2024 citing concerns with the lack of street frontage. Just some key elements of discussion, whether the proposed development will not unreasonably impair light and air, impair surrounding property values, and is compatible with the existing neighborhood, and whether access is sufficient for the proposed use of the block. The property is zoned R25 and surrounded by townhouses to the west, single-unit dwelling to the north and east, and semi-detached buildings to the north and south. Alleys surround the property to the north, south, and west, and undeveloped public right-of-way to the east, which has been approved for a vacation. The applicant is proposing a two-story dwelling with contemporary architecture. The dwelling would comply with all the requirements of the R25 zone. One parking space would be located on the property, which would be accessed from the public alley off Mount Vernon Avenue. In order for a substandard lot and a lot without frontage to be developed, a special use permit for each must be required. The use of the property, in staff's consideration of the special use permit request, Section 11500, requires the use will not adversely affect health, safety, and welfare of people residing and working in the area, and that the use is consistent with the master plan. The use of the property as a single-unit dwelling is consistent with the other uses in the area, And the residential use will have similar impacts as other residential uses in the neighborhood. It will not have adverse health and safety and welfare impacts and is consistent with any residential neighborhood. Specifically for the SUP of substandard lot, we have to consider light and air, property values, and dwelling compatibility. In terms of light and air, the proposal complies with the R25 setbacks and height requirements, which ensure adequate light and air supply. In addition, the surrounding alleys serve as additional distance from the surrounding lots. Regarding property values, within this neighborhood, small homes are common, and there are many single-unit dwellings that are of similar size and width to the proposed dwelling, and the proposal would not impact property values. In terms of high-poken design, the dwelling is one of the shorter of the surrounding dwellings, shorter than the average height, and the floor area is compatible with the other surrounding dwellings. And as for design, the architectural design has a separate brick exterior to others on the block, and the shape and width of the dwelling is comparable to other dwellings in the neighborhood. So the block without frontage, SUP considerations, So the SUP for lot without frontage was developed in 1969. At the time, staff believed a more extensive review was necessary and proposed an SUP route, citing specifically that an intensive use of a property may not be compatible with a lot without frontage, in particular providing an example that a use that has heavy traffic might not be appropriate. So staff wanted the ability to review access as it related to the use of the property. Access on outlocks can be provided in multiple ways. It could be an alley, a private road, private easement through another private property. And there may be circumstances where a property doesn't necessarily have vehicular access and is just accessible on foot. And this is similar to the townhomes across Vermont Avenue, which are within the vicinity of this property. In regard to this case, staff does find that the 10-foot alley is sufficient to provide the owner access to the property as it is being used as a low-density residential use. And this alley is already being used by vehicles to access the surrounding dwellings. Staff also wants to note that there are other dwellings in Delray that use alleys to access their property. um to access the rear of their property and staff also wants to note that again within the proximity of this lot there are other dwellings that do not face the public street or have direct public street frontage i do want to take some time to address some concerns that we've received regarding the access storm water and just some other concerns So in particular, we've received a concern about how emergency access is going to enter the site. And staff has talked with fire. Fire has vetted this proposal. And there are several points of access for the property. Trucks and emergency vehicles would be parking on the street. And they can access the property off by foot from Mount Vernon Avenue using that alley. There's also another point of access along East Alexandria from that alley as well. and the applicant would be required to provide additional fire suppression for the building so you know because of this staff didn't find that that we needed to add any additional safety conditions because we do have a process where fire does review these cases and we can add and they can work with the applicant and what they would need to be required for building safety in regard we also received a question on just how construction is going to happen on this site construction management and access so with all projects in the city the applicant is required to have a pre-construction meeting with our transportation environmental services construction and inspections group about the schedule of construction activities i mean this part of this meeting as uh talking about a hauling route for construction. And this would be specified by our transportation environmental services staff to choose the least impactful path of travel. And test staff has indicated that the alley off of Mount Vernon most likely would be used. And it does meet the construction requirement to be a 10-foot construction entrance. And then in terms of flooding and stormwater and groundwater concerns that we've received, I'm going to kind of address stormwater and then I'll talk about groundwater. So we do have a grading plan process, again, that all projects have to go through and the applicant will need to work with a civil engineer to show that stormwater management requirements are being met and ensuring that runoff after development is not worse. With this, staff evaluates in per base area, drainage patterns, downspout locations, along with grading on the site to ensure that stormwater is mitigated both through the construction and after construction. And this can include just really making sure that any sort of roof drains or sump pumps are directly connected to the city stormwater system. Again, this was because we have a grading plan process that every project has to go through. Staff determined that no further stormwater conditions were needed to address these types of impacts. In terms of groundwater, so again, with every project in the city, the applicant will have to submit a geotechnical report, and this is completed by a licensed professional, which outlines groundwater readings, the water table data, both in wet and dry seasons, soil permeability, and potential impacts onto neighboring properties. This goes through our code administration. Depending on the results of this report, the building code specifically prescribes what protection is required depending on the conditions outlined in that report. Various design measures can be taken, waterproofing foundations, additional drainage systems, some humps. The code does not prohibit construction. It's more It's just how much protection is needed. And again, that's reviewed at the building code stage. And then we've also received a concern just about the impact on the neighboring trees. So city code and the zoning ordinance does not prohibit someone from developing their property because there are trees on adjacent lots. And this is not a specific, you know, substandard lot or lack of frontage issue. Citywide we have projects that construction does affect trees on neighboring properties. We do, the city does require the neighbors to be notified if their tree is going to be affected. So, with that, if staff finds that this proposal meets the SUP criteria, we find that it meets the substandard law criteria, we find that access is sufficient for the use of the property, and city departments are satisfied that our green plan process and building permit reviews will sufficiently address building safety, stormwater, and other concerns. There are dwellings that function very similar in the city, whether that's alley lots in Old Town, we have accessory billing units, and right across the street from this property, we have town homes that can function very similarly within the vicinity of this property. We find the project is compatible with the neighborhood, the bulk of the dwelling is consistent with others in the neighborhood, and for this reason, staff is recommending approval, and I am happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much. Do commissioners have questions for staff? Commissioner Harris.

One of the materials that we received talked about there perhaps was some uncertainty with the lot lines.

Can you speak to that? Yeah. With the vacation that was occurring, staff found that there were two different surveys that were submitted, and they had different information for the vacation portion. For this particular property, we received a survey from a licensed surveyor, and staff is relying that that is accurate. It appears to match the subdivision from 1938 and our tax records. So we're relying on that. The license survey is correct.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff? All right. Yeah, go for it. Commissioner Dubé.

Thank you, Chair McMahon. In the conditions about the public alley being done by the applicant, that's only up to the particular lot in question. How about as it goes all the way to DeWitt, is there anything going to be done with that?

Going through there, it's very... We conditioned that any sort of damage to the alley, they would have to improve. we could yeah if more specification to redo the alley um yeah we did talk to the applicant about that and as far as you know the city is not going to do anything with the other side no the city is not going to thank you okay i have a few questions um is

A parcel having public street frontage a requirement to apply for an SUP for a substandard lot?

No. Yeah. So that's not one of the criteria that's listed in section 12.4.2. The eligibility test is just to compare lot width and lot size with the surrounding lots.

And It's my understanding that an approval of the substandard lot SUP is a prerequisite for the approval of an SUP for a lot without frontage. Is that correct?

That is correct, yes. There's language in the lot without frontage SUP that has to be otherwise as a billable site, and both SUPs need to be approved.

And I know in the drawings, we've seen the arrow of access pointing off of Mount Vernon Avenue. It is an L-shaped alley. Are both alley access points 10 feet in width, or is there just one that meets the 10 feet in width? It's just one of those things where there are lines on maps that say an alley is a certain width, but are they both 10 feet or are they not both 10 feet?

Yes, I believe they're both 10 feet. Yes, they're both 10 feet.

I have more questions. Okay. You mentioned ADUs, and that was something that I thought was interesting because I know there's There's a lot of different examples of lots without frontage across town and they don't all compare to this site because they have come about under different circumstances. When we approve ADUs to be developed on existing parcels, does the ADU itself have a driveway access requirement? How does that work for that unit since it could be individually occupied?

Yeah, so we don't have a driveway or parking requirement for the ADU. In terms of access, fire does review ADU permits, so they would also review for access for those units as well.

So if an ADU were, what is the distance, 100 feet? Is that what we're looking at here? So this property would require a building code modification, is that the right term? Which is really the building code folks saying, because you're beyond the 100 feet, you need to do extra stuff to make this building safe. Is that also the type of evaluation they would do for an ADU that happened to be beyond 100 feet from the frontage that the fire department can get to?

Right, yeah, so fire has stated that, yeah, any dwelling unit that exceeds that 100 foot, they would have to request a code modification, and that does happen, yeah.

I know you talked about groundwater. It sounds like beyond what we normally talk about with stormwater, because it comes up a lot in our SUP and DSUP discussions, the geotechnical reports provide both the information, the potential impacts, and a basis upon which, again, it sounds like code officials determine what mitigations are necessary for groundwater flow disturbance. Is that accurate? Right.

Yes. Okay.

Because it does appear that this design, this project design, has a substantial underground component. And due to that, a lot of concerns we've heard relate to the fact that it's just going to divert groundwater flows in ways that we can't predict. But it sounds like those have to be modeled to some extent and then mitigated.

Right, and all of that has to happen at the building permit before anything gets excavated or dug out.

Bear with me, I'm scrolling through my questions. On my site visits and in the drawings that come with the the staff report package, it is clear that the alley lines do not match where the paving is today, and that there's paving over the property that the applicant needs to use to develop their house, and that the alley would have to be repaved along the actual limits of the alley. Is that correct?

Yes. What I will comment on that is we are I think the city is sensitive to where existing structures are right now and the applicant is as well and so we are the applicant has agreed to work with where the fences are located and when if there is repaving to It might not fully be within those alley lines. It might be part of it is on his property.

In order to create a 10-foot alley that is drivable and isn't like taking down fences. Right. OK. There was also, and I did not try to navigate the alley with a car. I navigated it with a bike. The neighbors can testify. But they describe that it appears to be quite challenging, possibly impossible, to turn from the Mount Vernon entrance onto the alley southbound, to make that turn, depending on how the property is built out. Has that maneuver or turning radius analysis, it's a bit of a traffic analysis, but been verified to to ensure that the applicant can get to their parking slash property space that they've designated for that, and that vehicles can still actually pull into this alley.

Yes, and I believe that the applicant provided that with his materials. But yes, I believe that he provided a diagram of where the vehicle would be backing out. transportation and environmental services did take a look at that.

So that was looked at and accepted as, I don't know, there's like a turning movement's name for those diagrams. Thank you for pulling that up. Page 74. I'm afraid to touch the docket and have it like blow up in my face because this is where my questions are. OK. And that's where the parking pad is. So that's also interesting because the parking pad is at the corner. So it provides some on-site turning overlap in the event that a neighbor needs to navigate into that facility, there's still space to potentially get through there. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I think that's the extent of my pre-questions. Are there any other pre-questions from commissioners to staff? If not, let's go ahead and move into our public hearing.

I do have one minor question for staff. I'm just looking at the dimensions of the parking space, and it looks as though parking one is less than what a standard parking space length would be. It's 18-6, but it looks like it's not paved at the end portion. Does that make sense? You just made me look at it because you're asking about turning in.

So, yeah. So the one parking space does meet the... city requirements. I will say parking is not required on the site. I'll make that known. I guess you're looking at right below the parking lot?

It's in just the diagram, and on the plan north, there's parking one. It looks like the dimension string is 18 foot 6, but the parking lot one pervious paving doesn't extend to the end of the 18 foot 6, so it looks like it's a really short parking space.

So That's part of the asphalt paving. Oh, I see where you're looking. I apologize.

It's move point if they don't have to provide it, but it does have to do with... Nope, they will need to show that.

It'll need to be extended if they want to meet the city parking requirements.

And maybe like In relation to that, to the extent that the car can pull in further, it ensures that there's a couple feet there on the back and not like the bumper of a car that someone can't get around. So yeah, let's start the public hearing, please.

Our first speaker is Monica Perry, followed by Anne Kammerer. I'm mute. All right. I'm coming.

We hear you now.

Go for it.

Yay, technology! Thank you all. My name is Monica Perry. I'm the chair of the Land Use Committee of the Delray Citizens Association. I'm here to express, for the third time, the DRCA's opposition to the granting of this SUP. You've heard from many of the neighbors. They raise a lot of good concerns. Ms. Drescher has addressed some of them. Our primary concern at the DRCA is that building on a lot without street frontage is contrary to the neighborhood character it's contrary to the views expressed in the delray pattern book which was prepared for the city more than 10 years ago to guide development in delray we just think this is a really bad precedent to set i acknowledge that there are su excuse me ADUs in Delray that do not have street frontage, but this is a separate lot, not an ADU situation. And, you know, once this happens, you know, with zoning changes in the future, it will be hard to say no to the next one, which will exacerbate the issues that the neighbors have brought up, like traffic difficulty with water runoff and things like that. You know, we've expressed this all before, so That's the end of my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Anne Kammerer, followed by Alicia Montgomery.

Hi there. My name is Ann Kammerer, and I'm here today to express my opposition to the special use permit application for the development of the 404 East Alexandria. I've lived at 1403 Mount Vernon, just off the southwest corner of the lot in question since 1998, and what happens to that lot concerns me. There are three connected reasons why I believe this application should be rejected, and the first is the lack of street frontage, as others have discussed. The Delray Citizens Association comments as well mentioned, and they also mentioned in their letter, how non-street frontage lots are not in keeping with how Delray was developed. Second, I do think that there is still serious safety concerns regarding the emergency vehicle's inability to access the lot. This apparently was already an issue with a fire in the power transformer on the corner of the lot in 2024. And so approving this SUP would, I think, create substantial risk for the houses around the lot, including my property. Third, there's a legitimate concern on the part of all the neighbors that the development with the 2,000-square-foot basement is going to have a big impact on the water runoff and flooding of our residences. And I think it's also worth reminding people, again, that the Alexandria City Council has rejected the SUP for two times previously. So I would urge you to also reject this SUP. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Alicia Montgomery followed by Brett Rice.

Hello. I live at 406 East Alexandria Avenue. I'm directly south of the proposed development. When this development was first presented in early 2024, one commissioner commented that because only a handful of neighbors were at the meeting, there must not be much community opposition. So tonight, I want to start by thanking the Planning Commission for igniting a blaze of community involvement around this issue. Response since that first city meeting tells a very different story. And I trust you're all acutely aware of how contentious this issue has become. At every subsequent hearing and with each new proposal, the number of concerned neighbors has only grown. This year, in direct response to the Mr. Mayor letters that the applicants asked friends to submit, Adjacent neighbors created a petition and invited the community to visit the lot, review our concerns, and simply sign our petition asking you to once again deny this development. Today I submitted 120 signatures collected just in the past seven days which represent informed support mostly from Delray residents who understand our concerns on a personal level. Tonight, I want to focus on an issue that is particularly personal to me. Following the city's approval of the adjacent Fourth Street right-of-way vacations in 2024, I've encountered nearly two years of delays to complete a process that should have been finalized long ago. In questioning the reasoning behind these recurring delays, I've only been provided with shifting and unclear explanations. Ultimately, and more recently, as we approached the 18-month deadline proposed by staff, this process was inextricably stalled again while the proposal was quietly docketed. While staff proposes that the unfinished vacations are unrelated to this application, I would argue that the unresolved status of the vacation ties directly to some of the more technical questions brought up in our petition, where the property boundaries actually lie, what access is available to the site, and whether the dimensions and assumptions being relied upon in the application are accurate. The issue is not simply that the vacations remain unfinished, the issue is that the city approved them, has delayed other parties from moving forward with implementation, and is now asking you to evaluate a development proposal based on boundaries that conflict with the city's own historic records and surveys. Sadly, the boundary questions do not end there. The staff report includes a Sanborn map of the original development that differs from every other historic site map of this property. The other maps consistently depict the Western Alley as 10 feet, matching all other records available. Interestingly, The other maps also identify the lot as reserved for parking, providing important context about why this tiny lot with no frontage exists undeveloped. And in contrast, the selected map used in the staff report does not. Unfortunately, its inclusion only adds to the uncertainty surrounding the boundaries and lot dimensions being used in this application. This is not just a question of whether development can be approved. It's a question of whether you legally can consider that when the details remain in question. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Brett Rice, followed by the advocate, Eric Theron.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm going to try to be brief. At its core, we have here the central question before you. It's not whether a house can be designed here, but whether the site qualifies under the city code to be considered for approval in the first place, and whether really the life safety issues can be pushed down the road and become hypothetical life safety issues. Many of the issues discussed below, they're not discretionary approval conditions. They're what we call threshold eligibility questions that really should be resolved before the commission weighs on the merits of approval now as asia said this this subdivision lot was plotted in 1938 july 11th that area was reserved for parking for the townhomes around it and subsequently on a following plot it was done that as well the threshold requirements in that that otherwise usable as a building site now This lot obviously does not have any street frontage. Section 71007 first requires that the parcel be otherwise usable as a building site today, not again in the hypothetical future of a future approval. To go back on street frontage, To clarify something, a lot does need street frontage. If it did not, you would not have Section 1007. So I think we need to determine that in the beginning. The life safety concerns cannot be overlooked here. The record raises significant questions regarding emergency access. We've discussed that tonight. These are fundamental requirements. These are not something to overlook. Now, the unresolved lot line issue, planning and staff indicated that the city has not implemented the council-approved vacation ordinance because of the unresolved lot line dispute. Now, if that is too uncertain in two years now to implement as it was lawfully done, it's difficult to understand how we could go adjacent when these lot lines have now moved. The setbacks are different. The meets and bounds are different. This lot is adjacent to a lot that has now changed. In effect, that lot you're looking at tonight has moved three feet to the east. Nothing is going to match in that case. Now, a lot of the city's actions, in my opinion, seem inconsistent. The city relies on a memo saying that they can create a block face because one obviously does not exist here. I think we can all agree it's not on a street frontage. Yet, ignoring a memo saying that this site did not qualify to even apply for an SUP. A little too much inconsistency here. The block face analysis, I think we've talked about it. It's a little concerning. You've got R25 on one side and RB on the other side. We're now comparing... one zone that is 100% illegal in the zone we're within. Something that's not been done. That's being relied on a memo to create that, but ignore the other one. When we talk about the, we've got a circular pattern here, the 71007 clearly defines that it must be usable today. not in the future. Yet a substandard LAT without street frontage, to clarify that one again, it must have street frontage or you would not be able to do a block-faced analysis. So I think for those reasons, I will end it. Thank you for answering the questions, though, if you have any, though.

Thank you very much.

Our final speaker is the applicant, Eric Herring.

Good morning chairperson and commissioners. Thank you for having me tonight. My wife and I are the owners of the vacant lot at 404A East Alexandria Avenue. I'm also the architect of the project and we've been in Alexandria residence for 15 years and we don't plan on moving anytime soon. I want to highlight for the special use program to confirm that this is a buildable lot. We have been here twice before. The first time ICP was approved by the Planning Commission 4-3 and the second time 7-0. City staff has supported this application at every step. However, the City Council did deny this application the first time 7-0, the second time 5-2. Even though the setbacks occurred, we know this is a good and thoughtful project for this property because the city staff has been in support, and all of the commissioners have approved this twice already. So the SDP is requesting two things. One, to build our substandard lot, and two, to build a lot with no street frontage. So first let's talk about the substandard lot. The R-250 requires a lot to be 5,000 square feet, and this lot is 2,661 square feet. As can be seen on page three of our presentation, the adjacent lots range between 1,200 and 9,600 square feet. The various death cells are common throughout the Delaware neighborhood. Within the Delaware area, there are 24 single-family homes on lots between 1,332 square feet and 3,480 square feet, and our lot falls right in the middle of that. Delaware is also organized by a grid pattern, where multiple homes create a block. However, this area is an L-shape due to my vacant lot. And I see that with property, the vacated property on the right of the east. By building a home on this lot, it creates a full block of homes, creating consistency with other blocks. Now, the city has approved substandard routes, and some of them request special exceptions for bulk regulations. These regulations state that the route size of the buildings, setbacks, property lines, building height, and so forth must be met. Now, bulk regulations allow for neighborhood compatibility, because now you have buildings that are absolutely about the same size. This LCP doesn't request an exception for bulk regulations, adhering to all these requirements. Which is why it is compatible with the characteristics of the neighborhood. And I will take it a step further and have now an exterior brick to match the colonial low homes. As mentioned, building this home creates a block of homes which will be emphasized by using the brick materials and adhering to the brick regulations. So the approval of this SCP exception will not adversely impact this neighborhood. Let's move on to street frontage. This is a unique lot within Delray in the city of Alexandria. Pages 1 and 2 of our presentation show only 16 vacant properties within the city that are classified as residential, not owned by the city, not being used as a parking lot, or owned by adjacent neighbors. Those classify under a different statute. So out of those vacant lots, only three have no street frontage. So the approval of this SEP will not set a precedent in the future for vacant lots. So this is a unique case. However, this is not unique for properties that lack the required street frontage. There are 20 or so more routes in the city that are either true arrow routes or only have a driveway entry. These properties can be seen in our presentation from page 13 to 20. On page 12 of the representation, it shows the last 10 years of VDOT reported accidents in front of these properties. There were only two, and one of them was due to a lack of street frontage. On that same page, it also shows the accidents within the last 10 years on Mount Vernon Avenue, where cars were accessed this alley. There was only one accident in front of the alley, and it was not due to cars using the alley. I've sent up to three cars parked in the alley, and there have been no issues. So the data confirms that lots of reduced or no street frontage don't increase safety concerns. So speaking of safety, there are sometimes emergencies. And this is a major concern for the neighbors and me. I don't want my house to be blown, hurt anyone, or cause damage to my neighbors. It is true that we are seven feet over the 100-foot maximum from the street. However, this doesn't mean the structure can't be built. It just means that other offices of fire protection are required. For example, fire sprinklers may be installed and exterior walls may be one-hour fire-weighted materials. For the National Fire Protection Agency, residential fire sprinklers reduce deaths by 89%, injuries by 41%, and property damage by 55%. In addition, 96% of fires with fire sprinklers are contained in one room. At the fire station, 202 is halfway off on the property with a typical response time of 5 to 7 minutes once 911 is called. If a fire fighter ever called, there is a 35% reduction of injuries with a home with fire sprinklers. In addition to the furnished bunkers, the one-year-old materials contain fire and heat for at least 60 minutes compared to standard materials that only last 15 to 20 minutes. I would love this home to 7 feet more, because if it was only 9.5 feet and 11 inches, then I would have been all in for additional fire safety measures. And the adjacent property at 48 East Alexandria Avenue has a garage structure over 120 feet away from the front of the street. According to the GIS viewer, the structure looks to be about 1,300 square feet above grade. Our proposed structure is only 537 feet above grade. This is significantly smaller, has easier access, and will incorporate fire-reducing safety measures. In fact, this layout will be safer than any of the adjacent homes or structures. The other area of our concern is how the construction will be handled with a lack of street frontage. This isn't in any case. There are properties all over the city that require creative, carefully planned construction management. This usually falls under the TES review because it involves public space. If any requirements may be met for the reason it won't be made during rush hour, we only have to apply for a real parking space on a real-world avenue to be used to drop off materials or parking during working hours, and trucks will not be allowed to load dirt trucks when they go to site. This is nothing new. We have all seen this still in town or at distantly populated going homes or at big construction sites. Yes, there will be a license and discomfort for a few hours, just like any other job site anywhere in the world. However, the city only allows work to be completed during specific hours and days. It would be the same with any of the adjacent levels that are over an item you have construction. None of them have driveway. They would either use it either like item for most items or ask for a dedicated parking space like I may have to for bigger deliveries. I would not be able to order all the number for the house in one delivery. The deliveries would have to be per floor and delivered once or twice a week. For excavation, we cannot store all the dirt in the corner of the property. It will have to be checked out as it is dug. Once again, this is common in construction. We don't have to run around the world. We have to be creative, organized, and thoughtful to our neighbors. We like to have open communication with all our neighbors, and we all have an email and phone number. With open communication, I urge my neighbors to tell me if something is wrong or complex to them so that we can provide a solution right away. Communication is key. So these three areas of compatibility, safety, and construction process are achieved even with the lack of street frontage. The problem with this SUP exception will not adversely affect this neighborhood. So now that we've addressed the issues with the SUP, I want to show the board how we have made concessions to the design due to the language concerns and the city's input. 1. The owner at 141 Matalon Avenue, that's lot 25 on page 3 of our presentation, uses the alley to drive to the alley yard and park the car. Now, the design does not propose a fence around this side yard and provides previous paddling for 7 feet on the route so that they can use the space on the route into the alley yard. This is not a requirement and is not solely for the benefit of these homeowners. 10. The Southern Maple Tree is beloved by the neighborhood. The initial design had the basin extended to the east property layout, which would have killed the tree root system. After hearing the landlord's concern and speaking to the City and Landscape Architect, we hired a certified arborist to tell us what was possible to develop on this lot without causing harm. On page 41 through 43 of our presentation, the report and plans are detailed. The Southern Maple Tree is labeled as Tree Run East of the Lot, and the structural root zone is 22 feet from the trunk. There are two options. The first one is to remove the tree and pay a $2,500 fine. And the second one is to redesign the basement. We heard the neighbors' concerns and have revised the basement plan as shown on page 24 of our presentation. The external interior aisles are an additional foot from the structure of the area zone. What I like is to change a house to lose 240 square feet of livable space. Even though the house loses an interior value, we moved forward with this decision. And given construction, these areas will be fenced off. Additionally, another method before excavation is to go air spading, which will be conducted which blows the dirt away from the roots without harming them to discover how far they reach, the size, and the health. Now, sorry, how will this development affect the stormwater? So City Code 56224 specifies grounding plans, triggers, and how roof drains and sump pumps may be discharged. A new house triggers the need for a grading plan so that the post-development condition does not increase runoff. These plans must conform to the city, state, and federal stormwater regulations. In short, this project must comply to get a building permit. It's as simple as that. Two strategies that the city accepts for new runoff are direct connection to the stormwater drain and a second-survival catch basin on the property. These options will either improve or maintain the status quo of stormwater runoff because we can't make it worse by code. The neighbors told me that the issue is that the water runs from the property at 408 East Alexandria Avenue across the city-owned lot, my lot, the alley, and into the rear yards of the houses along Mount Vernon Avenue because the water can't percolate quick enough. So our home will actually act as a buffer, which is good news for the neighbors. The project captures 1,680 square feet of rainwater from the roof, the green roofs, and courtyards by draining directly to the city storm drain. In addition, the water from the adjacent vacant lot will flow onto our property and be caught as it hits the retaining walls and settles in our French drains, which also drains directly to the City Stormwater system. This roughly removes another 2,000 square feet of surface water. All told, this project removes 3,686 square feet of surface water from draining into our neighbors' yards. And we will also ask TESS for permission to redo the alley on the west side of the house with a V-ditch or swale so that water drains to the middle of the alley and not slips to the neighbor's yard. So now the only water that would drain onto the homes along Mount Vernon Avenue is water that runs off their roof gutter system or lands in their yard. So with that said, the existing conditions will at least be the same, but most likely improve. Number four, we recently spoke to the neighbors of East Alexandria Avenue, and they are concerned about the rear yard trees. This is shown on the site plan on page 42 of our presentation with the trees labeled two and three. Once again, we redesigned our basement as shown on page 24 of our presentation by moving the basement wall four feet, two inches north of the property line. Again, we lose habitable square footage and monetary value, but we are willing to compromise to address their concerns. This additional separation will keep construction from the tree roots. Number five, how are design aesthetics reliable to Delray housing? This is not a requirement to determine if this is a buildable lot, and there is no architectural design review required, as this is not a historic district. New construction is not supposed to copy or mimic a style. Rather, it is to complement what has come before. According to the DRCA, they recognize seven styles of housing within the Delray neighborhood. The lot is adjacent to two very different styles of architecture, Colonial Row Homes along Mount Vernon Avenue and Craftsman Bungalow Homes on East Alexandria Avenue. So to get to this point, we have made numerous design changes per the neighbors' comments. The evolution of the design process can be seen on pages 54 and 55 of our presentation. This house now complements the colonial row homes, and the aesthetic decisions can be seen on page 52 of our presentation, as well as numerous renderings. Once again, by adding this home, this also changes the L-shaped layout of these colonial homes to create a cohesive block. On pages 56 to 58 of our presentation, we included 3D renderings inserted into the site photos to understand the context of what will be seen. First off, it is barely noticeable, and second, it complements the new square layout of this block that is being created. The evolution of the aesthetics has led to a cohesive and compatible project. So in addition to these five items, we have provided light and air studies, as shown on page 27, 29 of our presentation. We have spoken to Dominion about relocating the electrical wires. We provide a sustainability diagram on page 53 of our presentation. And we show how a car will park on the property on page 39 of our presentation, even though parking space is not required. And to answer your question real fast, that was going to be like a... paving with grass on top of it that there's these grids the grid pavers that you can put on there because i don't want too much paving and so that's the idea there that you get the 18 foot six but if the city wants paving we could put the extra two feet of paving um so all this is to show the board that we have listened to our neighbors and the city and the project has evolved to what you see now So by the docket packet, there are 23 Alexandria residents who oppose this SEP. And today I found out there are many more, many more signatures. However, were they shown the city staff report in support or my 59-page presentation? And also, we do have 22 Alexandria residents who support this project. So the residents that oppose this SEP have outlined five action items. And guess what? I agree with all of them. They are the fire and emergency access, the construction access and right-of-way concerns, boundary and lock dimension discrepancies, flood and storm water and soil stability, and tree removal and impact. Well, all these issues have to be solved and finalized. However, that is not part of the SEP process. This is part of the building permitting process. I spoke how this house will be safer than any of my neighbors. We spoke about possible strategies to construction management. We know that TESS will not approve a permit if we cannot prove that there is a net zero effect. And we discussed the numerous changes we made to the design to protect the trees. The next step will require between $20,000 and $35,000 engineering fees. This is why the SEP approval comes first. We must address all these items and a lot more for the city to give us a building permit. However, I'm before you for a special use permit. So Zoning for Housing was approved to expand Alexandria's housing production. As stated in the Zoning for Housing, single family homes do not mandate them to be affordable to specific income levels. However, on page 20 of our presentation, it shows how buying this lot and building a home of this size in this neighborhood, it makes it an affordable home for a middle income family, which my family is. So we believe that this SCP application meets all the requirements for a substandard lot with no street frontage. We believe we reached out to the neighbors and made numerous design changes to address their concerns. We believe that there are very few vacant lots left in the city of Alexandria, and this is a creative solution to add much needed housing to the city for a middle incoming earning family. Thank you chairperson and commissioners for your time. I would also like to thank the zoning and the rest of the staff for their guidance throughout the process. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Manner has a question for you. Sir, how did you come into possession

It was just put on sale, like, four years ago. And so my wife and I, we found it. We've always liked the neighborhood. We reached out to the zoning staff to ask if it was a buildable lot with the SUP. Because actually, the lot I live now in West Alexandria, we had to get SUP for that as well. And so we knew somewhat the process. And we asked the staff if they could provide the letter if it was a buildable lot with SUP application. And they said yes. And so that's why we moved forward with it. Thank you. Yep.

Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

Move to close the public hearing.

Second. I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. That brings us to commissioner discussion.

I'll start with a question to staff relative to the point that was made in the testimony. There were several references to whether or not this project is actually properly before us. So my question either for staff and or the city attorney is, is this application for special use permit legitimately before the Planning Commission tonight for its consideration?

Thank you for the question. Yes, this is something that you all can consider tonight through the two approvals that are in front of you, or the two applications that are in front of you. Thank you.

So Madam Chairman, I do have some thoughts on this. If I was prudent, I would wait. But I guess one observation I have is that, as has been pointed out, this is the third time that this project has come to us. So I'm not sure there's going to be lots of new things to discover. And I have, like we all have been, watching this project and thinking about it and now coming on to voting on it for the third time. And I guess I would have my judgment of this project is that it does meet the criteria and is worthy of our support in virtually every way. I don't believe there's any negative impact on light and air for neighboring properties. There's no negative impact on property values. I consider the dwelling extremely compatible in height, bulk, and design. And these are all specific criteria for the special use permit. And I would take note that my observation, and it's just one observation that informs my thinking, and I happen to be familiar with the neighborhood, is that Delray One of the aspects of Dilray that I think many people appreciate is that it's an entirely unique neighborhood and it has many individual and idiosyncratic characteristics. And I think this block is a good exception, a good example, in the sense that there are several different types of architecture. within six houses in any direction from this particular site. So I think that that level of variety and the fact that there are a number of not absolutely prototypical solutions and that the neighborhood is filled with clever and thoughtful solutions to unusual circumstances, this is completely, in my judgment, a very appropriate addition to the neighborhood. The issue of lack of street frontage, I think I'd like to compliment Ms. Drescher and her colleagues on this staff report. It may also benefit from the fact that having been the third version of this staff report. But I believe the analysis of the issue of street frontage has been really comprehensively and completely evaluated in the context of the staff's review. And I agree completely with their judgment that this is a completely and that lack of street frontage is no impediment to us supporting the project. So I find this a creative and pragmatic design solution to a very challenging site. And given the length of this exercise, I guess I would go on to make the observation that in my judgment, the applicant's approach to this project has been exemplary. in terms of flexibility of design, the thoroughness and skill with which they've visualized and illustrated the proposal, and the thoughtfulness and perseverance of their response to community concerns. So that's rather more than I might have said at this point, but depending on how the discussion with the rest of the commission goes, if it becomes appropriate, I would be happy to make a motion in support of this discussion.

Thank you. Other commissioners? Commissioner Dube.

Thank you, Chair. And thanks, Vice Chair, for that synopsis there. Obviously, this is the third time this has been up. First time for me, but third time for several of you, I think. The one question to staff, the status of the vacation for that piece of road known as fourth street is there any update on that at all and it my understanding is that's going to expire here shortly and if that does does that have any impact on this at all uh so yeah so the expression date is june 30th uh and if the vacation expires then at that point Any new vacation would have to go through the public So other than that I do want to speak a little bit on the safety issue I do have some background in that as most of you know I just want to tell the applicant you stated that the first units coming from station 202 to this site But that's not accurate because 202 doesn't have any fire suppression or first response activities there it hasn't had it since Potomac Yard opened in 2009 and There is staff there. There are units there. But there's not the first fire suppression unit that's going to be coming from Potomac Yard or Cameron Mills or even Powhatan, depending on the nature of the day, which they're pretty busy, as you guys know. The sprinkler system installed in the house is a great asset to that house. That is probably, in my professional opinion, the number one safety thing we could do for any single-family dwelling. Unfortunately, we require it in all multi-families and condos and everything else. But as of yet, Virginia hasn't decided to push it into single-family dwellings for various reasons. The alley, 107 feet from Mount Vernon Avenue, I'm not going to speak to exactly what their tactics would be today, because I retired from there a few years ago. But if I was on the job, we would not drive up that alley anyway. We would stop on Mount Vernon and carry the equipment up that 100 feet. There are hoses. If you're not familiar with the engines, There are hoses that are of various lengths, 200 to 400 to even 500 feet long. So it's not unusual to stretch a line in the terminology to that. Does it take longer? Yes. But to drive up into that alley and then try to maneuver outside of that 10 foot, it's just impossible. So if I was still working, we would not drive up there anyway. That doesn't mean that the call that will happen there, if you look at percentages, 80% of the time it's going to be an EMS call. So they're going to back the unit up the alley as far as they can, carry the equipment to the house, and bring the patient out. They do that every day. They do a great job at it. There are literally dozens of places in Old Town Alexandria that are almost exactly like this. And our department, being here for 255 years, they know how to operate in the city. So I wasn't really supportive of this at first. But the more I looked at it and the more I read about it and talked to the fire marshal at length, I'm comfortable with the public safety piece of it. The rest of it's going to have to be worked out, the construction, the access for that, and all of that is going to be a challenge for you. But other than that, I don't have any other concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other commissioner discussion? Comments? Commissioner Ramirez.

I will also echo my support for this project. One large part being just the process. I do feel that the applicant has gone to great lengths to address the concerns of his neighbors, to address the concerns of life safety, to address the concerns of the environment. And I just feel as if that the process and the improvements that we will see on this PROPERTY WILL IMPROVE SOME OF THE WATER DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT I THINK THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING OVER THE YEARS. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DEVELOPMENT DOES GO RIGHT. YOU KNOW, YOU END UP HAVING A PROJECT THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO ITS SURROUNDING CONDITIONS, AND IT IMPROVES THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENT HERE, THE EXISTING WATER ISSUES ARE STILL GOING TO BE SITTING RIGHT THERE. NO IMPROVEMENTS AT ALL. So with that, I am happy to support this project as it is right now.

Thank you. Commissioner Harris.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know this has come before planning a couple of times before, but it's my first time. So I did quite a bit of, I'll say hours, of kind of going through different things. I went through, you know, Section 12402 point by point. to think about whether or not this substandard lot is a buildable lot. I looked at the Virginia state fire codes and what's required for access. And similar to Commissioner Duvet, I think that I've come around a lot on this. The addition of fire suppression, I think, has answered a lot of those questions for me. And in going through section 12402, IT MEETS THE CRITERIA AS A BUILDABLE LOT. AND I ECHO THAT I ALSO THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE REALLY A TON OF WORK TO TRY TO MAKE THIS THE RIGHT FIT FOR THIS LOT. AND, YOU KNOW, I WILL JOIN MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IN SUPPORTING IT.

THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? DISCUSSION? So yeah, I'm one of the commissioners that has seen this. This will be my third time. And first, I want to acknowledge the work of residents and staff and applicant to evolve the proposal over the course of this period of time. I'm sure the applicant probably doesn't like that this is taking so long to find a resolution one way or the other. But what I'm seeing with this process is that we are all benefiting from the fact that this has to go through SUPs. I firmly believe that a buy right infill redevelopment of a standard parcel in Del Rey could result, even despite code that create a permittable use could still result in an outcome that is much more abrasive to neighbors than what is before us tonight. And that's in part because the design that's before us tonight had to go through this public process, had to be sensitive to the concerns of neighbors and provide design solutions that show that responsiveness, and it has been iterative. So each time forward, THE APPLICANTS PACKAGE AND PROPOSAL HAS BEEN STRONGER AND STAFF'S PACKAGE OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANALYSIS HAS BEEN STRONGER. I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DO LIVE IN A CITY THAT'S HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD AND SO WE DO HAVE A HISTORIC RECORD THAT IS LONG AND CONFUSING. SO I'M NOT GOING TO ASK STAFF TO TESTIFY BEFORE A COURT JUDGE THE WEIRDNESS OF EACH OF THE MAPS THAT HAS OCCURRED THROUGH THE PAST, BUT RELYING ON OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THIS IS ENTIRELY AN ELIGIBLE APPLICATION TO COME FORWARD, ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS ALSO REASONABLE THAT RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED THAT WE GET THE NUMBERS RIGHT that we understand the dimensions, and that the final drawings that are moving forward are ones that properly reflect reality out there, and that let each party move forward with their plans for their property and their needs in the future. I am in support of the SUP for a substandard lot, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT VICE CHAIR KAENIG MENTIONED. SO AS MANY KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF ELEMENTS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN A REVIEW OF A SUBSTANDARD LOT REGARDING ITS COMPATIBILITY OR REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS INTENDED USE AND HOW THAT WILL RELATE TO ITS SURROUNDINGS. SO WE'VE HEARD AND TALKED ABOUT ACCESS AND LIFE SAFETY, BUT THERE'S ALSO REALLY all of the elements that relate to this being a suitable use that will fit in with the neighborhood. Um, and I think that the design is a good one for Delray and I think that it's a really, the more you look into the details of the design, the more you realize they are being incredibly creative with the location and sensitivity, um, to the environmental resources that are near this location. And, and it really sounds like, um, even the fine details of where the alley will be paved and exactly how that will play out are ones that this applicant is not interested in tearing down the lives of its neighbors. And I think that that's an important stepping off point for the future. I also want to say that, again, the staff report has gotten better than ever. And I think one of the things this staff report does more effectively than any prior staff report on this item is it explains how perfectly average this project is when it comes to size. So the bulk, height, the way it's set back from other buildings, the nature of the property and how it is likely to be felt. And the staff report has several tabulations that compare this site as a parcel and this building as a building. to the other things that are experienced nearby. And I just think it's a very convincing set of data that this is, in fact, not a building that will be remarkable once it's built. It'll fit in. It will be perhaps atypical. But in that way, there's many things about Del Rey and the streets of Del Rey and the backyards and curves and funny angled roadways of Del Rey that make it interesting but not necessarily remarkable or problematic. So I think that that is borne out in the nature of the data that's in the staff report. I appreciate staff's enumeration of the importance of code review and the role that code modifications play to ensure a development is buildable when it passes our land use test. And I will say that that second test, the SUP for a lot without frontage, I'm also in support of because that SUP requirement is really about can utilities and access be preserved as necessary for the nature of the use of that site. If this were an applicant asking to put a four-unit building here, and somehow squeeze it into the space with this amount of access, I might be more skeptical because four units means four households with four sets of needs of transportation and four kitchen units and so on and so forth, and I just would be less convinced. But this is one unit, and the level of access and utilities that are necessary to reach this unit can be met. AT THIS SITE AND IN FACT THE ALLEY IS ALREADY BEING USED TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES TO THE HOUSES THAT ARE ALL ALONG THIS BLOCK OFTEN IN THE FORM OF THE TRASH BEING SET OUT THERE AND BEING PICKED UP FROM THAT LOCATION. SO I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE SUP FOR THE LOT WITHOUT FRONTAGE. I AM HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AND VOTE.

Madam Chairman? Yes. I'm happy to make that motion, but I realize I have a question for the city attorney again. You made reference to two SUPs, and your memo to us today references two SUPs, but I see the staff report only indicates special use permit in the singular. So am I missing something here, and are we actually approving two separate SUPs?

It is two separate SUPs. There are two different zoning ordinance provisions, but we've only assigned it one number as far as the application. So if you move to approve using the SUP number, it will incorporate both of the SUPs into the zoning ordinance.

It threw me a little bit when you mentioned two SUPs, and I thought maybe I had... LOST THE THREAT AGAIN, WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON THESE DAYS. SO, MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT 202600013 FOR 404A EAST ALEXANDRIA AVENUE BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE DISCUSSION AT THE HEARING.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR KAENIG AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LENAHAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0. All right. And that will take us to new business, docket item number 9.

Docket item number 9, subdivision 2026-7. COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN 2025-4 DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2025-10011. BLOCK B, DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2025-10012. BLOCK C, DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2025-10013 WATERFRONT OPEN SPACE. DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2025-10014 RAIL CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE ENCROACHMENT 2025-3. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1300 NORTH ROYAL STREET. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR A SUBDIVISION TO SUBDIVIDE 1300 NORTH ROYAL STREET INTO THREE LOTS AND A FUTURE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AMENDMENTS TO COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 30 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN CONDITIONS RELATED TO PHASING FOR PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, OPEN SPACE, open space conditions and maintenance and phasing and coordination of affordable housing. A development special use permit and site plan to construct a multi-unit residential building with commercial uses with special use permits for multi-unit residential and commercial uses and a parking reduction. A development special use permit and a site plan to construct a multi-unit residential building with commercial uses with special use permits to allow a multi-unit residential building and commercial uses and a parking reduction. A development special use permit and site plan to construct public open space along the Potomac River with a special use permit for a parking reduction. A development special use permit and site plan to construct public open space along the planned linear park in Old Town North with a special use permit for a parking reduction. An encroachment for a canopy over a building entrance. The property is zoned CDD number 30. And the applicant is HRP Potomac LLC by Ken Wire, attorney.

All right. Will staff like to begin?

Sure. Staff would love to begin. We'll try to do a presentation that's not too much longer than the docket language, but maybe a little longer.

It's long.

So good evening, Chair McMahon and members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Michael Swidrak of Planning and Zoning. I'm here with Catherine Meliaris and Nathan Im of Planning and Zoning and Jesse Maines of T&ES, who is somewhere behind me, to present the PRGS CDD and DSUP requests. The applicant is HRP Potomac LLC, and they are seeking land use approvals related to the development of the Potomac River Generating Station, or PRGS, site. We have outlined the presentation on this slide, including requests and considerations for each of the land use approvals. The applicant is requesting amendments to the CDD conceptual design plan and conditions and DSUP approval for PRGS blocks B, C, B and C and the waterfront and rural corridor parks. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a re-approval of a site-wide subdivision to facilitate the dedication of public road A. Key elements of the presentation include the discussion of the CDD amendments to the site phasing, the potential approval and delivery of the first two buildings in the CDD, and the approval of five acres of park space and improvements to the adjacent Mount Vernon Trail section. The 19-acre PRGS site is coterminous with Coordinated Development District, or CDD, number 30. The site is located along the Potomac River waterfront and is in the Old Town North Small Area Plan boundary. The former power plant site is located adjacent to a variety of residential, commercial, and utility uses. PRGS site has been functionally vacant since 2012 when the coal-fired power plant closed. The site has been owned by HRP Group and its predecessors since late 2020. Approvals for the PRGS site so far have included the CDD 30 zoning and conceptual design plan, which set the parameters and requirements for overall development, and that was in 2022. And the infrastructure site plan for the road and utility network was approved in 2023. Also in 2023, a coordinated sustainability strategy, or CSS, was endorsed by City Council. The CSS builds upon development targets in the CDD for reduction in the carbon intensity of the development and the seeking of carbon neutrality via on- and off-site renewable energy generation. The land use approvals sought by the applicant are outlined on this slide. The CDD amendment request will be discussed in more detail on the next slide. The development block and park proposals will be discussed on subsequent slides. Each of the development blocks require the approval of a parking reduction. Staff supports the requests for the parking reductions based on the size of the two-level underground garage, which will be shared among each block and will contain 136 tandem spaces, which do not count toward required parking. An encroachment approval is required for an entrance canopy on Block B that will extend more than four feet and about eight feet out from the future Public Road A sidewalk. The subdivision approval is requested for the future dedication of Public Road A. The subdivision was approved by Planning Commission in 2023, but expired before recordation by the applicant per zoning ordinance requirements. Planning Commission and City Council are to consider proposed amendments to the CDD that have been generally agreed upon between staff and the applicant. The amendments are centered around the delivery timing of open space and infrastructure. The proposal is to tie certain infrastructure improvements and portions of the rail corridor and waterfront parks to the construction of a given block. The amended phasing plan can be seen on the right. CDD amendments to housing-related conditions include requiring submission of an updated affordable housing strategy for the next two block DSUP applications, providing more time to facilitate a potential 100,000 square foot affordable housing component in a future block. which would be D, E, or F. The CDD amendments also clarify the collection and use of the Old Town North developer contribution for open space. The proposed amendment to CDD condition 116 clearly states that the contribution will be provided with in-kind improvements to the rail corridor park and waterfront park and adjacent areas of the Mount Vernon Trail that are detailed in the two park DSUPs up for consideration. Blocks B and C are two mixed-use buildings, each with ground-level retail and a rental apartment and condominium tower above each block podium. Over 800 dwelling units are proposed in total, with 19 as on-site dedicated affordable units. Each block has above-grade open space in excess of the CDD requirement with passive recreational walkways and seating areas located on the second or third floor podiums and amenity decks with access to pools on the tower rooftops. Approximately 85,000 to 90,000 square feet of commercial space is proposed at the ground level and also on the second level of Block B. The blocks are served by a shared two-level parking garage, as discussed. approximately 450 000 square foot building proposed for block b fills a triangular block footprint with two tower elements up to 16 stories the each the northern tower on the left images will contain 117 condominium units will be clad in white precast panels with metal accents the tower will have a prominent prowl as a unique architectural element oriented toward the waterfront park in the potomac river The southern tower, shown on the right in the right two images, will front the future Royal Quarter Park and Road A and will contain 204 rental apartment units. The tower is designed in a curve shape with a 12-story northwestern wing and 16-story southeastern wing. The tower is primarily glass with blue-gray metal superstructure on the southern facade. Quickly moving on to Block C. It is proposed to be about 660,000 square feet of gross floor area and will have 16-story rental and condominium towers. The building design attempts to maximize views and exposure toward the river with an L-shaped rental tower opening from the southern corner of the Road A, Road B intersection outward and an oval-shaped condominium tower located at the northern corner of the site adjacent to North Fairfax Street, Woonerf, the Waterfront Park, and the Central Waterfront Plaza. The rental apartment tower will be clad in a precast concrete grid with large window openings. The superstructure of the L shape is a lighter white gray color with sections of brown rust colored concrete sections of building projecting from portions of the Road A and Road B facades. The two wings of the rental tower are connected by a spine-like tower element at the corner of Road A and Road B, and that's seen in image two on the right. the oval-shaped condominium tower appears as a unique vertical element the tower will be clad in curtain wall glass with metal accents six columns of balconies will break up the overall shape of the tower massing as each column protrudes from the facade udac endorsed the design of blocks b and c consistent with the prgs design excellence prerequisites and criteria at its june 2025 meeting

The parks that are before you address the proposed creation of the waterfront park and rail corridor park, which together with the waterfront plaza that will accompany a future proposal, form a publicly accessible park system of over five acres. The parks will be provided entirely on lands owned by HRP and will not include the area of Norfolk Southern land that the city is pursuing separately. The waterfront park creates a primarily passive park that capitalizes on the water views through the central great lawn, seating, trails, viewing area on the roof of the pump house, and ancillary event lawns. In the lighter green half on the eastern side of this graphic on the slide, are National Park Service lands, where the applicant will undertake improvements to meld this site into the greater park system of Alexandria and the national park system, with improvements to the Mount Vernon Trail, including the removal of the cage, provision of a personal watercraft launch, and removal of invasive plants. The Rail Corridor Park provides the much needed active recreation for the neighborhood, with such amenities as playgrounds, a sports court, athletic fields, and a dog park, with seating and gathering areas throughout. With the delivery of the portion of the rail corridor park associated with Block B, the existing guardhouse will be renovated, including the provision of public restrooms. The food and beverage portion of the guardhouse may be provided at a later time once tenants is secured. Of the many amenities that the waterfront park will provide, the illustration on the left shows the improvements to the cage area in front of the pump house, which will widen the trail, creating safer and more inviting passage. On the right is an illustration of a section of the Great Lawn, which is bordered by a shade trellis with integrated seating and gathering areas. Looking at the Rail Corridor Park, here we have the illustration on the left that shows the plaza and games court that will surround the renovated guardhouse and restrooms and serves as seating for the intended food and beverage vendor. The illustration on the right shows the school-aged children's playground, which is a portion of a system of three coordinated playgrounds, including a tot lot, a school-aged playground, and a spray ground or water play area that's placed between the two others. The playgrounds will be provided with phases associated with blocks D and E.

Thank you, Nathan. The applicant has continued outreach and contact with the community regarding future remediation, deconstruction, and construction activities on the PRGS site. The applicant provided a public outreach and communication plan to the city with the final site plan of the PRGS infrastructure plan. The plan outlines the frequency of community meetings, which will commence two months prior to the start of deconstruction and occur at a minimum of two to three times per year during construction activities. The applicant also submitted studies, including a site characterization, risk assessment, remedial action plan, soil management, and health and safety plan, and those were reviewed by city staff and a third-party reviewer and are available on the city's PRGS page. The applicant has indicated that construction activities will likely commence in late 2027, pending approval of the DSUP's under current consideration and release of the requisite final site plans. Construction activities would move south to north, with construction of the underground garage under Blocks BNC occurring only after the area has been remediated. The applicant has indicated it will not seek occupancy of Blocks BNC until the power plant structure has been fully deconstructed, and that the power plant will likely be fully deconstructed at least one year prior to any building occupancies. Highlights of the proposal package include the implementation of the coordinated sustainability strategy for the two development blocks, the enhanced treatment of stormwater management facilities across the site, a new roadway connection from Old Town North to Slaters Lane that comes with Block B construction, and architecture that is consistent with the PRGS design excellence prerequisites and criteria, and 90,000 square feet of commercial space. Overall benefits of the overall package include the abatement, deconstruction, or remediation of the power plant and 19-acre contaminated site. Contributions, including $5.3 million plus to the Housing Trust Fund, $150,000 of on-site public art for the two blocks under consideration, and a $125,000 contribution to Capital Bike Share. It's also 19 committed affordable units with 800 plus units coming with blocks B and C. And then the expansion of the city's waterfront park system with access and improvements to adjacent MPS or National Park Service land and the construction of the rail corridor park sections with passive and active uses and public restrooms. The applicant has presented the evolution of the block and park designs to the community several times over the last three years as the block park designs evolved. These meetings include applicant-held community meetings, city-held virtual community updates, and meetings at the Waterfront Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Human Rights Commission, Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, AHAC, and UDAC, or Urban Design Advisory Committee for Old Town North. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Subdivision 2026-0007 and that they recommend approval to City Council for the CDD Amendment 2025-04, the four DSUPs under consideration, and the encouragement applications. With that, we're available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Do commissioners have questions for staff? Yes, Vice Chair Koenig.

Thank you. I had two directions of questioning. The first one is rather simple, and it's just when we saw the original phasing for this, phase one was going to include blocks A, B, and C. Tonight we're seeing blocks B and C. So can you give us an update on the status of block A?

Sure, Vice Chair Koenig. So, yes, the phasing, and this is somewhat, it's the phasing related to the TIF that's also being considered by City Council, which is Blocks A, B, and C. So right now, they have that consideration in the first phase of development. Block A has not gone past the concept phase, and according to the applicant, they are looking for a potential user that would fit that block, so before they look into actually designing the block, they want to have a user for that block. So that's something I believe they will be looking at in the near future.

And is the intention that still this is a major piece of the art aspect of the entire development?

Yes, yes. So the CDD conditions, as they currently are, the 2022 approved conditions, are not changing in that regard. So those conditions had 15,000 square feet of art space coming with what is now Block D, or it was called the end of phase two, but it's the same thing. So they have Block A and Block D that would come likely after Blocks B and C, and as long as they have 15,000 square feet in either of those blocks, they would meet that threshold of the CDD.

Thank you. And I'd also like to pursue kind of a little line of questioning that's related to, and actually I think maybe slide 15 is appropriate at this point. It's the point where you have mentioned among the highlights the coordinated sustainability strategy. And I was hoping to That didn't really receive a lot of attention in this presentation, and my questions are really rather detailed, but I'd like us to think of it as maybe an example of one element within that strategy and how it works. Both the coordinated sustainability strategy here and the carbon neutrality analysis, which also was part of this process, represented a huge investment of effort on the part of the applicant as well as the staff and the community to try to really come up with a feasible but ambitious level of performance for these millions of new square feet. You note here higher standards than the green building policy. My question actually, just for reference, not that everybody has to follow along at this level, relates to the conditions specific to district carbon neutrality. which is on page 79 in the staff report, and addresses specifically condition number 139, target number two, which relates to renewable energy. And that condition states that the site shall achieve a minimum 3% annual onsite renewable energy generation level. And a lot of this is process questions. My first question is, is this target binding or is it optional?

So the condition is the condition. So it says that they shall meet the 3% target site-wide. So we believe that that is site-wide and that this is just talking about Blocks B and C. So whether they hit the 3% at this time or not is not relevant to the condition. They have to have solar on the site. And when the site is complete, it needs to have that 3% site-wide solar. Okay, thank you.

So if I follow that that answer is yes, it's binding but it is Applicable only in the sense of the cumulative performance of the entire site.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you Also, I'd note in condition 140 There's representation of the fact that, and this is back again to these targets because these district carbon neutrality requirements are indicated as targets. There's a recognition there that modifications to these targets may be approved by the Planning Commission and city council as part of the development review process. So that leads me to return then to a portion of the staff report where the staff report discusses these targets. Where we were looking just now are the conditions themselves. So the reference in the staff report also includes a statement that the preliminary PV design for each block expects on-site PV to offset between 1 to 1.5 percent of Block B's energy consumption and between 2 and 2.5 percent of Block C's energy consumption. Again, within the context of the fact that you've identified that the requirement is still 3% site-wide, would it be correct to say that if we take action in approval to approve the way this is constructed now, that it would essentially be correct to understand that as approval of this DSUP modifying the minimum target for Block B to 1% and for Block C to 2%.

So I believe the condition still states site-wide that that has to be addressed. So it doesn't specify by block. So I don't think that you're modifying the condition in this. We believe the applicant is in compliance with the condition here, or is at least not out of compliance with the condition, because they have not yet achieved the 3% site-wide, but the site isn't complete. So the condition can't be met yet.

Okay. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that this language is actually quite explicit. This says block B performance 1 to 1.5%. Without addressing the fact or acknowledging that the overall piece is changing, it seems to me that this is effectively authorizing the applicant to proceed with a project that could in the end produce no more than 1% on-site on one block and 2% on-site on the other block.

Correct. But the condition provides that flexibility to the applicant to say that site-wide they need to achieve 3%. So we can't determine compliance with the condition until the site is complete.

Let me frame this last version of it and then I'll draw this to a close. There's also a reference in the process that the applicant will present information and the staff will evaluate information relative to these proposals. What is it from the staff's perspective that leads you to have confidence that the 3% site-wide performance level can actually be achieved at the moment of sort of recognizing that the first, normally 40% of the overall development is going to perform at something like a third or two-thirds of the advertised target.

I mean, our confidence is in that the condition exists and the applicant has to meet the condition. There's nothing that stops additional solar from being placed on these blocks if in later blocks they can't achieve it and they need to bring it back to the entire site. So they can ask for additional solar to be placed on these sites if they need it later. They have, to our understanding, done a pretty good job of maximizing the roof space that's going to be used to get solar here. So if they're going to add solar to these sites, it would likely be off of the roof. That is better done after the site is completely designed so we know what space we have to work with and where we can maximize the solar output there. So we're confident because the condition is there and we're confident that staff will review projects in full faith of the condition.

Right. Okay. Well, thank you for those clarifications, and I'll allow us to sort of move on.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Ms. Linehan. I'm going to continue actually in that line of questioning. So I think what I'd like to have put on the record is that essentially what will have to happen is that the other blocks will have greater than 3% in order for the average to be 3%. So they can't meet the overall site condition just by meeting 3%.

Correct.

Okay. So they're not getting close to it now, and they have to go well beyond what they're achieving now in order to get the site-wide.

Right. The condition is site-wide. So at the end of the site's project, at the end of the project, they will have to do 3%.

I would still point out that there are several of us here that are a little dubious about that claim, given that they're falling so far short of what's required. I'm not sure how the next sites are going to essentially triple what they're now achieving. And the other question I have, which is on one of the other conditions, And it has to do with the wording of the condition, which is that now I have to get back. Essentially, I think the carbon reduction on site is sort of industry standard is the language that is used. And the statement is that the applicant is meeting that, but it's not clear what the standard is or what is, in fact, being achieved. The language is so general. So I'm curious whether you can answer what standard they're meeting. how it's being met. Dustin will be able to help with that.

I can take a stab at that. The applicant will have more to present, I'm sure, when they're here. But essentially, they are comparing their construction practices to industry standard practices with the materials they're using. So they're following a very rigorous industry-accepted process to earn the lead credit for lifecycle reduction analysis, which is a lot of calculations and a lot of assumptions. But they are based in industry standards, which they can outline more.

I actually have another question unrelated to sustainability. So I'm glad to pass it to someone else before we go back.

No, please. Go ahead.

So for condition 22, The condition related to affordable housing strategy, AHS, and public private partnership, PPP, the language is for a potential of 100,000 square feet of affordable housing to be placed on the site has been amended to require resubmission of the AHS with a third and fourth block. Which is the third and fourth block? Is that the last two blocks? Those are the third and fourth, even though we have six different blocks?

Hi, this is from Planning and Zoning. So obviously, these are the first two blocks, A and B. So the third and fourth would either be whatever comes next sequentially, so D, E, or F. The P3 will be a part of either D, E, or F. I don't think they've exactly decided which one of those blocks it will be on. But the purpose of amending that was, as the CDD was written before, it was just a little bit too early. I mean, we asked for the affordable housing strategy so we can have an idea of, you know, what the strategy is. But, you know, part of that strategy is it's just too early to identify a partner or a funding mechanism or, you know, more of these detailed things so early in the process. So the CDD amendment is seeking updates with sequential blocks to make sure that they're on the right track. And they'll be working with, you know, planning and zoning staff, office of housing staff to make sure that that is on the right track.

So, again, it's a condition, so it'll have to be met?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff? All right, let's bring it to the public hearing, please.

Her speaker is Melissa Butler-Kanin, followed by Martha Harris.

Hello, I'm Melissa Kennan. Good evening, Chair McMahon, Commissioners, Director Stoddard. I am Vice President of NOTUS, which is North Old Town Independent Citizens Association, and a retired architecture planner. I live at 525 Montgomery Street, four blocks south of the PRGS site. I'm here to speak about how the applicants plan for redevelopment of the site can better integrate with the North Old Town neighborhood. This is a once-in-a-generational opportunity to create a true mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhood. The Old Town North's malaria plan clearly states the site is to be woven into the existing neighborhood physically, socially, and economically. As currently designed, blocks B and C fall short of that mandate. first on open space benefits and phasing the cdd requires front loaded open space and public benefits yet the applicant proposes to defer the major park elements the northern open space all art spaces most of the affordable housing to later phases potentially seven years or now or or more from now Phase 1 is large enough to support the required infrastructure and public benefits indicated in the CDD. The city will now be subsidizing the infrastructure and the public benefits have all but been moved to a later unknown date. To correct this imbalance of public amenities granted through bonus density, We ask you to send the phasing of benefits back to staff for revision and docket it for September. It needs a lot more consideration. This will not delay the project. The HRP infrastructure plan is already approved. Second, on mixed income integration. Mixed income housing is a core principle of the small area plan as reinforced in the city's housing 2040 plan. Yet, blocks B and C provide only 19 affordable units out of 815, which is 2.3%, and zero affordable condominiums, despite being mixed tenure blocks. In comparison, DSUP projects in Old Town North have delivered between 4% and 10% of affordable rental and condo units. The proposed 100,000 square foot all affordable building would be the largest income segregated building in Old Town North since ,, which is the opposite of integration. We urge the commission to ask the applicant to create a better mixed income neighborhood to meet the city's master plan goals. Number one, eliminate the standalone all affordable building because a national housing planning experts have been rejecting this option over mixed income residences since the early 90s. And as also identified in the AHAC conditional support, the applicant has now placed an undue burden on the city to find partners to fund and develop this building. Number two, provide integrated affordable units in every residential building proportional to each phase with a goal of 6%. That was three minutes. Also, we need a better integration with the neighborhood. The buildings can be set back from the rail corridor. They can have far more active uses on the edges. Right now, we have blank walls. So they're very common planning design elements to integrate these buildings into the neighborhood. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Martha Harris, followed by Bill Depew. Martha Harris and Bill Depew.

Good evening. My name is Martha Harris. I've been a resident of Alexandria since 1982 and of Old Town North since 2022. I chose this neighborhood for the promise of the art spaces, for the walkability, the green space, and equitable development. But tonight I'm here because I have concerns that I want to express. The staff report says that the primary purpose of the proposed changes is to simplify the delivery of infrastructure and public benefits. However, the overriding reason seems to be to reduce expenditures for the developer. With regard to open space, only this, as you've heard, the southern section of the waterfront park will be delivered in the first five years or so. And the linear park, specifically the part that includes the Norfolk southern land, has been postponed almost indefinitely. We have to wait for Block D for significant playground facilities. With regards to arts, which supposedly is a highlight of the project, the next few years we'll see two 17-story buildings constructed with no clarity about where an anchor arts tenant, who it might be, and where it will be located, much less a plan for Block A. With regard to affordable housing, only 19 units, all rentals, will be provided in these two high-rise buildings that will be constructed in this first stage of development. The developer will contribute to the housing trust fund, but apparently this may come later than normal practice. And the P3 partnership that you've heard about that involves a hundred affordable units is certainly in the plans, but we're unsure where it will be located and when they will be constructed, as you've just heard. The developer has been given height and density bonuses for this big project and now is asking for an extra two years of validity for the DSUPs while taxpayers are being asked to forego some future tax revenues. The staff are honest in saying, quote, the consideration for this revision is that the benefit of the removal and remediation of the existing power plant is a substantial expenditure, and the later delivery of the park system can assist in that realization. In other words, delay is needed to cover cleanup. So many of the promised community benefits are deferred with no guarantee that they will ever materialize. I urge you to correct the defects before approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bill DePue, followed by Mary Harris.

Thank you. Great to be here. My name is Bill Depew. I've lived in Old Town since 1974 and in Old Town North since 2022. I live in the MUSE, which is directly adjacent to the PRGS site. We have recently heard from our community civic association notice in their statement of position relative to the PRGS site and their call for complete remediation of that site prior to any construction. Why? Because we're dealing with the health and safety of workers on the site and our neighborhood residents to the north, to the south, and to the west. The preliminary site characterization report by HRP Group, environmental contractor, Ramball lists metals, toxic compounds, and petroleum residuals that exceed the VDEQ thresholds standards for residential safety. And that is a big deal. All of those findings were determined by sampling. Now, Ramball indicates in every report that more sampling is going to be required, and the most recent comments from HRP Group's head environmentalist, Juliana Connolly, indicates that more sampling, both pre- and post-ground disturbance, is going to be required. Make no mistake, this is a heavily contaminated site with significant unknowns. about what lies in and under the power plant or in those areas not already sampled. There's an old adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy. And in this case, the enemy is toxic chemicals and petroleum residuals in the soil, groundwater, and in the power plant itself, the smokestacks, and then the adjoining buildings. Abatement, deconstruction, and site remediation are both complicated and complex. They're complicated by the numerous intricate steps that are necessary in order to achieve reasonable, acceptable results. But they're also made more complicated by having numerous simultaneous overlapping activities. And what does that do? It raises risk. Complex because there are two factors. One, we simply don't know the full extent of contamination on the site. And number two, accidents and mistakes are going to happen. And the weather is going to intrude. with high winds blowing contaminated materials around. For those of us in the neighborhood, this is not academic. Hilco, who was HRP Group's predecessor, had an unfortunate accident when they were taking down an old power plant in Chicago, resulting in contaminated fly ash dust blowing over significant portions of the neighborhood, of the nearby neighborhoods. But two of the after effects are what really struck us. And that first one was that we were looking at recurring respiratory diseases and effects. And the second thing was looking at the amount of dust that came into the local air conditioning systems. And I'm just telling you, those are significant things that we ought to be concerned about. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mary Harris, followed by William Hamm.

Oh, thank you, Chair McMahon and commissioners. My name is Mary Harris. I'm the president of NOTIS, which is the Old Town North Civic Association. And I live at 501 Slaters Lane, directly across from the power station. So I'm here tonight. We support, notice supports the transformation of the power plant site, and we always have. But specifically, we are requesting that the city insert a binding technical condition into the permits that prohibits the developer from performing simultaneous civil infrastructure construction, vertical construction, while the high-reach mechanical deconstruction of the legacy power plant is actively underway. And doing both at the same time, as Bill just mentioned, within the tight footprint of this site creates an unacceptable and a compounding hazard for our community. First, the concurrent operations create a cross-contamination situation. Tearing down a legacy coal-fired power plant can release fugitive dust, even with excellent abatement. You'll have fly ash and metal silicates coming down. These are respirable crystalline silica, lead, arsenic, and potentially unabated asbestos fibers that are entrained in the stacks. If they're allowed to drag utility trenches, grade roads, pour foundations, we have the opportunity here that the corrosive dust will settle directly into the open excavations and any previously remediated soil. This turns clean construction on one site into hazardous waste, permanently embedding that legacy contaminant into the foundation of our new neighborhood or really dragging out for re-remediation the timeline of this project. Second, the compounded traffic from demolition hauling and any remediation and new construction to the south could pulverize deposited dust further. And this really may drag dust. It will overview dust suppression methods and possibly have unmitigated runoff into the waterfront parks and the Potomac river. Third, and most important, is public and worker safety. Allowing hundreds of civil construction workers to one in one area while adjacent to high-reach mechanical deconstruction in another exposes residents and visitors to severe inhalation risk. Okay, we urge you to consider them to follow industry standards for a hazardous site such as this, which is first, you abate the plant interior. Second, you raise the plant. Third, you haul the debris. Then you remediate the soils. And only after third-party clean environmental sign-off Do you break ground on our wonderful new infrastructure and buildings? Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And we've submitted a lot of technical documentation to you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

good evening commissioners my name is william ham and i have been a professional economist for the past 58 years i have lived in old town north since 2022. i came here tonight to speak to you about the implications of the prgs redevelopment project for traffic congestion in alexandria but before i do that I want to commend the HRP group for its tireless community outreach efforts. We residents appreciate that. It is essential for this commission to understand the impact that the proposed redevelopment project will have on traffic flows on the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the city streets that feed into it. And right now you don't have this understanding because the traffic study before you relies on a flawed traffic baseline. As a developer acknowledged at the May 26th, or maybe it was May 4th, I don't remember, or May 6th community forum, the traffic study that you have relies on traffic flow data from 2022. But that data reflects the continuing impact of the COVID pandemic. And as it seriously underestimates the amount of baseline traffic to which the redevelopment project will add still more. IT'S A FLAWED BASELINE. AS MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA SURELY IS AWARE OF THE LATEST STATE OF THE COMMUTE REPORT THAT CAME OUT EARLIER THIS YEAR AND FOUND THAT WORK FROM HOME RATES IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA DURING 2022 were 35% higher than they were just last year. And given all of the publicly acknowledged efforts by the current administration, the D.C. government, employers that are office-oriented like mine to get employees back into the office, when the 2026 study comes out, it's going to find that there's even less work at home, more commute, and more congestion. Without a reliable baseline, this commission cannot predict what the impact is going to be on traffic congestion and therefore you won't be able to insist that the developer take action to mitigate that congestion to the maximum extent possible beyond what it's already agreed to. I don't hear the developer saying that the baseline data is accurate. What the developer is saying is the study is only four years old and because it's not five years old we don't have to redo it. It's not the age of the study that's important, it's the reliability and this one is not reliable. I urge this commission to defer action on the DSUPs for BNC until you have the information you need in order to determine what the impact is going to be on Alexandria residents through the traffic congestion. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Scott Corzine.

Attorney Ken Weier and property owner Melissa Schroepfer.

Good evening. Scott Corazon. I live at 300 Queen Street in Old Town, the northern end of Old Town. I'm here to speak briefly in support of the comments that the President of Notice just gave about the risk in both being in the abatement stage and the encapsulation stage and the removal stage while we're building. I think I think it's it will find a lot of contaminants that that we're not sure of this there we don't know how deep they go and Getting that stuff in the air asbestos fly ash other silicates right next to the river where the wind is is whipping up I think is a real potential risk, so I would urge the the the Planning Commission to really think about the order of things and make sure that When we're destroying the old building, we've really thought through how we keep those contaminants non-airborne. So thank you very much. Thank you. The next speaker is the applicant's attorney in Wyeth.

So good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Ken Weier with the law firm Weier Gill. I'm going to filibuster just for a second because I think staff has a couple slides that we're going to walk through this evening. This is a big moment for our city.

I've been here 20 years.

I have an office, a small business in Old Town North, about six blocks away from here. I've been watching this project for the past 14 years as we decided to close a power plant many years ago and pivoting to the vision that was first set forth in the Old Town North Small Area Plan. We could not pick a better team to do this redevelopment other than HRP. They have done five coal power plants in the United States and other industrial sites to convert to vibrant mixed-use communities. Our entire team is here tonight. Sorry, next slide. I think they're all looking. Here we go. So this is the timeline. We appreciate all the speakers tonight. They're all familiar faces. HRP has been a very a vigorous community participant in many dialogues, so they've seen these slides. This gives you the idea of a timeline with the 60 years ago the power plant was started, the coal-burning power plant. It was shuttered in 2012. As I mentioned, in 2017, we did our Old Town North Small Area Plan, which this project complies with. And HRP came on board in 2022, followed by the rezoning and infrastructure and the coordinated sustainability plan in 2023 you've already talked about. Tonight's a big night for us. We want to walk through some of the questions staff raised and some of the community questions raised. Melissa wants to say a few words. You can bear with us. I hope to answer as many questions as we can in our presentation. So then we go to Commissioner's comments. We've hopefully got a lot of that information out that we expect you to ask. So I'll turn it over to Melissa.

Thank you, Ken. And good evening, Chair McMahon and commissioners. We're very pleased to be with you this evening. My name is Melissa Schrock. I'm executive vice president of mixed use development at HRP Group. We're incredibly grateful. Actually, if you go to the next slide, please, that'd be great. We're incredibly grateful for all the years of advocacy that from the community that led to the shuttering of the power plant. That allowed us to acquire it with a vision to transform it from a fossil fuel based facility into a sustainable new district. And we see our development proposal as aligned with and delivering on the community vision and the many goals that were laid out in the 2017 Old Town North Small Area Plan.

So I promise we'll only do this back and forth one more time. So next slide. So the Arts and Cultural District. I've had the privilege of working on every other Old Town North Arts and Cultural District, and we learned one lesson. If you build it, they won't always come. If you build it for them, that's the best plan. So as we talked about in the staff report, our plan here is this Block A will be built during the phase one, And our concept here, because it's a smaller building, much like other projects, it will catch up with blocks B and C during phase one. Happy to talk about the details. We think the staff did a great job of the presentation showing the location of it. And you can see some interim uses here. Should that use not come online early, we were able to have temporary facilities, as you see here on this upper right-hand corner, which are used throughout the country to provide pop-up spaces as well as very interactive open spaces in the interim. Next slide. So obviously, there's a master plan vision. We won't spend a lot of time on these, but a very vibrant ground plane. One of the trade-offs that we talked about earlier is their discussion about solar generation. These active uses we love on the ground plane, they use a lot of energy. So these active spaces, there's people eating and using the restaurants, which obviously drives sort of the dialogue on energy consumption. So there's two things we're balancing at once, energy generation and active spaces. Doesn't mean they're opposed to each other, but it means they need to be read in concert. Next slide. So a lot of the questions earlier, comments about the segregated housing, I want to say that I categorically reject that classification. Your Alexandria Affordable Housing Commission endorsed our plan. It is a three-legged stool, if you will, to work on affordable housing. Across the site, there are 68 to 65 units at 60% AMI. There's a very strong affordable housing contribution. and this public-private partnership to increase the amount and leverage our dollars, if you will, to provide affordable housing. And the 100 affordable units you see on the slide is a tried and true method we've used throughout the city and is really a great tool to amplify those dollars as opposed to stringing them out at a lower number across the site. So AHAC endorsed it. I can't think of a better recommendation for affordable housing than having your policy group support our plan. Next slide. so a lot of dialogue i think we lost a little bit of um some of the big picture i want to step back for a second in every meeting we've had we've had plenty of questions about the environmental contamination we've had plenty of applause and support for the 10 acres of public open space we're going to work on here that is a combination between national park service space and our land that will work together to seamlessly integrate If you've been around that corridor, it's a great opportunity. This is the single largest piece of contiguous open space on the city's waterfront that HRP is proud to champion and to deliver. You can see the different types of uses we have here between passive active watercraft and the Mount Vernon Trail replacement, which has always been a little strange. That will obviously be replaced in compliance with the DSUP for the waterfront park. Next slide. So energy reduction. We actually are in agreement with staff on this concept. Mr. Kane and you and I have had many debates about sustainability and HRP fully supports them. Our issue here is roof space and the type of use. The later buildings, for instance, a commercial use, a bigger building with less people in it, will have a much higher energy generation than the 3% target. So we don't make our commitments lightly. When HRP studies something and put it forward, they know they can do it. I've stood up here very early and clients can't make an affordable housing or energy generation, they just guess. The numbers you see in the staff report were analyzed based upon real roof space and our availability. So these are numbers we're committed to, we're confident we can meet the goal, the target, if you will, across the project, and we're very proud to be able to get percentages this high, where other projects in the portfolio have a hard time breaking one or two percent. The embodied carbon, I don't want to spend a lot of time on that. I think staff did a great job referring to the lead. That is the metric by which we're measuring against. That is a clear third-party standard that we can all look through and be measured against. And clearly, the building electrification is a great target, a great amenity. I won't read the rest. We can keep going. There's quite a few more slides. Next slide. Here we go. So the connectivity of this next next thing street work and I can't think of a better way to integrate a property into the neighborhood to the south by taking the streets that are already there and bringing them through the site. My office is a few blocks away, Fairfax and Royal coming up into this project and allowing waterfront access with a wounder to blend the very successful combination of open space for cars and people. It's a great idea. You see the bus stops here we're adding to the site, as well as the Mount Vernon Trail, and including the bike share station and all the multimodal aspects with below-grade parking and bike shares and new on-street parking. I think my next slide, one more for me. So this is a good slide that I'm going to transition over to Melissa. What this is, is I think in the context as we have these hearings, it's helpful for people to step back for a second and look at the project. Blocks A, B, and C are the DSUPs that are in front of you, as well as the open space on the left and the right for the rail corridor park and the waterfront park. I'm going to turn it over to Melissa to walk through some more details, but again, we are here to process these DSUPs. We have a few more slides to go through, and then we'll move to your questions.

In addition to the two block and the two open space DSUPs, there is a proposed CDD amendment which refines the open space delivery so that it's clear what each block is delivering and it ensures that each block is delivering something meaningful as soon as the first block. Highlighted here is what will be delivered with the project's first phase. It includes major benefits such as the southern one-third of the waterfront open space. And inside that open space, there is the great lawn. I'll show an image of that in a moment. The rehabilitation of the guardhouse in the rail corridor park, which includes public restrooms. two new accessible connections to the Mount Vernon Trail, and interim open space improvements on Block A if it trails in time. Next slide, please. This is the waterfront open space, and here you can see an image of that great lawn overlooking the Potomac with an adjacent shade and event structure that can host seasonal performances and activities. This amazing community space will be delivered by the completion of Block C. So we've heard comments here tonight that the benefits are being deferred. I can't say that. I can't say it forcefully enough. That's simply not true. Next slide, please. The waterfront additionally across the entire park features a variety of spaces from peaceful river overlooks and shady groves to activation of the pump house roof and a kayak and paddleboard launch. Next slide, please. And on the city facing side of the project, the rail corridor open space offers a huge range of activities for people of all ages and abilities. Next slide. From a games court adjacent to the rehabilitated guardhouse that I already mentioned, where there will be public restrooms, to a sensory garden, two children's playgrounds, sports courts, a recreational lawn, and of course, two dog parks, there really is something for everyone to enjoy at the site. Next slide, please. The architecture of Block B, you heard a very good presentation from staff, so I'll be brief. This is an image of that Block B rental building welcoming people into the site with its brick base, its inflecting form, and multiple landscaped terraces. Next slide, please. And along the waterfront, the Block C condominium building dematerializes through its glass facade while its sculpted balcony details recall water-centric forms. Next slide, please. If our proposal meets with your approval this evening and with City Council in 10 days, we're excited to break ground next year on this first phase of development. The process will start, of course, with the painstaking abatement and deconstruction of the power plant, which 14 years after shuttering still looms over our waterfront and the Mount Vernon Trail. We have submitted a phase deconstruction plan to the city that allows us to bring down the plant while constructing the first phase of the project. which shortens the overall duration and accelerates both the delivery of public benefits and new revenue to the city. The above-grade plant, as we've said in our recent public meetings, will be down before the first residents move into the new buildings.

We have two more slides, and then we're going to move to Councilmember and Planning Commissioner questions. Next slide. So the reason I was tasked with the team here to talk about the deconstruction as remediation is I've done this before. You've done this before. Your staff has done it before, and so has Virginia DEQ. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's remediation program is voluntary, as its name says. It is one of the gold standards in the country. It is when an applicant says, we will come to you and subject ourselves to your review, which is a delegation from the federal EPA to the state to walk through how this site is remediated and to ensure worker safety during deconstruction. I want to make it clear, the community's concerns are real concerns, but I think there's been some misinformation about how these projects work, and HRP has done them across the country, and we'll be doing it here with DEQ oversight and city oversight. The first key point here, the second key point, is deconstruction of 24-hour dust monitoring. 24-hour dust monitoring is something we found is good to convey to the community. We'll have monthly reports given to the community to reduce levels, and it also gives our workers real-time feedback on the contamination, I'm sorry, the dust monitoring on the site. The third bullet point is the robust communication and a 24-hour hotline residents can call. And we'll also have the communications team from HRP, which is really second to none for any entitlement I've ever worked on, which will have publicly available monitoring data. All site reports are already on HRP's website so that transparency you see prior to entitlement will continue post-entitlement. I think this fourth bullet point is the key one. The above ground power plant will be completely abated and decontaminated and certified by government officials before deconstruction. This is not a scenario where you take down a building with known contamination and things are blowing all over the place and it hasn't been abated. The first thing we do is abate that building. So that is not a scenario where people are talking about before you bring things down and contamination sort of running wild. We will do our job and abate the building, and when we get a certificate, we'll then deconstruct the building. This is not violent demolition. This is taking the building apart and carrying it away and disposing of it properly. It is necessary, actually, to do that at the same time as building the other projects. The money from the new building pays for taking down the old building. These two phases can happen together. There are different crews and different people. We will be coming back to the community to be clear on monitoring, haul routes, and all the questions we've had on any other deconstruction project or environmental project with the transparency the HRP will continue to have going forward. Although I might not my last point here on this point is that transparency is already out there are plans are online today, there's no mystery here that some community members are right when they cited the environmental contamination things that are on the site because we told them what it is and I think the city's expertise on other project we've worked on we did this atomic yard. We did it in Carlisle we're going to do in Rob's terminal North and we're going to do it here so I think this regulatory structure of the city in the state of worked on is really a great template that we're going to follow we volunteered to follow it because it works well and will be transparent to the community on. Let me go to the next slide. So I want to bend this back, if you will, to the big picture. Taking down this power plant that closed all these years ago, this is a great community benefit. Closing the plant alone is 300,000 tons of metric carbon dioxide removed from the air. There's also underground storage tanks we'll be taking out from the site. It's been in operation 60 years before it closed, and there's obviously a $60 million power plant deconstruction remediation. The first public benefit you ask for when you close this plant is to have it taken away, and that's the very first thing we're doing. In order to deliver those open spaces, we need to do the buildings of blocks B and C concurrently. We have some discussion about timing and some of the nuances. I'm going to stop there because we can talk about a lot of these issues in more detail. We do hope we have some response to staff on some of the letters, the conditions I asked for changes in the letter I submitted. I think we're in agreement on maybe three or four of them. But I do want to close with I think we as a community should celebrate this moment. It's an inflection point from planning to actually action. We've got a great set of conditions with staff. We have a few tweaks to work on, but we look forward to getting your recommendation approval tonight so we can move forward through city council and hopefully get to work and continue that transparency and that optimism in this great place we've been planning for so many years as a community. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the applicant?

Got to have one. All right. Well, we'll be...

I'll let my team ever speak about that

That's correct, Councilman, Commissioner. The city applied for, I want to say, two or three years ago, they applied for a grant for $50,000 to hire a third party to oversee some of the work that we're doing and read the reports and have a third party opinion of everything that we're doing.

Okay, and that's to read the DT voluntary you're doing, all that's included?

That's my understanding. Yep. That's my understanding.

All right. I'm happy to hear a motion to close the public hearing.

Move to close the public hearing.

I have a motion by Vice Chair Canning and a second by Commissioner Ramirez to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And that brings us to commissioner discussion. Who wants to start? I'll start. All right. This is a really exciting point in time. not without its concerns and challenges. But I just want to acknowledge, hugely important site, a lot of change to the community that will come about because of it. And I think that the renderings and the staff description and the applicant description do a good job of showing just how much a whole new neighborhood is going to come out of the land in this part of town, but how it's going to connect to the neighborhoods that have come before it. I love, I'll just talk like broadly speaking, I love the architecture. I think these buildings are beautiful. Not everyone's going to agree with me, but I am really excited to see how they relate to the waterfront and they relate to the sky and they relate to the water itself And there is a juxtaposition of vertical activity happening here with the flow of the pathways and the green space that's happening in front of it along the waterfront that is not unnoticed, although I'm going to have to make a point of riding one of those water taxis to really appreciate it because I need to get out on the water to have that view. I... Sorry, there's so much in here. I acknowledge we have CDD amendments. I'll speak to the phasing a little bit. I understand community member concerns and the desire to have everything that has to do with remediation to happen all at once and in advance of construction. I also am fairly confident that the technical processes that we have available to us for remediating any site of whatever size can be applied to smaller portions of a site. And so one of the things that I was thinking about as looking at the phasing plan, but also listening to and reading concerns about how the site as a whole should be handled versus in pieces. And the fact is that the remediation And I'm using that term really generally. Please don't hold technical accountability for that term. That's everything associated with the abatement and the deconstruction and all of that. But the hazardous material remediation here is happening very close to residences like the MUSE where you used to live, Commissioner Manor, even at the very beginning. I mean, this activity has to happen right alongside neighborhoods that are already there. And people are already living in those buildings. And those are the people we heard tonight. It, to me, speaks to the fact that from the outset, the applicant, with all of those technical advisory tools that are already in play regarding the state, regarding this third-party monitoring, those all come into play right at the start. Because right at the start, we have to ensure that that activity is happening safely so that people who live at the MEWS ARE NOT, SORRY, IT'S GOOD MUSIC. I'M NOT USED TO SPEAKING WITH A SOUND TRACK SO IT DID CONFUSE ME FOR A SECOND. BUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AT THE MUSE FOR INSTANCE ARE ALSO NOT EXPOSED TO CONTAMINANTS. SO NO MATTER WHICH SECTION OF THE SITE IS BEING WORKED AT WHICH TIME AND HOW CLOSE IT IS TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE SITE, EACH STEP HAS TO BE DONE RESPONSIBLY AND EACH STEP POSES RISK. that the phasing plan we're seeing today with regard to how remediation is happening and then how construction is happening poses any new risk than is otherwise there in the process of doing this kind of work. And I think that this work is imperative. We know we can and will get to a point where the entire site is remediated and we have a neighborhood here. And the phasing plan that we're seeing tonight I think is a reasonable way to execute that, really working its way up and with certainty that we're going to see deliverables and each step can be done safely, even though each step is alongside other things going on, including a trail system that will largely continue to be operable the entire time this site is under construction on both sides. So there's a lot of pieces here, but I'm not averse to the CDD amendments that relate to how the phasing is going to work, how it's going to bring in portions of our public open space as B and C occur. And I'm hopeful that the arrangements for A will come along in the way that the applicant intends, because I realize that, well, I'm entirely in agreement that I don't think there's a need to risk building a dark, what is it called, a cold, dark shell and have it be nothing for years and years because we can't find the right arts tenant. I'd much rather us find the right tenant, build out the space in its entirety, and bring someone forward and bring it into operation, ideally as B and C are being completed. I also want to quickly, and I'll pass it on to other commissioners, let's see, two last things. I wanted to acknowledge the concern that we heard tonight about potentially having traffic analyses that aren't quite up to speed with what we're seeing today in the streets. But I'm just not concerned about that in part because I don't think an updated traffic assessment is going to dramatically change what we want to see here. I think the reality is a lot of the development sites like these that we are planning for as a community plan for people and the place and the activity levels and we have to do things entirely as a community and will be the nature of the households that come in here to not just assume we get to drive everywhere we want to go and these this proposal brings in reduced parking requirements on purpose both for the practical purposes of how far down into the ground you can dig but also From my perspective, it just means households that move into these buildings cannot possibly own as many cars as they might otherwise if they moved into an older style of development. So at least for the development that's happening here, yes, we're going to create new streets, and we're going to create new buildings, and they will generate trips. Is it going to be prohibitive in terms of circulation in this part of town? Probably not. We're sitting right on top of the parkway. And this traffic can get to the parkway without having to go through Old Town, but it also is connected. And those connections give outlets. So if there is a traffic crash that's blocking a part of the parkway near this site, there are ways and outlets for people to get around. And the more that we can connect our streets, the better that connectivity can support flow and safety. and emergency access and so on. And I think this is just going to make that aspect of this part of town better. So overall, it'll be interesting to see what happens with mode split over the next years. I'd like to hope that we don't just keep going in the direction of more single occupant vehicle commuting just because not everybody's business is trying to support hybrid workplaces anymore, but we actually have a lot of things that will be influencing how people choose to travel. And it's not just that we build homes, but it's a lot of other stuff behind that. And then the last thing before I hand it off, I know I said I was going to hand it off, is I wanted to acknowledge staff's memorandum in response to the applicant's requests. That was dated June 2. And so that should come up in motion making a little bit later. But just to say that staff did speak to their opinion on each of the applicant's requests, a couple of which staff agree. WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AND A COUPLE OF WHICH THEY DO NOT AGREE, AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S ASSESSMENT ON THOSE ITEMS. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY EXTRA REASONS TO WANT TO PURSUE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THOSE THAT STAFF HAVE AGREED TO DO IN THAT MEMO, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HEAR IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS THINK OTHERWISE AND HAVE THAT BE A PART OF OUR CONTINUED DISCUSSION TONIGHT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT?

Thank you, Chair McMahon, and thanks, staff, for all the hard work and certainly thank the applicant for everything they've done to get us to this point. It is very exciting as someone who's been in this city quite a while and seeing that plant up and down over the years. I just want to speak to a couple of things. I'm comfortable with the hazard mitigation plans that they've set out. Regardless of how detailed it is, there's always going to be an issue with something like this. You can't plan for everything, but I'm comfortable that the plan that's out there is going to mitigate what they can. And you mentioned the MUSE, but the reality of it is the two buildings that are closest to the power plant is Town Gate North, where I'm living, and the Marina Tower. So there's hundreds of people that are living right there. in the shadow of the stack. So it's got to come down. I think everybody there understands it's going to be not necessarily problematic, but it will be a monumental undertaking. But I am comfortable that we're going to do everything we can to make it right. and and to your point chair about opening the streets up there it will help the people that live in that area get into old town and you know 80 000 or whatever it was square feet of retail so we that live there can get there without driving right now we're kind of locked into you can use there's public transportation it's difficult to get to the dash there just because of the way it's configured yes you can ride a bike but if you've ridden a bike through that little area there I wouldn't recommend it right now it's not but again I think the city really needs to focus with the Park Service on how to reconfigure or do something with the Slaters intersection of the parkway. It is a bottleneck. It's almost impossible to get out of there in the afternoons from where I am to get across the Slaters. It's just one lane on the other side of the parkway to get to Route 1. traffic backs up on East and West Abington. It's not going to make it any better, but it's not something it's this is not the applicants issue. This is the city's issue. We've got to get this somehow straightened out to make that traffic flow through there because everybody's going to DC in the morning and then they're going home to Maryland through there in the afternoon. So we just watch them go both ways. That said, I support this 100%. I'm really glad that it's moving, and I look forward to seeing not just the new stuff coming in, but I really look forward to not seeing that power plant anymore. Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Harris.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank staff for all your work on this, and I want to thank the applicant for their thoughtfulness. I think it's a great design, and I want to thank the neighborhood residents who care what happens to their neighborhood and came here tonight to tell us that. My main comment is about Block A and about the arts uses. You know, it's really common in development projects for arts to kind of be, you know, It's in there at the beginning in the concept phase, and then money gets tight, and then it's penciled out because it's nice to have and not a have to have. But given that it is so important to the vision that we have for Old Town North, I just want to caution that I hope we don't get to that point. And I do understand that you can't build and hope the right tenant shows up. You need to find the right tenant first. But I do hope that that's an active process rather than just kind of hoping somebody comes in the door. But I'm excited about this project. I used to work at 1199 North Fairfax right next door and watch those coal cars go by in the late 90s. And so it's delightful to see this is going to be something else.

All right. Any other? Yes. Commissioner Ramirez.

I also wanted to voice my support. I'm excited about this project. I think the first time when this came up before us, I had voiced at that point that I was, first of all, impressed, second of all, very glad, and third of all, very optimistic about the fact that somebody is taking on this brownfield. Good God. This is no small feat. I would say overall I have no objection to the idea of this development, the progress for it, the delivery and the special use permits sought for of Blocks B and C. I did voice to staff a possible consideration perhaps of Block A that in the time that it's taking to find the right occupant to design around them that perhaps that spot could be a possible delivery for just public use for the time being once remediation is done, just as a way of, you know, welcoming the neighborhood into this new development while we wait. But I would also remind everyone that, you know, good stuff takes a lot of time. and there's a lot of progress that needs to happen. We've also heard a little bit here about the need for some infrastructure work by the city with our various agencies, regional agencies, to make sure that the infrastructure here benefits. We see that mutual benefit that happens at this development. It can't happen just from the developer side alone. They're delivering something that I think will be vibrant, very exciting, a much better, I would say, Polaris at this point than that god-awful power plant that's been sitting there. Oh, good God, I'm so excited to see it go away. I've biked by it so many times. I think every time I bike there, I always had a little prayer like, please let these joists not break below me. Or just being in the shadow of that plant. It's just, yeah, you know that the stuff is, you know that it's a brownfield. It's a brownfield. It's leaching into the ground. It's affecting our waterways. Seeing it go away, I think, is fantastic. But I think there's a little bit of work that needs to happen to make sure that the infrastructure that's there delivers a mutual benefit, I think, will bring this development to become an even better cornerstone here for Alexandria. And I do also agree, and I know that that's not necessarily in a way our jurisdiction as a planning commission. We're here for the land use. But the path that we get there for this development, for this land use, I think is of some consideration. A lot of neighbors living nearby, understandable. The mediation for that site is going to be a step-by-step process. This is where I would say I'm excited to see that there are two blocks. that are being worked on, little parts of it that are getting worked on. This is an experiment, step by step. That kind of diligence I think is a much better approach than a full bore across the site leveling that can have a much larger impact that is harder to reel back from. So I would encourage then a little bit more thought, a lot of patience, and I'm excited to see this move forward.

Well, I'd also like to thank staff. It's an amazing amount of work that you've all had to do on this. And in addition to everything else you do, this is such an important project. As you said, I lived at the MUSE for a few years, and my balcony looked right over PRGS. And I often sat out there and I thought, man, what an amazing opportunity for this 276-year-old city to have to redevelop these nearly 20 acres of waterfront property with these incredible sight lines. It's really extraordinary. I'd also like to make a compliment to the applicant, because one thing I learned living there is in the middle of the night, you hear all these weird noises, like bang and barking. What is that? And I walked my dog along the railroad tracks every day. And there were all these burrows underneath the fence. And I'm like, hmm, what is going on there? And one night, Buffy and I were walking on the railroad tracks late at night and looked ahead. And there's a fox frozen in fear, because Buffy is a big white husky. And I was like, oh, there are foxes in there. And I came to realize that those nearly 20 acres have essentially become a wildlife preserve in the middle of millions of people. It's really quite extraordinary. And the birds were, I grew cherry tomatoes on my balcony. And one day a cardinal found my cherry tomatoes and it just went berserk. It was screaming. It was so funny. And the next day there were many, many birds there, like screamed out to the neighborhood. I want to pay the applicant a compliment because I had brought to their attention the fact that there were all these wild animals living there and I suggested they take down the fence on the northern side of the property so the animals would have an opportunity to escape to Dangerfield Island rather than going to the south and of course meeting their maker in Old Town proper. And I had a meeting yesterday with Mr. Weier and some of the HRP people. And I was informed that they have hired a wildlife management person to come in and give advice about how to relocate the animals. And it's a little, little thing. But to me, it meant a lot. And it shows a lot of attention to detail that they're bringing to the project. And I really thank you guys very much, Melissa. Really very nice. Made me very happy to leave that meeting. Thank you.

All right. Any other final comments? Otherwise, motion making.

Madam Chairman, actually, I would just say very quickly that I concur with everything that my colleagues have said. We all recognize the magnitude of the challenge in terms of transforming this property from a What was for a long time a deeply dormant and it is now a completely extinct industrial behemoth and We've seen tonight and and seen through all the public meetings that there's a tremendous complexity to how to to what the process can be that Deconstruction ameliorates this site at the same time that we build a new quadrant of the city there And I think it's appropriate to commend both the staff and the applicant for having reached the point that they have with this and managed all of these challenges and be at this inflection point, as Mr. Weier has noted, between a very long period that goes all the way back to citizens trying to find a way to bring this power plant to closure through a tremendous quite a long time visualizing what could be there and bringing it to the end of its entitlements process and the verge of actually bringing it to life so I am completely in support of the project and at the point of making the motion here I would ask if we could return to this very complicated memo exchange that we've had over the last day or so and just verify where we are. So I'm looking at the staff's response to the applicant's memo related to these phasing requirements in the CDD amendments and would just ask if there's a simple resolution. Well, first, is there any level of agreement between the applicant and the staff on which set of modifications they would jointly recommend we approve? Or are there still points of contention?

There are still points of contention on several of them, as you can see the differences in the text. So if you want to walk through each one, we can.

Actually, what I would like to do is suggest that you walk us through and try to make some level of clarity about where we stand with these things and reach the level where we can actually make some sort of reasoned decision about which way to go on the ones that are still in contention.

Catherine Miliaris, and I can start to go through the memo and, of course, answer any questions. The first one you'll see Actually will apply to multiple conditions related to the phasing and that's because it will apply to each subsequent block But you can see the first what the applicant is proposing and then the staff edits are at the bottom of page one and our changes and that we are agree for excluding limited punch list items to the satisfaction of the director of P&Z and adhering to the landscape guidelines. These seem relatively technical in nature, but are more consistent with our policies. The biggest difference here is that the applicant is requesting that they have until 90% of residential COs to deliver the open space for each block in substantial completion. and staff can only support at 50% of residential COs, noting that our standard condition is really at the first certificate of occupancy that we get open space delivered.

Okay, so a couple of questions if I could. We're working from the staff's response memo here, not the applicant's memo, correct? Okay. And that was a nice summation of the actual text differences here. Can you frame the issue itself a little larger? What's of import here? How does it affect the applicant? And what kind of implications are there for going one way or the other?

I am going to refer to my colleague, Mr. M, regarding the timing of the COs. Sure.

Thanks. I think that when we look at the landscape construction that will be associated with parks, obviously that is a lengthy process all by itself. And when we look at the timing of the COs, we want to ensure that the parks are open when the residents are in occupancy in the buildings. At 50% CO, it would allow for any whoopsies, let's call it, to be resolved before we have full occupancy. If we wait until a 90% CO, our concern is that if there were any unanticipated occurrences, that might happen throughout the process that could delay the park opening past when we have full occupancy of the buildings. The sort of more technical and minor items as far as adhering to the landscape guidelines versus the planting seasons that the applicant has noted above or in their proposal. The landscape guidelines actually allow for staff to take a look at the planting seasons and when planting may be intended. We go through a pre-installation meeting with all applicants and developers for landscape and see what the timeframe for planting may be, and we are from the landscape guidelines allowed exceptions so we want to refer to the landscape guidelines as a whole to capture that ability to give exceptions to the strict planting seasons rather than referring only to the planting seasons as the text had above so we think that it actually is beneficial both to the city and applicants to refer to that in that manner um great

Okay. And actually, I think if we could, so that is staff's response to the first suggested change by the applicant. And I think that's a good explanation of the staff's position. Could we invite Mr. Weier to give us the applicant's perspective on that?

Their clarification, the parenthetical, we'll just agree with that and make it simple. The background of the 90% is not us versus you. The world is a little bit different. Today, investors read these conditions, and they're going to say, what are the barriers for me receiving full revenue for the site? And they're going to see this. And our concern is not that we won't deliver it as soon as possible. We have a coal power plant to deconstruct, overlapping the National Park Service and PEPCO power lines around us, and we're going to deliver it as soon as possible. There's a better than even chance that this condition is actually irrelevant. There's a scenario where it's not, which is if we're delivering the middle of winter, we have to sort of figure out the phasing. So ours is not philosophical with staff. Ours is financed and viability-based. So I think for ease of tonight, we'll take the parenthetical change from staff. We still want to work with them on the 50%. I don't think we're going to solve that here tonight. We'd like it to be higher, but I think that clarification just to keep us moving is a better spot, and we reserve the right to keep talking about it, if that's okay with you.

That's acceptable to us at this time

And sorry, Mr. Kennedy, my client just reminded me that 90% CO doesn't mean 90% occupancy. It's a subtle difference. So I don't think we're going to.

The significance of occupancy we are referring to.

Yes, sir.

Staff's understanding is that you'll keep the language of the staff recommendation, but we will be open to dialoguing with the applicant before council.

Much appreciated. Thank you.

So in the motion, we would actually essentially accept the staff's recommendation. Let's move on to the next one about implementation of a final design for your fund. Sure.

So, Mr. Kearns, could I put you on? You and I had a conversation. There's not a substantive disagreement here. There's an issue here with the trail connecting in a phase, and the last 8 to 10 feet of it, maybe the word interim might be better here. I don't think we have a substantive disagreement. Mr. Kearns can reflect our conversation we had literally about two hours ago.

The way that the applicant summarized it to me is they're willing to build the final condition for most of the trail. The piece, I'll call it a transition piece, that connects to the boardwalk at the bottom, they would like to do that in the grading and things would be in the final condition, but they want to put an interim surface down just to manage the transition until they build the boardwalk and future changes and build the grand staircase. So that's the work. And substantive agreement and all but that 10 feet.

Okay, so the question would be if applicant wants an interim connection so that they can use a different treatment so that they can update it and finalize it when the next phase comes through and connects, is staff okay with that?

I think it's a reasonable request.

Okay. So is the preferred approach here to use the word interim or is it really that it doesn't matter that that word's there at all because we're all in the understanding that the last 10 feet have to be like it's not going to be final perfect conditions like shiny new and then you have to actually manage that transition we would do that with any other kind of kathleen's going to read some language okay so to capture this um with an interim condition for a portion of the connection to the mountain

Sounds great. Thumbs up.

With an interim condition for a portion.

This is replacing the proposed term temporary.

Yep. Interim condition for a portion of the...

I think we'd like to also add to be finalized with the block B. Or with the... To be finalized during the final cycling process. That's fine. During the final cycling.

I'm not sure I transcribed. It's okay. It's okay. We got it. We have to the satisfaction of the director.

Yeah, you've got the director in there. The director can be dissatisfied.

And we understand the intent of it.

So the final condition for all but the last 10 feet. Yes. I'm going to work that out.

Mr. Keating, I'm going to save us 10 minutes of our lives. The next three conditions were in agreement with staff.

Okay. And what about 98 relative to noise mitigation internal to the buildings?

He's okay. It's okay. The applicant has agreed to that. To keep it warm out. We have another item.

I want to get to the point where I can at least pretend to understand part of what I'm voting on. OK. So in terms of the memo we have from, just to review real quickly one last time, the memo that we have from the staff, if I include this as part of the motion to approve what has been delineated in the staff's memo, what exceptions to the staff's memo as it stands do I need to acknowledge?

Just this.

And that is the interim condition for a portion of the...

Connection.

Connection.

Yep, because it's there. That's where it reads that. Yep. Okay. That's the only exception to the memo. Great.

Chairman McMahon, may I also make one clarification? Yes. There are several votes tonight that you'll be making, and for... Well, I'm sorry. For the CDD conditions that are in. The only one that's changing is the one in the CDD condition. They agree with staff otherwise. The last one, because there's no disagreement any longer, that was in the DSUP. But now that it's not being changed, I'm sorry that I spoke up. We're fine with that. Yep.

So that means that this memo is relevant only as we recommend approval of the CDD concept modification? That's correct. Okay. CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION 2026007 BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND DISCUSSION AT THE HEARING.

I'LL SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR KAENIG AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DUBAY TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0.

I move to recommend Council approval of Coordinated Development District Concept Plan 2025-00004 based on the staff report and the discussion at the hearings and inclusive of all of the staff's recommendations in their memo dated June 2, except for the final recommendation for Condition 98. I'm sorry, inclusive of that, yes. It just happens to be not relevant to the CD.

And with the edits to the language relating?

And with the edits to the language for the suggestion to Condition 30.1 relative to

Interim condition for a portion of the connection rather than the term temporary second Okay, I have a motion by Vice Chair candy and a second by Commissioner Linehan regarding the recommendation of approval for CDD 2025-0 0 0 0 4 all those in favor, please say aye aye opposed motion carries 7-0

I move to recommend council approval of DSUP 2025-10011, 2025-10012, 2025-10013, and 2025-10014 based on the staff report and the discussion at the hearings. I'll second that also.

All right. I've got a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Dubé for recommendations of approval for the four DSUPs. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0.

I move to recommend council approval of encroachment 2025-00-003 for the modified encroachment based on conformance with the master plan.

Second. All right. I have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Linehan to recommend approval of the encroachment. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. That brings us to docket item 10. Thank you.

Docket item number 10. Master plan amendment 2026-0001, housing 2040 plan, public hearing and consideration of a request for initiation of a master plan amendment and an amendment to the city's master plan to create the housing 2040 plan chapter replacing the 2013 housing master plan chapter. The applicant is the City of Alexandria Office of Housing.

How you doing? Hello.

Yeah, go on ahead.

Yeah, I know we've got some restroom break, but you can go. Yep.

Good evening chair, McMahon and members of the planning commission. My name is Tamara Yovavitch and I'm with the office of housing. I'm here tonight with part of the team that helped create the housing 2040 plan. Our acting director, Esposito polia and colleagues, Chris Doe, Mary Horner, Gypsy Roberts, Kim Cadena and Ryan Freed. Our esteemed former director, Helen McElvain is watching us online and we'd like to wish her happy birthday. There are many other hands and voices that were instrumental in bringing this plan to fruition in the Office of Housing, the Department of Planning and Zoning, the Department of Community and Human Services, the Health Department, and the Office of Climate Action, in addition to many boards and commissions, in particular the Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, different community groups, and a range of local stakeholders. We're here today to request the Planning Commission review and recommend adoption of the Housing 2040 plan, replacing the city's first Housing Master Plan. 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. I'll note we have over 350 new affordable units being delivered this year, another approximately 300 being preserved, and an additional 900-plus units anticipated in the following two years. Housing 2040 also advances several important topics in response to identified needs, and we'll get into detail when we reach our Housing 2040 goal discussion. Our presentation will briefly walk through the plan's process, guiding vision and principles, and resulting implementation recommendations and strategies. Housing 2040 positions us to collectively in partnership with the community and many, many partners tackle Alexandria's current and projected housing needs over the next 15 years. It will inform legislative priorities, small area plans, and the development of new financial and regulatory tools, as well as guide important housing programs, services, and investments over this period. has in 2040 represents a culmination of almost 2 years of interdepartmental collaboration and engagement. But our work is just starting phase 2 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 other priority implementation items. Our process was structured on three pillars, education to build a common language and understanding of housing issues, listening and learning from the community and our partners, and an iterative input and feedback loop that shaped and refined the plan's recommendations and strategies. With support from Virginia Housing and our local partners, engagement was low-tech and high-tech and strove to meet stakeholders in locations and in ways and at times that work best for them. It leveraged other city events to maximize awareness and participation. Key themes identified during this process will not come as a surprise. It's the high cost of housing in the city, the need for greater housing supply and diversity, fear of displacement and housing instability, housing quality issues, the attainability of homeownership, and the need for greater supports to support our condominium communities. A guiding vision and five principles chart our course forward. Housing 2040 envisions a future in which residents and workers of all incomes and ages and abilities and backgrounds have a place in our city and have access to healthy, safe, resilient, and affordable housing. Housing 2040's principles advance our housing values. They position us both for 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 housing market conditions. Our housing needs and community priorities established 10 goals, 10 driving forces for our work, several of which build off of the current housing master plan, while others undertake new topics relevant to our communities. Our first goal speaks to the importance of expanding and diversifying housing supply to help moderate increases in housing costs. and provide housing options for Alexandrians of different incomes and in different life stages across our neighborhoods. It recognizes the importance of continued innovation and continued exploration and commitment to look at 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 these community conversations, we did want to note that community members underscore the importance of continuing to provide the infrastructure and services needed to support new residential development. The fear of displacement was palpable through 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 property owners, housing advocates, and investors, broadens the concept of preservation to affordability, livability, and financial sustainability of both committed affordable housing and market affordable communities. Market affordable properties, or sometimes known as naturally affordable housing, are a vital source of affordability up to 60% of the area median income in the city. But their numbers fluctuate with market pressures. Such properties are also more likely to struggle with aging building systems, which translate frequently to higher utility and maintenance costs. As a result, Gold II pursues a range of approaches to preservation. This includes proactively working with committed affordable property owners to extend affordability with supporting smaller property owners, identify shared solutions to common maintenance challenges, and working collaboratively with market affordable property owners to maximize replacement of units in the case of redevelopment. Housing 2040 recognizes that each site, considering redevelopment, is unique. It's differentiated by its size, by its underlying level of density, level of affordability, small area plan recommendations, and other factors. The replacement of impacted units affordable up to 60% of the area median income will hinge on the availability of regulatory tools, and in the case of priority preservation sites, will also call for the strategic application of financial tools to preserve deeper levels of affordability. and leverage increasingly scarce state and federal resources.

Goal three focuses on tenant protections and resources for landlords and tenants. Over half of our households in Alexandria are renters, and there are seven recommendations that generally fall under one of the following themes. First, education, including the creation of multilingual educational materials. Two, legislation and legislative advocacy to increase tenant protections and enhance local authority. Eviction prevention and diversion, including continuing emergency rental assistance and expanded legal support for residents facing eviction and with habitability issues. Data tracking and infrastructure to improve how we analyze and utilize the data that we do have to be more responsive to resident concerns. Pursuing anti-displacement strategies, including developing a displacement risk index and establishing community preference policies for areas identified at high risk of displacement. And landlord and tenant support and engagement, including continuing our landlord and tenant mediation services and improving how we communicate with both landlords and tenants and the public more broadly.

Three out of four renters in the city, up to 60% of AMI 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 four builds on the current housing master plan with a focus on expanding housing opportunity and affordability in the housing market through our small area planning processes, regulatory incentives, by strengthening our public-private partnerships, including with the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority, and by exploring potential new financial tools to maximize the depth of affordability. I did want to speak just for a few moments on the challenge associated with creating those 40% AMI units. Deeper levels of affordability are truly essential to the vibrancy and economic resilience of Alexandria. We know that residents at 40% of AMI not only face housing cost burden, but also severe housing cost burden, which means that they're spending more than half of their income on housing. I did want to note, though, that the plan with intentionality recognizes that providing deeper levels of affordability is particularly challenging to finance and will require concerted effort involving public investment, public tools, public land, colocation of uses. And tapping into the greatest extent possible into state and federal resources, with also a good dose of creative thinking. The attainability of home ownership is slipping further out of reach for more and more of Alexandria's renters and workers, including the city's workforce and essential employees. Home values exacerbated by limited supply, compounded by home ownership related costs, interest rates, condominium fees, HOA fees, maintenance costs, continue to outpace income growths. Enhancing homeownership is as complex as rental housing, perhaps even more so because of the differences in funding sources. And it also involves both preparing aspiring homebuyers for homeownership, but also supporting the production of homeownership options at a variety of price points and sizes. This work led by our homeownership team, Gypsy Robertson and Elva Corker-Speltron, reveals that there really is no size one fits all response that you will hear from housing staff frequently. And it does require a layering of funding and down payment assistance combined with, again, more creative partnerships recommended in the plan.

Goal 6 addresses support for condominium communities. Nearly half of all of the city's homeownership units are structured as condominiums, and the average age of the condominiums are 45 years. The recommendations include continuing to build board capacity and understanding, particularly through education, legislative advocacy to expand state requirements, and exploring alternative approaches, including exploring new financial programs and partnerships to support condo communities.

Our city's experience pronounced changes in its age composition since 2010. Our population's median age has increased, and our share of residents 65 plus has outpaced all other age groups. In addition, approximately 7% of our residents have identified as having a disability or an impairment. Both serve as an indicator of potential housing insecurity and heightened housing need. Housing 2040, as part of this process, has benefited from the Council of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities and the parallel effort to update the Age-Friendly Plan led by the Commission on Aging. Building off of the input and feedback of these two bodies, Housing 2040 recognizes that supporting independence and dignity and quality of life requires, again, a range of approaches. No one size fits all. It recognizes the importance of different housing models and a continuum of options. So this ranges from extending support for aging in place to single floor living to assisted living and beyond. It also acknowledges the importance of resources facilitated by partnerships, in particular between the city and local organizations such as Senior Services of Alexandria and our affordable housing partners, as well as communities with higher concentrations of older Alexandrians, such as which I learned through this process means are naturally occurring retirement communities that are particularly concentrated in some of our condominium complexes. The bottom line is that the complexity and cost of providing senior housing with or without care warrants a variety of approaches and that many of them will involve enhanced collaboration and advocacy at the state level.

Goal 8 addresses housing quality, safety, and livability. Our sole recommendation is to support initiatives and programs that enhance housing quality and habitability standards, some of which include continuing to support the Healthy Homes Action Plan that's led by the health department, continuing to conduct the proactive residential rental inspections, and utilizing data and collaborating with other city departments to enhance landlord accountability.

Housing stability and economic mobility are deeply interconnected. When residents have access to jobs 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 those involved with economic mobility initiatives, as well as the city's mobility services. Goal 9 proposes new models be explored to support renters build savings and wealth through self-sufficiency counseling and retirement planning. And partnerships with affordable housing properties create opportunities to build credit scores by offering rent reporting to credit agencies. And our final goal weaves in sustainability and affordability. Sustainability plays an important role in advancing affordability and livability and health in our city. Over half of our housing stock is more than 40 years old. Aging housing communities, home to many of our lower income renters and homeowners with limited incomes, struggle with high water and energy usage. which naturally turns into higher bills. These various systems can have harmful impacts on living conditions, resulting in poor indoor air quality and mold, for example. Goal 10, a collaboration with the Office of Climate Action and developed with input from the Environmental Policy Commission, adopts a two-pronged approach, with the first supporting energy efficiency in existing housing, and the second continuing to advance green building practices and new construction as required by the recently adopted green building plan. Housing 2040's implementation strategy outlines actions, lead in supporting actors, propose 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. The committee tasked with monitoring the implementation of the city's housing master plan. along with three-year public reports and five-year check-ins with Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate the plan and housing conditions. Implementation progress will be tracked against indicators to be developed following adoption of the plan and posted on a new online dashboard. Our implementation plan is ambitious, but reflective of the interdisciplinary nature of our work and the breadth of partnerships involved in moving housing 2040 forward. One of our immediate priorities for FY27 will be the development of affordable housing production and preservation targets. These targets, grounded in current and projected need, existing resources, as well as the potential generated by future new tools and public-private partnerships, will help channel resources and investments over the medium and longer term. 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, and kick-starting conversations with the state to explore financial vehicles to support capital improvements in our common interest communities. With this, staff recommends Planning Commission initiate a master plan amendment and adopt a resolution amending the city's master plan to adopt the Housing 2040 plan. This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Manner.

First off, thank you for the presentation. It's clear you guys have, well, I won't say it that way. Just you've worked very hard on this. Thank you. You said that you incorporated lessons learned from the 2013 plan. So I'm just curious about what those were specifically.

Absolutely. So one of the lessons that we learned is that while the 2013 plan addressed key priorities at the time that those priorities can change over time. And I think that's what we've also we've drawn that forward here with the three-year reports and then the five-year check-ins with planning commission and city council because we do know that the markets can change. I think in our some of our two on two briefings right we noted that the pandemic happened who would have predicted right that we would have had to have um created a rental assistance program within the span of a couple within the span of a couple of months we also learned that that there was a need for greater regulatory tools so as part of the housing master plan process we created the rmf zone that was a result of the south patrick housing affordability strategy the original plan i think assume that section 7 700 would be adequate to meet all of our all of our needs and when we realized that in order to preserve a valuable housing resource that had deeply affordable units that we needed to to kind of push the envelope and help to expand our tools i think we're also hoping to continue to look at our financial tools over the longer term to see you know how we can continue to use city resources to leverage you know state and other federal funding sources okay great thank you

Other questions for staff? I have a question for staff, which is a bit of a tangent, but I just want to pull in an observation we heard on the last docket item, just to get your sense of how the master plan looks at the concepts. I'm not sure if you were physically in the room for that question, but basically, What we heard was the concern that building 100% affordable buildings was problematic based on the literature and sort of evolution of thinking about how we build, how we get the most equitable communities possible. And that mixed income development that merges households of different incomes into the same building, I guess, but there's probably a broader way to define that, is preferred. But I found that if I think about how we get our affordability when we're talking about market rate development with affordable development inside it, it's always just like a sprinkling of units. But then when we have these development partnerships that create a quote unquote all affordable building, we get a heck of a lot more units. We're seeing this in our Landria right now, right? Like we have to, there's something about the economics of this that seems to be like it's going to keep being a problem. So I was hoping that you could talk a little bit about our current philosophy on that, but also how does this plan help us address that concern in the longer term?

Sure. So we look at communities holistically, right? When I don't define a community as being one building, I don't define it as being one block either, right? So and because of the complexity of financing affordable housing projects, when one needs to have a one needs to have public private partnerships that can fund an individual building that's not to say that there isn't benefit in creating affordable set aside units in in properties as well but we do we do look at community as multi-block neighborhoods right in which residents are interacting whether they're going to the grocery store whether they're sharing the same public public spaces right and going to the same public schools so I think you kind of need you need both you need both approaches and again because of how challenging it is to produce affordable housing you typically need a certain amount of scale in order to produce units in particular units at deeper levels of affordability so that's kind of where the PPPs in particular come into play yep and the fact that our current suite of policies includes

ways that we ask development to set aside money that we then use in investing in some of those larger projects correct so the voluntary monetary contributions help us leverage low-income housing tax credits and other state and federal funding sources yeah okay um thank you for that UM I DID HAVE IT'S PROBABLY IN THERE IT UM BUT I DID WANT TO NOTE I APPRECIATE WHEN I ASKED YOU EARLIER IN A BRIEFING THAT THIS PLAN DOES NOT HOLD THE TARGETS WE WILL SEE THE TARGETS THEY WILL COME LATER AND THAT WILL BE EXCITING TO THINK ABOUT I DON'T KNOW I'M A PERSON WHO LIKES GOALS SO LIKE HAVING HAVING NUMBERS TO AIM FOR FEELS GOOD BUT UM I'M CURIOUS IF YOUR SENSE IS THAT WHEN WE'RE SETTING THOSE, THERE ARE SOME MORE RECENT REGIONAL PLANS, PROJECTIONS OR AGREEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO INFORM THOSE TARGETS AS WELL. BEYOND JUST WHAT WE, WHAT OUR GOALS ARE. BECAUSE WHAT I RECALL IN THE FORMULATION OF THE LAST MASTER PLAN WAS IT REALLY ALSO DID COME OUT OF REGIONAL DISCUSSIONS HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT WAS PARTLY HOW WE FORMULATED WHAT OUR TARGETS WOULD BE. IS IT SIMILAR THIS TIME AROUND TOO AND WE HAVE THESE OTHER documents that we'll be referring to and other commitments to the region that we have to take into account.

So with the with the 2013 plan that those numbers were based on housing needs, but also sort of the available resources that the city had projected being available over the time frame of the plan. The regional housing initiative goal kind of came into play roughly seven to eight years later. So we've had these sort of two parallel tracks that we've been that we have been tracking against. Ideally, moving forward, we'd be able to merge those because I think from a transparency and communication standpoint, I think it's easier to have one set of goals. Again, we are going to be taking kind of a comprehensive look at what that strategy is. I don't think that we've refined our approach, but it is looking at current need, projected need based on the quantitative housing needs assessment. looking at how our sister jurisdictions have approached it i i will admit that we have not gone through that exercise yet but the regional housing initiative currently looks through 2030. so i don't i would imagine that the region through the council of governments is going to be um updating updating those goals conveniently time to not occur when we need numbers yes to start with but okay um all right thank you

That's it for my questions. Anyone else have questions for staff before we open public hearing? OK. Oh, are we? We're not in public hearing. Yeah, we haven't done a public hearing. I was just asking them some clarifying questions.

Actually, I think I'll hold my observations for later.

OK. All right. Let's do the public hearing.

Our first speaker is Michael Schuster, followed by Melissa Kanin. Michael Schuster might be online.

Yes, I'm here. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Sorry. Good evening, Chair McMahon and Planning Commission. My name is Michael Schuster. I'm the co-chair of the Alexandria Commission on Aging. We support the Housing 2040 plan, particularly Goals 3 and 7, promoting tenant protections and affordable housing options for older adults, respectively. Let me start by putting the issue of affordable housing for older adults Alexandrians in Context. The percentage of Alexandria residents over the age of 65 grew by 60% between 2010 and 2023, from 12,300 to 19,800 residents. These numbers will expand significantly. According to the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, or the JLARC, more than 600,000 Virginians are projected to be 80 years of age or older by 2040, the end date of this plan. As the plan notes, dealing with this increasing older population with various physical needs and price points, the solutions for addressing older Alexandrians' desire for appropriate affordable homes will take creative policies and a long time. Although the Commission on Aging has long supported a fixed income affordable assisted living facility in Alexandria, like the one in McLean, Chesterbrook Residences, we know that the financial resources to purchase a suitable location in Alexandria and having sustaining funds to operate such a facility take creative financing in time. The Commission will continue to advocate for such a facility. We will focus on more achievable improvements beginning in 2027. Thus, the Commission has supported an incremental approach. Here are some of the proposals we hope both the Housing 2040 Plan and the City will endorse and pursue in the coming years. First, an increase in the Exhortive Grant, which is approximately $2,500 per month in Northern Virginia. And this is the only funding for public funding for assisted living in the Commonwealth. Second, a comprehensive study on adult housing options and services allowing older individuals to age in their communities. JLARC, which I mentioned before, is already conducting a study on in-home and residential congregate care services for aging Virginians, including developing options for expanding the availability of services for older Virginians and the potential of expanding them through a Medicaid waiver scheduled for release in either this year or 2027. And then third legislation, expanding Medicaid waivers for both in-home services and assisted living. And then finally, the promotion of universal design policies and incentives to support all of us as we age, such as expanding the Virginia livable home tax credit. And this has been a priority in our age-friendly plan. This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Housing 2040. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Melissa Kanin, followed by Becca Berger.

I think I can answer some of your questions. Good evening again. I'm Melissa Cannon. I live at 525 Montgomery in Old Town North. We've seen the effects of density, bonus density, that realize many more affordable units within a neighborhood that normally would not be able to afford to build them. for-profit development is important to provide these additional units because they don't normally build in less expensive neighborhoods. So it becomes more striated, unfortunately, as time goes by. My concern is that all of our implementation tools are kind of moving us in an opposite direction. The CAUs that are in For-profit or nonprofit buildings are normally one and two bedrooms, and the population of the city is growing in terms of larger families, and so larger units are going to be necessary. Developers don't voluntarily provide larger units or ownership opportunities unless they're required to build CAUs within their buildings. not somewhere else. So cash contributions tend to put the, in lieu of onsite units, gives the developers the opportunity to just give the city money so they don't have to add affordable units to their for-profit buildings. And the city has to bear the responsibility of gathering all of these contributions, finding land, finding partners to build a building that's all affordable, that ends up, whether it's for 30% to 80% AMI, in a less expensive neighborhood. So again, we're having a dichotomy here where we have low-income neighborhoods with all affordable housing, and it becomes an income-identifiable neighborhood as opposed to units that are in for-profit buildings that are spread throughout the rest of the city. That's a really important point that I think that needs to be corrected, because 7700 gives developers the opportunity to give either a cash in lieu of units in the buildings, or they even have an option to not provide, where's the language, off ramp, allowing developers to avoid providing units altogether if a consultant claims market conditions have changed. So then they get bonus density, and they don't even have to provide the units. So I think it's really important that we align our goals with the goals of Housing 2040, which is to create more mixed-income neighborhoods and provide affordable housing across the entire city. You can't do that if it's all affordable units in one area and a scattering of other CAUs. It has to be citywide. Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Our next speaker is Becca Derrert, followed by Marsha Rea. Becca?

Hello. Hello, we can hear you. Thank you. All right, good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Becca Deter. I am, excuse me, let me hold up my hand. I serve as the Virginia Housing Advocacy Specialist for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. We want to thank the City for its thoughtful work on the Housing 2040 Plan, urge for its adoption, and provide recommendations to facilitate its implementation. As a fellow member of the Commonwealth Housing Coalition, our recommendations strongly align with those of Voices. On goal number two. We commend the city's commitment to prioritizing the preservation of both market rate and subsidized affordable housing. In addition to the strategies listed under recommendation four of goal two, we recommend the city utilize additional bonus densities for transit accessible sites, lot size reductions, dimensional and form modifications, floor area ratio increases and reduced parking ratios to further incentivize one for one replacement of affordable units. The housing shortage is experienced most severely by those at 60% AMI and below, and we agree with the need to prioritize the creation of these subsidized homes by leveraging all possible financial tools. With this in mind, we urge the city to maximize its bonding authority and debt capacity to deploy at least 50 million towards the affordable housing pipeline. Alexandria's existing funding cannot cover our current affordable housing pipeline, let alone the other excellent strategies outlined in this plan. Many recommendations throughout the plan reference prioritizing housing near transit and streamlining the development process. With the enactment of new state housing legislation, Alexandria has the opportunity to be a leader in leveraging these new tools and processes to pursue its Housing 2040 goals. In compliance with the new faith and housing legislation, the city will create a by-right ordinance for the development of affordable housing on faith-owned and property tax-exempt land. We urge the City to take full advantage of this legislation by maximizing minimum densities on sites adjacent to transit areas in its ordinance. This ordinance development process could also go hand-in-hand with new powers granted under HB 594 to create an expedited buy-right process to build affordable housing of all kinds. Both of these laws could allow Alexandria to optimize hard-sought public dollars by eliminating regulatory gridlock and facilitating transit-oriented development. The Housing 2040 plan is a historic opportunity to set a regional benchmark for housing access and equity. We call on the Commission to recommend adoption and to pursue tools to facilitate the most effective implementation of its goals. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Marcia Rea, followed by Betsy Fava. Marcia Rea?

Yes, here we go. Thank you. I'm Marcia Rea. I'm the Housing Team Co-Chair for Voice in Alexandria. In our almost 20 years organizing in Alexandria, Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince William Counties, Boyce has advocated for homes for all. We are pleased to see the plan reflect our priorities in goal one on supply, goal three on tenant protections, and goal four on creating affordable rental housing. And we agree with the many good ideas reflected in other goals. This is a good plan and we urge its approval. This bold plan will be a lot for Alexandria to accomplish even in 15 years. We need a strong start that matches the urgency of our housing needs and takes full advantage of current opportunities. Boyce urges the city to take two action steps. We should set the gold standard when we write the ordinance to implement the faith and housing legislation. Alexandria has several projects that have proven to Virginia that faith institutions are important partners in building affordable housing. Another new law grants local governments the discretion to create a by-right pathway for all affordable housing. Since the processes for faith and housing and this law would be quite similar, Alexandria should write one ordinance to expedite all affordable housing projects. Second, Alexandria has a pipeline of projects this Commission and the City Council have approved, but our current funding sources are not sufficient to help them in their search for funding. Reading this plan from cover to cover, I tried to imagine how much more money we will need to realize all these good ideas. Voice is urging Alexandria to take a hard look at using its bonding capacity to infuse new revenue into these plans. We aren't experts, but our research does suggest we might have options Alexandria hasn't yet considered. We're asking city council members to examine this possibility. This 2040 housing master plan will only guide our future if we do the hard work today to find the resources to execute it. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners. I'm Betsy Fayga and am speaking as an Alexandria resident in support of the housing 24 plan Housing has been a passion of mine since our church built the spire affordable housing apartment building on Beauregard Street on the West End but since then I've become engaged and I'm a member of the Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, and also a voice, and you just heard from Marcia, Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement. So you won't be hearing a lot different from me, only a recommitment to the things that are being said by my colleagues. And I know the co-chair of AHAC is going to be speaking with you in just a few minutes. but first i do want to commend the staff for the work that has been done when you do compare this plan with 2013 plan the amount of time and i've attended a number of the work sessions and survey completed surveys they have gone above and beyond and the hours that have been spent in analyzing all the community input and writing this document is just beyond imagined to me. And it encompasses an ambitious and holistic approach. The challenges that face us certainly are real. And this is really talking to the supply. I was stunned when the Alexandria, Housing Alexandria's executive director recently told us that Sansei, the first building in the our Landria Chirilagua project, open for applications for just the first 206 units. The wait list now is 3,900 people on that wait list, including 679 households that fall in the neighborhood preference policy. I am delighted to see in the plan the intention to set targets and indicators to monitor and evaluate the progress following adoption of the plan. And you've already heard mention of that intention by the staff. Both AHAC and VOICE certainly have urged development of these concrete measurements. And then, as you've already heard, the need for the funding and some creative thinking around the funding. And the plan also talks about proactive planning and investment and exploring new financial tools. We know that there is a backlog already in funding the projects that have been approved and what will be the desire of developers to present new plans if there aren't already monies available, or at least in the foreseeable future. So we urge the approval of the plan and the ability to get started on meeting those needs. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Allgood, followed by Elliot Waters. James Allgood.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

My name's Good. I live on the West End. I'm opposed to the 2040 after housing plan. And I'll just go through a series of comments and questions here to help explain that. For example, goal number one is to expand the housing supply to meet the city's current and future housing needs. So how much current and future housing does the city need? How many more housing units do we need? So given the city has a finite capacity, about 15.2 square miles in revenues and other limitations, to accommodate its citizens, what is a sustainable population size for Alexandria? And I'll offer you a working definition of a sustainable population size. That would be one in which the city is able to ensure its citizens' quality of life at least is maintained, but ideally improved over time. You know, you think about how we go from generation to generation, we want our kids to have it better than we had it. I think the same approach applies to the city. We want for future generations, future inhabitants of Alexandria, we want their quality of life to be at least as good as this has been for us. But ideally, it's better. So Once the city and planning commission, especially you, this doesn't just apply to housing. This is the city writ large. It impacts anything and everything that the city does. What's a reasonable mix of housing accommodations once we've got that identified population size? So apartments, condos, single family homes, ADUs, you name it. What's so important about that is, if you overload it with renters who later want to buy, and there's not enough housing to be bought, you just create problems downstream. And people want to move away. So there's a balance that's needed. There's analysis that's needed to help identify the right mix of housing that is needed for the city. And again, if you don't know what that overall population size is, it's pretty hard to say what the total housing needs are. so that's that's just step number one for that finally once you have that knowledge and all the other things that have been talked about in by the other speakers and in the presentation that's about how do we make this more affordable and there are lots of good ideas out there everybody wants to live in more affordable housing wherever you are on that scale unless you're up there with the the billionaires and all, I guess. But, you know, most people just want more affordable housing. So I leave with those questions. And the bottom line to me is if expanding housing reduces the quality of life for citizens, then the city needs to take a different way ahead. And so far, what I've seen in the last 20 years is overcrowded schools, constricted roadways, understaffed law enforcement, reduced hospital capacity. We're going to have a new hospital that has 27% less capacity than the current hospital we have. So I'll give.

OK.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Ellia Waters, followed by John.

Good evening. My name is Elliot waters and I live on the West end. I'm here this evening to offer enhancements to the 2040 housing plan as a stakeholder. The plan has a strong vision, but it lacks clarity and specificity in giving hope in the midst of a looming affordability crisis, not only here in Alexandria, but in other parts of Virginia. It is in draft form. It does not include specific numbers, deadlines, or accountability needed to ensure our most vulnerable can live in Alexandria. To truly deliver equity and accessibility, this plan should adopt a smarty framework popularized by the management center in the District of Columbia. Specifically, I urge you to write four clear fixes into this plan. Fix purposeful harmful mistakes. Include a right to return provision by a date certain. to address the effects of sanctioned housing policies and practices that favor one group over another, resulting in documented harm during the 1930s and throughout the 60s. Fixed production targets to build affordable housing for the low-income wage earners among us with city subsidies. Fixed protections for all, especially our working families and individuals like our bus drivers. bank tellers, medical assistants, and teachers among us so that they too can afford housing in the range of 50 to 60 percent AMI. Fix the preservation of human dignity more fully by prohibiting inhumane evictions. Fully fund a program by a date certain that guarantees free legal help to low-income renters facing eviction. Now, we hear that Virginia's Dillon Rule stops us from making action deemed just. I believe that we, the people at home in Alexandria, should not use state restrictions as an excuse for inaction. While the Dillon Rule stops us from making private developers build affordable units, it does not stop us from wisely using the powers we already have over our local zoning codes, our city budget, and our public land. We can legally overcome the debilitating effects of the Dilling rule and use it to motivate us to maximize voluntary density bonuses for developers, dedicate our local housing trust funds to deep affordability tiers, and push strategic income rules on surplus city land as well. In closing, we the people in Alexandria deserve a housing plan that promotes our general welfare by addressing affordability, accessibility, and livability more fully with pragmatic creativity like some other entities in this great land of ours, the United States of America. Thank you for listening, and thank you for your service.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Jonathan Paul, followed by the final speaker Sean Zalenbach.

Planning Commission, thank you for hearing me. I'm Jonathan Krall. I'm with Grassroots Alexandria. First, I commend city staff for their work and for meeting with us in Grassroots Alexandria and with our allies and African communities together. We had several meetings with city staff on this. I feel the plan includes many helpful and important goals that will at least somewhat mitigate the housing crisis that exists in Alexandria and across the United States. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT NEED TO WORK MORE THAN ONE WHOLE TIME JOB TO LIVE IN DIGNIFIED HOUSING. AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE THAT PROBLEM THAT THEY DO HAVE TO WORK MORE THAN ONE JOB. TO STRENGTHEN TENANT PROTECTIONS, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ADVOCATE FOR STATE LEVEL REFORMS. GOAL THREE, RECOMMENDATION TWO. WE SHOULD GATHER DATA ON BAD FAITH BUT STILL LEGAL PRACTICES SUCH AS EVICTION OR LEAST NONRENEWABLE non-renewal without good cause, excessive fees, misleading or excessive utility billing, misleading or non-transparency applications or leases, failure to work with non-English speaking tenants. These are a number of things which are legal but should not be. And they're aspirational. They're in the section where we talk about what we will advocate at the state level. Our suggestion is that we use these aspirational goals to guide the data that we collect under Goal 3, Recommendation 5, so that the data we collect will support our advocacy. So, be a little more specific about how we're collecting data. The second one is we ask that data also be organized to develop a public-facing good landlord registry. based on the absence of these or other specified complaints it's possible that goal 8 recommendation 1c which suggests recognizing responsible landlords could serve this function we would like it to specify that it will produce public facing reports accessible to the public Finally, I ask that the goals in the plan for affordable housing, I'm less specific here, but to support what everybody else is saying, that for the future we need more deeply affordable housing to avoid displacing people in our working class neighborhoods. And finally, I'll say that I support the ideas, particularly financial ideas, mentioned by the Coalition for Smarter Growth and by VOICE. So my specific three things are be more specific about how we collect data, have public-facing reports about landlords, and stronger on deeply affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Our final speaker is Sean Zielenbach.

Good evening. And thanks for sticking it out for so long. My name is Sean Zielenbach. I'm the co-chair of AHAC. Speak right into the mic. Sorry. I'm Sean Zielenbach. I'm the co-chair of AHAC. And I want to echo most of the comments we've gotten so far already. And the Office of Housing has done a fabulous job putting this together. uh this is not easy um i think we all recognize that and everyone has come up with a number of potential solutions uh i come to you with really just a couple of critiques about the plan that um i mean you may be able to help with certainly city council can help with One issue is, as people have noticed, there's a lack of very tangible benchmarks. We've brought that up to the Office of Housing. They have agreed going forward that that needs to be addressed, and they have committed to do so by the end of the calendar year. The more pressing issue is that we currently have 1,300-plus affordable units in the pipeline that have received the commission's approval, that have received city council's approval, but are essentially in a state of purgatory because they don't have the resources to move them forward. And I realize this isn't necessarily the commission's responsibility on this, and I realize that there are sort of issues that go beyond the city. But we as a city need to figure out ways of coming up with more capital, more flexible capital, to move these projects forward. And the... The Housing 2040 plan has identified a number of options. We have been speaking with various members around the city and city council about the options of new bonding, additional bonding authority, partial or entire tax abatements, a reduction in fees, and a number of other things. What I'm pushing for you all and just want to leave you all with is the idea that particularly given this era in which we're not getting the federal funding we used to be getting, we're not sure what sort of dollars are going to be available, we need to think far more creatively in terms in how we are going to move these projects forward. And it's particularly critical because people talk about population trends in the city. The city is losing population in the 25 to 34-year-old age group. That's the future of the city. That's the economic future of the city. It's the fiscal future of the city. If we can't keep these people here, and they're leaving because things are unaffordable, I urge the commission and the council just to be thinking about how we can, on the margins, make affordable housing more viable. That could be thinking differently about land uses. That could include thinking about air rights over properties. How can we do this? And we're happy to help however we can.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to close the public hearing I have a motion by Commissioner Harris and a second by Commissioner man all those in favor. Please say aye aye Opposed motion carries 7-0 and that brings us to Commissioner discussion No one's gonna, I know it's late, and the plan is big.

oh okay that's terrific commissioner ramirez um i'll i'll just say first uh i know a lot of hard work went into developing this plan um i'm excited that there is a new plan here um that we're embarking on a new documentation at least right um 13 years after the last iteration I like the kind of checkpoints that we've set in here for the every five, was it every three, every five year, three year reports to track progress, five year check-ins to evaluate the plan. I think that's a much better kind of near-term check on the relevance of the document that we put together. I do not disagree, however, that the comment regarding having some tangible benchmarks, wanting to see, you know, it's, I like the goals, I like the overall plan, but seeing how it can be really truly applied and tangible manifestations in to come to and how we address the housing issue in the city. I think that's yet to be seen. The other question also that I had or thing that I want to highlight was that there were several mentions through the document about raising the awareness of resources that may be available for residents. I'm curious to know what that will look like eventually. I'm hoping that that's going to be somewhere integral to the dashboard, but I know that we've also mentioned before or commented before just trying to find easier ways for our residents to be able to get access to information. It can be hard for some folks to navigate through website if you don't know where to search for something How do you how you find it? I think that's a that's a problem in communication that I know that the city has the resources has the brainpower to be able to tackle and I hope that will make it a little bit easier path for for our residents and future Alexandrians to know the resources that are available to support them in living in our city. And that's it for me.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Manor. On that note, how much information is there available in Spanish, for instance, on the city's website about this?

So the Office of Housing translates its Housing Resource Guide, which is its most widely distributed publication. It summarizes housing services and programs offered by our office, Department of Community Services, Office of Human Rights. So that's in Spanish, Amharic, Dari, Pashto, and Arabic. We also have our Housing Options Guide that's translated in those same languages. I will say that the city's e-news, though, now has built-in translation capabilities Through our engagement processes, we also made sure to offer interpretation. I will say that with the current climate, it has been more challenging, I think, for some individuals to attend our meetings in person. However, we've also, our landlord-tenant team in particular, has been working through trusted partners to engage residents in smaller, more focused conversations. People are afraid to go out.

Correct. Correct.

But we've been working really closely with Office of Communications and Community Engagement, learning from best practices, and some of the work that our sister departments have been doing, in particular the health department, to really get our information out as much as possible in an accessible format. And I know the Lindler tenant team is also going to be working on different formats to expand understanding of leases and rights. And Mary can speak more articulately to this work.

That's fantastic. Thank you.

Commissioner Linehan and then Commissioner Dube.

I'll just say quickly again appreciation for all the hard work. I also like to recognize the breadth and ambitiousness of the plan, that it seems to make an effort to cover so many different groups of people whom you recognize as being vulnerable to having housing issues and affordability issues. So that's heartening. I think you mentioned how to get to people who are now struggling to potentially connect with you because of the current climate and the effort to get over that. I mentioned it before. I love seeing the signs with all the languages on them. So I appreciate that inclusiveness. So thank you. Commissioner Dubé.

Thank you. I just, again, thanks to staff. It's been quite an undertaking to get this to where we are, and we're moving towards that approval. So I just want some of the comments tonight about changing and evolving the plan and understand as a plan, this is a living document, and you guys will consistently be reviewing and looking at things that you could change or add to it, and I think that's an important point. real quick a couple of the goals seven seven and eight in particular building those partnerships across the city whether it's city agencies or non-city agencies to let people stay at home and be safe at home and to make them livable as they age i think that's a great thing to do and the partnerships are there it's just it's just trying to put them all together i'm sure that's a big challenge and finally the gold six about the condos you mentioned the amount of condos in the city and there's a lot more in the pipeline and with the condos that being converted from office buildings some assistance to those new condo boards is critical especially in the reserve part of it as as we found out and some others that I've talked to have found out where the developer is transitioning to the HOA board to take over and this is a new board and they they don't have a a really good grasp of especially the reserves that they need and they find out they're really short which leads to pretty incredible hoa fee increases the first two or three years of the hoa board taking over so that focus is is critical with the amount that we have in the city and i just thank you for putting it in there thank you

Vice Chair Koenig.

Thank you, Chair. Just add my appreciation for the scope of the effort, the incredible work and both creative and pragmatic thinking that's gone into building this plan and look forward to it going forward. And just take another opportunity that I've done at these previous fora to appreciate the fact that there's now a Goal 10 dedicated to sustainability and the fact that among all the other things that you're already doing, the plan sort of structurally now structurally recognizes the importance of clean and sustainable and efficient, not clean in the sense of, but operationally efficient and energy efficient and sustainable architecture as a way of kind of maintaining and sustaining resilience and quality of life for folks. And also that it means that among all the work that you're doing, it's now consciously connected into the other realms where this attempt to get high performance architecture is going on. And I think the fundamental piece here, as we've talked about a lot of times here, we deal primarily with new construction. And the green building plan deals primarily with new construction, and that's about 1% of the problem. And you all deal every day with aging buildings and existing buildings. So the transformation of that whole extensive building stock has to begin in earnest at some level of scale reasonably soon, or we're just going to be forever behind the curve that we're already way behind on. So the fact that it's now integral to all the things that you're doing gives me confidence that as you get more specific about how you're actually going to pursue that, it will be of meaningful assistance to the overall effort to improve the dependability and the resilience of architecture for everybody.

I WANT TO START MY COMMENTS BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE INTERESTING QUESTION WE GOT TONIGHT ABOUT WHAT IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF HOUSING IN ALEXANDRIA. I'LL REFRASE THAT TO WHERE I GO WITH A QUESTION LIKE THAT. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE OF ALEXANDRIA LOOK LIKE? In my experience, which is not the longest experience of all the people who've been in this room tonight, who are still in this room tonight, there is no one number. There's no right number. You can do math and you can cut up the physical geography of Alexandria, but we are in a city that's hundreds of years old today. And it's going to be hundreds of more years old in hundreds of more years. And there will probably still be a city here, barring some disasters we don't have to get into tonight. There will be something here. And it won't look anything like what we have today. And hundreds of years after that, if we're lucky enough to continue to have a civilization, it will still look nothing like it does today. And we can... As every generation makes that progress forward, we will mourn the changes of the things that we loved from the past, and we will celebrate the things that we love in the future. But we won't be able and we won't want to keep it exactly like it was in the past. Just like today, we have conversations about what from the past we want to keep and what from the future do we want to take so that we can have a community that fits us as we are today. And so I don't expect the housing staff to know what the right amount of housing is today And I don't expect a plan like this to say how much is the right amount forever? But I also express appreciation we heard from several speakers tonight that there is an Imperative to provide some specificity around what we're doing between now and the end of the timeline of this plan So the plan as we're seeing it tonight is excellent and But it's not done yet, as you've said. And we're never done. But one of the key steps out of creating a master plan is creating the information that allows for implementation to happen efficiently and effectively. We had listed for us several key urgent items that relate to the vision of this plan and the idea that things such as addressing unfair evictions and evictions just generally and what they do to our society differentially impacting folks, that those are things that we just have to explicitly tackle head on. And I think that this plan sets the framework for that, but it's not doing that yet. And so I just want to acknowledge that this plan doesn't do it yet. This plan tells the community and society in the region WE'RE GETTING READY TO DO IT, WE THEN JUST HAVE TO ACTUALLY DO IT. SO THE KINDS OF CODE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY STATEMENTS FROM COUNCIL AND SO ON HAVE TO EMBODY HOW WE'RE TAKING THOSE STEPS TOWARD KEY VISION ELEMENTS THAT WE SEE IN THIS MASTER PLAN. I APPRECIATE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON DATA THAT WE and how we measure and understand performance. Because we're going to see targets set, and then we're going to have to track performance. But I think it's important to acknowledge that the performance of this plan is no longer just numbers of units by levels of affordability. We have a lot of other stuff in this plan that we have to track. And I really liked that idea of having a dashboard that relates to landlord accountability and trustworthiness and creates a tool for transparency. I'm not saying that the city will necessarily be able to create that, but to the extent that those tools already exist in our society and we use them in different ways, we use them to source manufacturing fairly across the world, we use tools like that to help people make better choices. And so to the extent that we collect data, you make it open, you make it transparent, you let other people visualize it, and you create tools to expose wrongdoing and to expose bad behavior and to elevate the folks who are actually doing things right. And hopefully with that exposure, those folks doing things right can benefit from the work that they've put into doing it right. Exactly. I also want to call out that in the data that comes out of this plan and in the testimony we've heard tonight, that we see a plan that has to balance the needs of a growing senior population and a declining young professional population. And that's tricky, right? Because I'm not sure that those needs are the same. But to the point that Mr. Schuster made, universal design is a piece of that, right? Because we don't have to think about just providing housing for seniors, housing for a point in time when we get old, but how do we continue to evolve our expectations of housing development so that we don't have to be in a specific place when we get old, but in fact many of the places in the community will support us aging in place. And then as young professionals hoping that it's affordable, not only can they decide to grow a family in Alexandria, but they don't have to decide to move out when they become empty nesters or move out because they can no longer afford to maintain or live in the unit that they have. I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE INFUSION OF CASH THAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS PLAN A REALITY. WE HEARD THAT A LOT TONIGHT. AND I THINK THE PLAN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT TOO, RIGHT? AND IT'S JUGGLING, EXPOSING THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPROACHES WE CAN TAKE. AND PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T DEVELOP POLICY AROUND FUNDING THINGS, RIGHT? BUT WHAT WE SEE ARE PROJECTS THAT COME TO US AS A RESULT. CREATIVE FUNDING PACKAGES AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW STAFF WORK WITH COUNCIL ON ELEVATING THAT NEED TO A PLACE WHERE SOMETHING NEW COMES OF IT AND THAT WE ACTUALLY CAN MAKE THE PIE BIGGER, WHICH IS HARD IN THIS PARTICULAR ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW. LASTLY, I WANT TO OBSERVE THAT AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, ONE OF THE KEY SORT OF OMISSIONS OF THE MASTER PLAN BY ITS NATURE IS ADDRESSING THE CONFLICTS THAT WE SEE WITH THE POLICY TOOLS THAT ARE IN USE TODAY THAT DEVELOPERS CAN USE TO DECIDE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THEIR PROJECTS. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS WE KNOW WE HAVE MULTIPLE TYPES OF TOOLS, WHETHER IT'S THE AFFORDABILITY WE GET THROUGH REZONING INCREASES IN DENSITY OR THE SECTION 7700 They don't all do the same thing. They don't all generate affordability at the same magnitude. And sometimes a single property can decide which tool it wants to use and which tool is going to make it the cheapest to provide something that can pass muster for under policy and through council approval. So sometimes we don't get the choice that we want in the application, but it's a choice that's allowed. And I don't have a quick fix to this, but I think the goal that I would posit is that as you go into implementation and you think about what it is we have to see when we're trying to help you by making a recommendation the project is right for its location and for the city is to make sure that the policy tools we have accurately reflect our goals and don't conflict with one another. And that might be that we have to think a little bit harder about geographies or we have to understand if affordable housing is in fact more of a priority in some parts of town than others and do the policy tools we have reflect that or if it is in fact not more important or less important in one place or another do we make sure that the tools that we're giving to developers that leverage density or height or whatever really represent what we want to trade with them for the provision of onsite units and for the provision of affordability through their project? And that would come along with an examination of the appropriateness of our policies as they currently apply cash in lieu concepts. And we heard some of that tonight, too. because there's clearly a value of cash, and we can use cash to leverage other cash, and there's also clearly a value to units integrated into the community. So really going at that with open eyes and with diligence to make sure that the choice that we make in our policy tools is explicit and intentional. I'M REALLY EXCITED FOR THE NEXT STEPS IN THIS PLAN BEING ADOPTED AND THEN WORKING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION AND I LOVE TO SEE LONG RANGE PLANNING THAT CAN THEN LEAD TO ACTUAL COMMUNITY CHANGE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.

Madam Chair, are you ready to entertain a motion?

I am.

I move to initiate Master Plan Amendment 2026-00001, the Housing 2040 Plan. I'll second that.

All right. I have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Manner. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0.

I move that we adopt the resolution approving the amendment based on the staff report and discussion at the hearing.

I'll second that.

All right. I have a motion by Vice Chair Koenig and a second by Commissioner Manner regarding the resolution to approve the master plan. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT BRINGS US TO OTHER BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. DOES ANYONE HAVE REPORTS? WE HAVE A REPORT BY COMMISSIONER MANNER.

I hope you all saw in the docket the letter from the Waterfront Commission about the need for more bathrooms on the waterfront. And this to me is a perfect example of why the Waterfront Commission should not be sunset. Here we have a group of people who are passionate about that part of town, which frankly is the crown jewel of our $1 billion a year visitor spend. which I like to call the antidote to the endless for lease or the more desperate for lease or for sale signs you see everywhere. And given that we just got off a talk about how much money is needed, that visitor economy, we are so lucky to have Old Town to leverage and market to bring people here. And because I live right on King Street, I'll tell you, there are times on the weekends when it's hard to walk down the sidewalk. There are just so many people here. And because I chair the Board of VISA Alexandria, I've taken to asking people, where are you from? And it's quite interesting to hear where people are from. But people are always very, very positive about their experience. And we're lucky for that. And when we were discussing how to get more money, I thought, well, you know, if more people went out to eat and generated more meal tax, that would generate more affordable housing. So I wasn't prepared to say, let's raise the rate, because I didn't like it when it came about. But it's getting political, because there is this move to sunset the commission. And there are certain people on council who are really behind this. And so I want to be very careful about what I say in public. And I would prefer writing it and sending it out to everybody.

You know if you send it out, it's still public. I beg your pardon? You know if you send it out in writing, it's still public, because everything's FOIA-able that we do. That's true. You are so right. It doesn't mean. At least it's not on video. Right. And in writing, you can contemplate the way you want to word things. Exactly.

That was exactly my thought. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Other updates? Any meetings people went to? No. I think people are tired. How about we, if there are no objections, we can move to the planning and zoning director's report.

THANK YOU, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. IT IS A VERY SHORT REPORT TONIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO STEP THROUGH THE THREE-MONTH OUTLOOK, WHICH WE'RE PULLING UP ON THE SCREEN NOW. THIS IS THE MAGICAL MONTH WHEN YOU ALL GET TO ENJOY TWO HEARINGS IN ONE MONTH. SO WE'VE GOT WHAT WE SOMETIMES CALL JUNE A, WHICH IS HAPPENING TONIGHT ON JUNE 2ND. THAT'S THE DOCKET WE JUST STEPPED THROUGH. YOUR NEXT MEETING WOULD BE ON JUNE 22ND, WHERE WE'D HAVE A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU. The one that most people gravitate toward is 5601 Courtney Avenue. This is the SUP request from Virginia Paving. They're requesting another five years of operation of the existing paving plant there off of South Van Dorn. There are a number of other projects as well. And then looking on the other side of the break and what we also need to work into the schedule is a date for your retreat, probably in August. Thank you for the reminder. is in your September hearing a couple of townhouse projects at 415 North Alfred as well as 724 South Patrick. And then also something we had talked about in the two-year long-range plan is getting back to an evaluation of the Old Town North Arts District. Happy to take any questions on those or other items.

Looking forward to planning a retreat. But I hope we get a break too, that August break, that July break.

I think historically we've done the retreat late in August, so we can start to poll the members offline about availability as well as potential agenda topics. Great.

All right. Any questions on the director's report? If not, anything else for the good of the order or a motion to adjourn? Wait, we've got minutes. Sorry, that's what I get for not turning the page. All right. Do we have, for item 10, consideration of the minutes from the May 5th meeting, comments, questions, or concerns about the minutes or a motion to approve them?

I move to approve the minutes May 5th, 2026 meeting. Second by.

All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Dubé and a second by Commissioner Manor to approve the minutes from May 5th. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 7-0. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. A motion by Vice Chair Koenig and seconded by everyone. We will adjourn unanimously at 11.50 p.m. Thank you very much.