Music Good evening, everyone. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and let me welcome everybody to the Tuesday, November 25th meeting of the Fairfax City Council. We actually had a work session scheduled for six o'clock but that's the reason we did not have a work session. But we are now going to go ahead and start our regular City Council agenda. And we'll start out by if you please stand for the invocation, which will be presented by Councilman Drummond, remaining standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Good by your head. Dear Lord, we thank you for the many blessings you've given us. And during this time of Thanksgiving, we ask that you keep watch over us, our families, our city, our commonwealth, and our country. Remember to pray for our armed forces, and our public safety workers who continue to serve and protect and watch over us. We ask you that you fill our hearts with humility and help us make decisions that'll make a difference. And we ask that you watch over those less fortunate during this time of Thanksgiving, and pray that they will receive the blessings that you've given us in your name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with the liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Now move to agenda item number four, which are presentations by the public on any item that is related to tonight's agenda, but does not call for a public hearing. If you like your hearing, you'd like to discuss a community issue that is not on the agenda. That opportunity will come later in the evening, but if you'd like to talk to us about any items other than the public hearing items, which are seven, A, B, C, D, and E, F, on tonight's agenda, and actually G as well, that opportunity will come later on in the evening under the presentations by the public. But any other item that is on tonight's agenda that does not call for a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up, but anybody would like to address the City Council. Mr. Odo. Sure, with the all 39, 20, Bradwater Street. Can you set this clockers and bust it again so this week? Go ahead, Mr. O'Dell. The start of the legislative package, which I haven't finished examining, but there's an on page 8 there's transportation amendments to HB 30202. The I'm sorry, that's not the one I had in mind. There's one in here you find it for yourselves. Okay, page 16, number nine, public safety team driving. The wish to ban the use of cell phones by team drivers. I don't see any sensible reason for not including non-team drivers. They're just as dangerous and asinine when they drive with a cell phone. They're just as handicapped and slow in their reflexes. It's stupid to pick on the teens. I didn't find in the limited amount of looking I did anything with regards to school choice, tuition tax credits, charter schools. There's such my mind just now, but I think you should put some heat on the school board to stop resisting the right of the people to educate themselves and not to be limited to the choices that the government offers. You can make that contingent upon support, financial of this council. All right. Some more Remlin comments on some of the other items you're in. There are several of, well, let's start with 6A. All right, on page two, reserve policies, the target for general fund balance shall be at a minimum approximately 10% of the general fund expenditures. I think you should strike approximately and then cert at least because you've always said in the past that if you don't keep a 10% balance or greater that you risk having your bond rating lowered and that means your just payments go up. I don't know if that affects future only or also past bonds. I hope you're not intending to float in the future bonds, given our financial state, which is similar to that of other jurisdictions, given the downturn in the economy. With regard to 6P, why not pick and choose instead of an all or none straight up or down vote? There's a number of items listed here that you may want to reallocate money for and I don't think it should be all or none. You can look through them yourselves and decide by your value system, which you appreciate or don't limit a time from it's me from saying out loud what I marked in the margins. The item 6E, I'd like to just know mostly here about overtime. You have a senior inspector that was detailed on what are designated pages one and two. The senior inspector ran up some overtime. Was there justification for that? Or were just milking the taxpayers? And a marginal no-one on the front page of this one, 6C, isn't this a sign of presumption that the company went ahead up with the work with only a verbal approval on the be-dot without getting a formal approval from City Council. Sins of presumption are punished in the next life. Why not start here? the, for 60 you have, where's the description of the work that is actually to be done? And will the short-term improvements be undermined, destroyed, diluted, when you make what's implied, future long-term changes in Fairfax Circle. You might want to consider with regards to contracts. It could be to the city's advantage to not sign any new contracts, even those you're intending to prove, allow the economy to deteriorate further, prices and wages to fall further, and then you get hungrier contractors willing to sign contracts for lower amounts. This kind of label that however you like. I think I'll save the remaining 10 seconds. Anybody else like to address the City Council? Again, on items that are on tonight's agenda, but does not call for a public hearing. I know just in looking in some of the faces in the audience, you may be here for the work session items, which is either the Residents in by Mary-Od or the DAG petroleum suppliers LLC Application at 10341 Main Street that work session item actually will be just in an interaction between the applicant and the city council There will not be a public hearing there the public hearing will actually come Council, there will not be a public hearing there. The public hearing will actually come two weeks from now. So if you're hearing, you'd like to address the council. This would be the opportunity to do it. If you're here to listen, there'll be a public hearing opportunity when it actually formally comes for the council. So just wanted to make sure everybody was on the same page. Just sir. I'm Doug Church, I'm Vice Chairman of Virginia Heritage Bank and also Chairman-elect of the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce. I just want to pass on and this does refer to the residents in. We have as a board, had a vote in support of Maryott and the residents and the businesses unanimously felt that this was something that would be a very positive move for our area and the use of the site. So that's really all I had Mr. Reyer. There was a city council. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council? If not, well close, item number four will move on to item number five, which is the adoption of the agenda. So moved. Move by, Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Stombries, any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Opposed and a pass unanimously. Item number six, which is the approval of consent agenda, Mr. Rasmussen? Mr. Mayor, move a deduction of a consent agenda for agenda item 6A. Consideration of suggested FY10 budget guidelines and a resolution adopting the City of Fairfax Financial Policies. Agenda item 6B, consideration of a resolution for the reappropriation of capital project funds to FY2009. They were appropriated in FY2008 and have not yet been obligated. Agenda item C, consideration 6e, consideration of an award of contract of Volker and Associates Inc. for construction inspection services of George Mason Boulevard phase 2. Agenda item 6d, consideration of award of contract to Sagares Construction Corporation, in the amount of $449,668 for the construction of Fairfax Circle short term improvements. Agenda item 6E, consideration of a construction agreement between the City of Fairfax and the Virginia Department of Transportation for the construction, Fairfax Circle short term improvements. Agenda item 6F, introduction of an ordinance approving the renewal of a license agreement between the city and recommend lane homeowners association for the use of a portion of the city's right of way to maintain an improved entrance feature and landscaping improvements along the portion of reckon rich lane. And agenda item 6G, introduction of an ordinance amending chapter 90, article 2, division 5, section 90, dash 139 of the code of the city of Fairfax, Virginia, pertaining to a partial real estate tax exemption for substantially rehabilitated commercial and mixed-use structures. And for agenda items A, B, C, D, and E, I moved to approve the suggested motion in the staff report. And for agenda item 6 F and G, I moved to wave the first reading and set the public hearing for December 9, 2008. Sir, second. We have, the motion was made by Mr. Asmusin, seconded by Mr. Drummond. Does anybody wish to object or abstain from the handling of any of these items on the consent agenda? Hearing none, all of a favor, the motion signify by voting aye. Opposed? And a pass unanimously. We're now down to items number seven, which is our public hearings. Actually seven A, B, C, D, and E are all like items that have to do with fees, taxes, or levies. So we're going to combine all the public hearings for items number seven A through seven E and one public hearing and then we'll actually have to deal with each one separately. Through a variety of motions. First to sign up, make sure it's this has been properly advertised. Okay. Is there a staff report? Yes, sirs. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of Council. This item relates to, or actually originated from our analysis of the current near budget. I get this item relates to the rates and we're not. We're fiscal year. Budget review process and determined. In that we accurately, our costs, our prices accurately, reflect and sediment control related fees, parking recreation fees, cemetery lot fees, and the hub bus fees among others, but those are the main items that we have included. As part of this, we, or when we actually, we plan to institute this on January 1st of 2009, in which we'll on an annual basis generate about $300 to $360,000 in additional revenue on an annual basis. And we had included the additional revenues in our projections for fiscal year 9 and fiscal year 10 and the out years also in our effort to balance the current budget and the future budgets. This is an item that we actually have discussed with the Council at the offsite meeting and also we had brought this through the Budget Committee. And we are now bringing it to Council for approval to institute these new rates and levies as of January 1, 2009. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two questions. The first is, in general, are the increases or changes to the schedule of rates and levies? Are they consistent with other rates and levies are in the Metropolitan Washington DC region or the northern Virginia region. Yes, as part of the process, we number one look to determine that we want to be, we want to assure ourselves that we are trying to cover more of our cost, recoup our cost and also make sure that we do stay in line with the charges of the surrounding jurisdictions. And the second item is that, I guess it'll be account numbers, 316350 and 316351 related to park and recreation fees in the day camps under item 7E. It looks like these fees are not only staying the same for some of these. We're going up a little, but they're also being broken out. So for example, summer camp preschool was $625 for seven weeks, but now we have a new category of $230 for two weeks and $125 per week. Is that as well as consistent with what's being offered in other parkour recreation departments? Well, if I could, I'd like to have Mr. McCarty to answer that question. Yes, Councilman Drummond. The fees are consistent with the other jurisdictions that offer summer camp programs. It's just allowing us to offer empty slots that are in the camp, for instance, typically our campers have for seven weeks total. And most of those campers don't use all the seven weeks, so it's allowing us to have two week blocks, one week blocks, sort of fill every spot of the camp and give more camp opportunities as well as recoup any loss around you to cover our expenses. So this is offering some more flexibility and from a scheduling standpoint? Correct. Correct. I would just, you know, advertise this. I would just encourage, especially the Park and Rect Department to really advertise this because that flexibility will be greatly appreciated by residents as we use the programs. Thank you very much. Thank you. Other questions of staff? Let me also ask if Mr. Hodgkins, if you'd go ahead and give the staff report since we combined all five public hearings, did you want to give it for item number seven A, correct? Or did you give the staff report for all of them? This is for all of them. Okay. Great. If there are no other questions, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. First to sign up is Carol Popowski. Hope I said that right. Yes. If you just give us your name and address for the record, we'll go from there. My name is Carol Popowski. I live at 10500 Providence Way Fairfax City. And I've come to address the issue about raising the Q bus fee. I do not support raising the fair for students and seniors. It should remain 50 cents. Raising their fairs during this current economic crisis affects them the most. Students face repaying student loans, rising tuition costs, and rising housing costs. Seniors are usually on a fixed income and face rising costs associated with all aspects of health care. For these reasons, I urge you not to raise the fares for seniors and students. And I want to emphasize that don't let perhaps the small number of people that might show up to speak out against this issue impact on your decision because a lot of people feel intimidated to come here and speak out publicly. And also a lot of people have the feeling that why even bother you have your minds made up already. So why even bother to come to speak? So I urge you again, please do not raise the fair for students and seniors. Thank you. Thank you. My next sign up is Steve Delaney. Thank you very much. I can see some fairly, and Chris hopefully won't be too much. Another problem is a lot of people have to transfer from one bus to the other. Now, if they pay $1.35 and then you have to transfer the second bus, they have to pay another $1.35. So I guess that's 270 just to get anywhere. My impression of the smart card is that it doesn't work. First of all, you have to go to rail station to get the smart card. And when people get on the bus, they have to tap at two or three times at least before it works. And then it finally works. Plus, you do have to get at the rail station. I think that's totally unfair. I think there were other answers that no one wanted to address. For instance, if they gave you the little piece of paper with a date on it, that would be good for one transfer. If for a complete transfer or a reduced rate transfer, with a little number on it, this thing is tied into metro rail a little too much. And a lot of people go from one bus to the other without even going to the rail station. Again, if the, if the, on top of that, I am right that every time I see a smart card, hit that bus scanner, they do tap it two or three times at least, and have to wait two or three seconds to see if it's good or not. And some of the people I've seen work for engineering firms out there, Shan Telling, just does not work on the bus, a smart card. But maybe the, I've used on the rail, had less problems with it, but that's my opinion. I can see some increase, but such a large increase and apparently gas links gone down, but you don't know if it's going to stay down there below $2.25 and things like that. It's just becoming too complicated, too intellectual to figure out, to go to the rail station, to figure out how to use the smart card machine. And then you have to go to rail station then to actually make the thing work. Because these people were frangering from, out there, in front of the dollars dollars airport and they always tap it two or three times. Maybe the smart card technology is not perfected yet because of so advanced but you know that several problems but just throwing it up from 75 to $3.5. But if you have to at least provide for a reasonable transfer system this goes from Metro system-2, and all they had to do is like the paper transfers, you could add it, you could just hand it to the bus driver, and you get one transfer from one bus to the other within a two-hour period. And the idea of enforcing everything is ridiculous. I mean, there's an old saying out in the country, and I use throughout the country, if you try to pick every grain of wheat off the ground that's fallen down there, that you'll kill yourself, and you'll spend 100 times as long for that grain of wheat. Just leave that grain of wheat there for the animals. So, you know, my experience is that, right, this is not going to work. It's too technical. It's going to end up killing a lot of people who haven't been to college and don't understand these how the smart card's best to work. That most people can't even get a to work out there and where the engineering firms work. So, thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, Mr. Nguyen. Could you give us your address for the record? Yes. I live in 9 new 2 Ellison Street, West Falls Church. Right. Thank you very much. Next to sign up is Jennifer Shepherd. And if you would give us your name and address for the record, please. And if you would give us your name and address for the record please. Okay. It's Jennifer Shepard and my address is 10606L Kitty Pozer Drive in Fairfax, Virginia. And I oppose the Q bus increase because it disproportionately affects the poor that disabled and the elderly of Fairfax. Those who are most likely to need the bus are going to be least likely to afford the increase. In Fairfax, 6.4% of the people here live under the poverty line, 2.7% make below half of the income that defines the poverty level. So a 60% increase doesn't sound like much, but when you're taking the bus twice a day to and from work and then five days a week, that's $6 for the whole week, which at minimum wage, that's an entire hour of work, an hour out of 40 just to pay for this increase. And Carol mentioned that people aren't showing up because they're intimidated, but people are also not showing up because they're working, they're cleaning offices, they're serving burgers. And these are the people who are most affected. I realize that gas price has been rising, and that's their consideration, but for the first time to average gas price, and the nation has dropped below $2 since March of 2005. And the National average dropped 33 cents in the past two weeks. Just anecdotally, in Fairfax, it's been somewhere between $3 and $4, like a few weeks ago, but today I saw it at $1.87. So I don't think that that's as big an issue as it was before. I think the combination of gas prices dropping and the bus fare increasing at the same time is going to encourage people who do own cars to abandon the queue and it's going to overburden those who have no other options. I also oppose it for reasons of traffic congestion and environmental reasons which go hand in hand. I'm sure you guys have seen rush hour here. It's going to rush several hours. And I mean, a lot of times it's faster to walk from Fairfax Circle to GMU. And I know this from my personal experiences. And also having so much traffic congestion is going to increase the pollution in our city, which isn't good. I think this increases in the wrong direction and I think that even subsidizing the buses would be in the opposite direction would be better because it encourage more people to use it. I'm looking forward to everyone having access to affordable transportation, Fairfax having fair skies and people being able to make their 6 p.m. working meetings at City Hall on time. So thank you. Thank you very much. Next to sign up is one I believe it's kin. Nobody else has signed up with anybody like to address the City Council again. We've combined items number seven A through seven E. Mr. Adel. You're handing out the E. Not including FG. Correct. The bill, Jerry O'Dellell at 3920, Redwater Street. Item 7c, there's reference to Frontage Charges of 2900, $2,900, page 3 near the bottom. Page 2, near the bottom. on page two, another one. For other illiterate persons besides myself, would you please, when I'm through speaking, tell me what affrontage charges and whether we should be affronted at it. It is rather steep. On item 7D, page 1 and page 2, there's a mention of overtime and when you're talking about charging somebody for overtime on inspections I have to wonder out loud in front of a microphone even. Hand inspection be done so as to preclude racking up an overtime charge that seems like ripping off the person who's being asked to pay those fees. Item 70 with several other items that you had here tonight, I think there are item 6A through whatever. You showed the existing fee and the proposed increase. You're not doing that here. There's a lot of fees being laid out here and the reader should not be expected to be familiar with the existing fees. In skimming through the other documents that I just submitted to the awkwardly, I look merely to see whether the increased proposed was outrageous even given the shortage of income we are now experiencing. Can't do that with this document. Why don't you, as a favor to me and everybody else whose vote you value, why don't you pull 7E from the agenda, redo it to reflect the existing and the proposed, and then re-hear it? to reflect the existing and the proposed and then re-hear it. Anybody else like to address the city council under these items? Yes, sir, please. If you give us your name and address for the record, please. I guess so. My name is O. Trace Vittis. I reside at 2883, St. Louis Lane in Vienna. And I just wanted to speak in opposition to the proposed fair increases to the Cuba system. As other panelists that came up here, I had spoken with an opposition to it. I had nothing to add further to what they said, but rather, I was curious to know what, whether the city has a right to levied gasoline taxes on first nations located within the city limits. Because I believe that any cost increases should be offset by levying gasoline tax. That's actually a of the stuff. That's actually a state function, not a local function. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anybody else like to address these items? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. We're now actually, I had a couple questions from some of the presentations from staff. And Mr. Hodgkin's, it's all related to the Q's, so I don't know if we need Mr. Vrsoce or not. But a couple items came up. One came up to student ridership. It was my impression that students rode Q for free. Is that correct? Yes. James, you students? for free. Is that correct? Yes. GMU students? GMU faculty staff and students with the valid ID, right, for free, yes sir. Okay. And at one point in time, we were actually doing students to Therick's high school. Did we stop that or is that still a little bit? We've stopped that, yes sir. Okay. After the completion of the renovation and the parking lot of the high school. Okay. The, um, the dual fee situation, I'm assuming that doesn't apply to in the city. If you went from one cue bus to another cue bus, I'm not sure why you would because they all eventually loop into the, if you didn't. If you didn't have a smart trip card, yes, you would have to pay $1.35 and another $1.35. If for some reason you use cash. Yes. What would be a circumstance where you would want to jump? If you were coming from Ferris City Mall and you wanted to go to Kmart, you'd have to transfer from the green bus to a gold bus. But do they all eventually go through the Vienna metro stop? Yes sir. They all go there. Yes. So if the intent is to go to the Vienna metro stop, you don't need to transfer. No sir. Okay. And again, if you have a SmartTrip card, then you only pay once $1.25 or if you're a student, it's 75 cents. If you're a senior, it's 75 cents and that's it. What's also going to happen is with a SmartTrip card, if you transfer from rail to bus starting in January, you're also going to get a 50 cent discount. Whereas today you only get a 25 cent discount. I did do that. If you transfer now from any bus to the rail station, you also get in return another 50 cent. So that's a dollar around trip discount, which was only at 25 cents discount previously. Now it's been my understanding that we substantially subsidize the Q bus. Can you share with us the amount that we subsidize currently at the all rate and the amount we will still be subsidizing with even the fair increase? It's over the past 10 years, the minimum subsidy we've had, maybe 800,000, it's going to mold on 1.2 million now and climbing annually. The current subsidy that the city subsidized the Q is over a million dollars now. Yes, sir. And what, I assume it will still be, what will it be after the fair increase? Still will be a substantial, it's probably still be a million at least. Okay. And the last question I had is, can you share with us, I know when we had this discussion after the budget committee made the recommendations, how our rate will compare to the surrounding jurisdictions. That we've obviously been much lower than everybody else, but after this increase, how will it compare? Currently, all metro buses in the region are at the base pair of $1.35. Arlington Transit has always been at $1.35. They've always matched the metro. Right on is the same in Montgomery County. Fairfax connector, which is our neighbor, is proposed to increase their fair swell to $1.35 with $1.25 if you have a smart card. We've actually matched what Fairfax connector is doing. Okay. Any other questions, the staff? Mr. Mayer. When we discussed the bus fare increase before, you had taken the dollar amounts for the city's subsidy and translated that into cost per rider. In other words, I thought somewhere along the lines we said, even with this fair increase, the city would still be subsidizing each trip by about a dollar. Is that still in that? That's right, yes sir. That puts it in more concrete terms for the riders. My other question is, during the high school renovation, did you monitor the ridership of high school students getting off at Cornell and Oli Highway and at about 50 in Rebel Run? We estimated that on an annual basis, the Fairfax High School students were around 6,000, they generated around 6,000 trips annually. And since we've over now charging again, do you have any idea how many high school students are currently using the cubas? I can pull out the reports, but I don't have the top of my head right now. How many high school students are still using? It's still quite a number, but I don't have the exact number yet. Was that 6,000 trips a year during the school year? Yes sir. Because there was a time when, even during the summer months, when the school was not in session, as long as they had an ID, they could still ride for free. Well it seems to me that that category of writers is really a de minimis number and really would have little impact on the city's budget and would in a way be somewhat symbolic. I have some issues with barging high school students to go to the school. But yeah, let's stick to questions now and then when we get a motion on the I'm encouraging high school students to go to the school. But. Yeah, let's stick to questions now and then when we get emotional on the thing we can debate. Any other? Yes, Mr. Stommeries. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And the staff reported indicates that the base fair would be, proposed base fair would be $1.35, but that elementary intermediate high school students with a valid ID, senior citizens and persons with disabilities would pay a reduced fare of 75 cents. Yes, sir. Do you know that if that compares the reduced fare compares how that compares with other jurisdictions in the area? Metro's the only one I can compare because they don't have for students. Senior citizens is what I'm seeing your seat of sense. It's a 65 cents for Metro and it will be 75 cents for us. That's in comparison for senior citizens. Thank you. Mr. Drummond. I understand that as of January 4th 2009, Metro is no longer going to accept the April transfers. See the buses? How does that affect the city and the Q buses? Because I have been mentioned before by someone who spoke that the April transfer was being accepted. And I believe that that was going to become mandatory from Metro in January of 2014. We've been trying, they, Metro decided to eliminate the paper transfers because it's been costing them around $20 million in operations and in printing and maintaining the equipment for the rail to bus transfers. And they decided that eliminating the paper transfer would save them this and it would encourage more writers to take to purchase or to acquire a smart trip card which is more convenient and easier to use. So I guess what I'm asking is we are because of that we are no longer going to be accepting paper transfers either. Yes, sir. We're trying to be consistent with the region Fairfax Connector is doing the same thing and all. That's a region wide change. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. In connection with the SmartTrip card, I just wanted to clarify that SmartTrip cards are available not just at the metro stations, but they will also be available here at City Hall at the Treasurer's Office. And that's going to be more convenient. They'll also be available at the CVS and probably a giant. Metro is working that out with those two outlets. Also, they don't have to go to the metro station in order to load the SmartTrip cards. They can do that very easily in the bus when they ride the bus so they don't have to go to the metro station to load their cards. And we've had the SmartTrip cards in operation since July of last year. And we've not really had any significant problems with the users having to use this martyred cards on our buses. On city buses. On the city buses. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I just the answer was to Stoneburys question. In Fairfax County, this is what they have now. It's with these cents for senior writers. Well, that's before any. The budget. Right. 65, I think you said it was going to be. I believe that what I heard you say was their new fare for seniors would be 65 cents. That's for Metro. For Metro. They've always cited. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other questions of staff? If not, we really need to get a series of motions on the floor. We're going to back up to 7a now for the first motion, which is the fees pertaining to certain fees is outlined in that staff report and I'd like to entertain a motion. Mr. Meyer. Sorry. I moved to adopt an ordinance amending and read dopting chapter 110 sections 110 hyphen 3 110 hyphen 57 C 11052-C, 110-1255, B5A, 110-184-B, 110-1366, 110-1369-1, 110-920 of the code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, retaining certain fees required to go into effect January 1, 2009. Second. We will be by Mr. Meyer, second by Mr. Rasmussen, any discussion? I'll not favor the motion, signify by voting aye. Opposed? And a pass unanimously. We'll now go to 7b, which is the motion regarding subdivision fees. Mr. Drummond? A move to adopt an ordinance submitting chapter 86 of the Code of the City of Fairfax. It's at a new section 86 back on three pertaining to subdivision fees to go into effect January 1, 2009. Second. Moved by Mr. Drummond, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen in any discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and in passion and amc. Item number seven, C is in reference to what are connection fees. Mr. Tambres. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to adopt an ordinance amending and re dopting chapter 102 article 2 section 102-32 Of the code of the city of Fairfax for jenny pertaining to water connection fees availability and Frontage charges to go into effects January 1st 2009 Okay Move by mr. Thomas seconded by mr. Myer any discussion All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye I opposed and a pass unanimous. The 7D is pertaining to erosion and sediment control review and inspection fees. Mr. Rasmussen. Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt an ordinance amending and re-adapting chapter 110 article 2 division 12 sections 1, 10, 2, 3, 4, 3 of the code of the City of Fairfax Virginia pertaining to erosion and sediment control review and inspection fee to go into effect January 1, 10, 2, 3, 43 of the code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, pertaining to erosion and settlement control review and inspection fee to go into effect January 1, 2009. Second. Moved by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, any discussion? All in favor, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Dombers. Thank you. I would like to see if we could have a brief discussion about a possible amendment to this motion. The comments by many in the audience, I believe, are very important to consider. And with the- This is 7D. I think that's a comes up under 7E. Okay. Well, then on that one, I'll defer until we- I should like to talk about erosion instead of- I'm just so excited to get to the discussion on the panel. Okay. Well, then on that one, I'll defer until we have. I should like to talk about erosion instead of a pool. I'm just so excited to get to the discussion on the panel. Okay. If there are not any other discussions, all on favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And a passing out. So now we're down to item number 7E, which are a schedule of rates and levies. Mr. Meyer? I moved to adopt an amendment to the FY2009 schedule of rates in levies to go into effect January 1, 2009. Second. Moved by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen discussion. Mr. Daures. Thank you. Feel well prepared for this discussion. To the point I was going to make that I think when we originally considered the increase to the bus fare, the recommendation was to $1.50 and it was the consensus of the council that given, you know, the desire to be consistent and no more expensive with other jurisdictions while recognizing the need to increase the fares just to make provide the same level of service that we're accustomed to, we would go to 135 and that is what's before us today. Consistent with the information, I think the staff has provided tonight about and some of the comments that have been made about the cost to students and senior citizens. I think we, I'd be interested in considering an amendment to this motion that would make the fares for senior citizens consistent with other jurisdictions. And I'd be curious if we can get consensus on that with that. Can you put that in the form of an amendment, please? Yes, a motion. I move to amend the motion, and crack me if I'm wrong, but amend the motion so that, count number 316682, Q bus fares, a base fee of 135 and a secondary fee of 75 cents. He reduced to 65 cents for elementary, intermediate, high school students with a valid E.C. your citizens and persons with disabilities. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. There's a motion and a second on amendment to the main motion that Nessons would reduce the fee from 75 cents to 65 cents for seniors and for students and seniors and disabilities, folks with disabilities. Any discussion? See, all in favor of the amendment, please vote by signifying aye. Aye. Opposed? And a passed unanimous. So that's now part of the main motion. We're now back to the main motion and the other further discussion, Mr. Raman. I've probably said about this earlier, I don't know if I can ask this now, but the City Wheels Program. What is that? The City Wheels Program, it's a doc of the trip, the 270 trip. Now, the reason I ask that I want to make sure it's consistent with what we're doing here. The usual policy is the fair for civic wheels is twice the base fair, but that's a maximum. What is it? A maximum. It doesn't necessarily have to be twice the base fair. You can reduce the fair if you want. Okay, but what is lower than 270? I'm just asking what is the program the city wheels program? Oh, I'm a data transit service for persons with disabilities that are that have difficulty writing the bus It's a dial a ride service. They call a taxi that picks them up from their Origin and brings them to a destination within the city of Fairfax. That's what I thought I was thinking for Sosa. I like to make a motion that we maintain the $1.50 per trip for the city wheels program. Okay, that's the form of the motion and that would be an amendment I assume. Is there a second? Not that's died for a lack of a second. Is there any other discussion on the main motion? If not, all in favor of the main motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it passed unanimously. We're now down to item number 7, F, which is a public hearing and counsel action and ordinance authorizing a standby line of credit for up to $5 million to be used as a contingency for a period during the fiscal year when the city's cash levels are at its lowest. Is this been properly advertised? Staff report, please. City Treasurer Steve Maloney is in the audience or just outside the room and here he comes. He will make the presentation. Nice filler. Welcome, Mr. Maloney. in the audience or just outside the room. And here he comes. He will make the presentation. Nice filler. Welcome, Mr. Mulani. The line of credit based on our revenue flow and the economic conditions. Our analysis shows that we will have potential for our cash flow difficulties. We have proposed the line of credit to cover those difficulties. The line of credit, of course, would only be used if necessary. And then it would only be used to cover budget items. The monies would then be repaid out of current revenues. We repaid out of current revenues. So we feel it's a prudent business venture to take at this time to be prepared for potential shortfalls. And Mr. Moana, I assume this is a fairly common practice of local jurisdictions. Is that a fair statement? Well, lines of credits in what they call RANDs, which is revenue anticipation bonds, revenue anticipation notes. The difference with a note is you're actually barring the full amount up front. Whereas a line of credit we thought was more prudent because you're only borrowing if and when you need it. The two used in conjunction have been used through jurisdiction for some time. Actually, the RANs are actually more popular in minor credits. Any questions or staff? Does it do the other, the costs for RANs and notes, excuse me, RANs and lines of credit generally the same? Well, again, with the RAN, you're getting all of it up front, so you're paying interest on all of it up front, so you're paying interest on all of it. It's like in our case we would get $5 million beginning of the year and we'd have it the whole year and we'd have to pay on it. Whereas the line of credit, we have the access to it, but we don't actually pay until we draw down on the money if and when we have to. But are the, yeah, I understand that. Are the rates of interest the general is the same? Well have to. What are the, yeah, I understand that. Is the, are the rates of interest this general is the same? What, what would motivate a municipality to go with a ran instead of a lot of credit? Don't know. Okay. Any other questions or staff? Hearing none, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody like to address the city council on this item. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Dell, excuse me, it's the gentleman in the back. And if you'd give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Mayor, I'm Ernest Dev, I'm at Providence Square. I just want to get you to clarify something for me. I understood you to say a little while ago that the public meeting on the DAG, petroleum issue, would be in two weeks. The public hearing I believe would be in two weeks, is that? I'm not sure. I'm not sure of that this actually is a public hearing though on the line of credit. So if you want to address the council on another item that's going to have to come in a few minutes. Well you want me to wait there? If you don't mind we're in the middle of a motion regarding to a public hearing so thank you. Anybody else like to address item number seven, F, which is the line of credit? Mr. O'Dell. Cheerio, O'Dell, when the city engaged in renovation and or new construction on our many facilities including but not necessarily limited to City Hall and the new police department it plays this as security on loans Our assets are existing city hall That prompts me to say that with regards to item 7F, I hope it is not the intent of anyone sitting on the diacere to use as collateral or assets or a pledge to buttress up any such loans made in the form of a line of credit. I hope it's not anyone's intent to use the $5 million that was gifted for a community center. Anybody else like to address the City Council? I'm going to close the public hearing on entertainer motion. Mr. Meyer. I move to adopt an ordinance authorizing the City Treasurer to execute a line of credit with some trust bank. Moved by Mr. Meyer, second by Mr. Drummond in any discussion. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and it passed unanimously. And before I go on to item number 7G, I actually did misspeak. I was making sure you were listening out there and you caught me. It's the public hearing actually on the DAG petroleum will be January the 13th, 2009. Excuse me for that. We're now down to item number 7G, which is a public hearing and council action in ordinance to adopt supplemental number 9 to the City Code. Is this been properly advertised? Yes. Saffer, please. Mr. Mayor, just very briefly, this is a semi-annual action which incorporates by Council action ordinances that have been made part of the City Code up through July of this year. Any questions or staff? If not, this is a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody like to address the city council on this item? Harry, now I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Stombries. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to adopt an ordinance incorporating loose leaf supplement number nine to the code of the city of Fairfax, Virginia. Second. Moved by Mr. Stombries, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, any discussion? Moved by Mr. Orstombery, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? In a passion, and we'll see. We're now down to item number eight, which are items not requiring a public hearing. A day is a consideration of the 2009 legislative package. Staff report, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. This item relates to an issue that the Council does to each year around this time, which is the Council needs to decide on which issues to include in its legislative program for the upcoming year. This is a item that was discussed at the work session on November 11th. Our proposed legislative program includes the Joint City School Board and City Council position relating to education funding, city initiatives which we have for this year or for proposed city initiatives. Three of these are new, one is a previous position. One relates to the direct recording electronic machines for elections. This is an item in which we are hoping, right now we're not allowed to purchase any more of these DREs, as they're called the direct recording electronic machines. And we would like the right to actually continue to purchase these. This would be something that would save the city money. Also, we have an issue relating to the advertising requirements for the maximum real estate tax rate to be advertised. Current legislation requires jurisdictions in Virginia to actually advertise 30 days before we have a public hearing with the council. Here's has a public hearing on setting the real estate tax rate. And currently, or in the past, we only had to go out or advertise two weeks ahead of time. The problem caused by this is basically the timing in which we would have to, or the council would have to come up with or understand what the assessment is for that year. And also come up with a reasonable tax rate or its maximum tax rate at an earlier period in the budgeting process. The next item or initiative relates to the transportation amendment to HB 3202. This is an pre-we've had this brought this issue up previously and it relates to, relates to NVTA revenues and the way in which we, it is dispersed in the way in which we could use these revenues. If legislation is passed in which we do receive revenues through the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. Currently, we don't have the same rights as some of the other cities and counties in how we can disperse those funds. The final initiative relates to residential rental property inspection penalties and enforcement. And this is an item that Mr. Drummond had brought up in our last meeting and wanted to add it to the legislative package, and it relates to residential rental properties. And if there are two violations within a six month period, it would give the government or the jurisdiction the right to actually withhold the right for the owner of the property to actually rent the property out for six month period. Other items included in our legislative program include city support positions and also the Northern Virginia regional positions. Questions of staff. If not, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Drummond. motion. Mr. Drummond? I moved to adopt the 2009 City of Fairfax, legislative program. Move by Mr. Drummond, seconded by Mr. Stombries, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a passionate anemously. We're now down to item number 9, which are presentations by the public on any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody like to address the City Council. Mr. O'Dell. Okay. Thank you. Jerry O'Neill. Just touching on some of the highlights in an article found in the most recent issue of our Sunday visitor, a Catholic newspaper, dated November 23rd. Has to do with the outcome of the National Election, the president and the effect of the bishops who spoke out and the Catholic bishops who spoke out and of those who didn't all have to do this as a rerun because the amount of time left is inadequate. Barack Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote compared to Senator John McCain's 45%. That's a major cause of embarrassment to me and to others who call themselves real Catholics. Given that it was well known by those who were informed, and unfortunately too many voters weren't, that Barack Obama is about as pro-abortion as anybody that has ever run for major office, certainly for the president, having three or three times voted as a member of the Illinois State Legislature in support of legislation that would have permitted killing babies born despite the best, reasonably the best, in quotes, single quotes, that denote the risk of youth of the word best, efforts of so-called doctors, actually, better called, apportionists. Barack Obama supported killing babies and survive abortion. Unprecedented, in fantasy. In Missouri and Pennsylvania, where Catholic, it says here, in both Missouri and Pennsylvania, Catholic bishops made statements widely covered by the media regarding the importance of life issues relative to other issues in the campaign. These statements potentially had an effect on the votes of Catholics in these states, given Obama's voting record and support for abortion. Both of us are aware that nonetheless Pennsylvania still voted in double digits with a double digit margin of victory for Obama. Missouri may not have made a difference that typically is voted Republican. Probably the difference in the results came down to research. The came was bitten and effected by his own legislation limiting financing. Thank you, Mr. Adele. Would anybody else like to address the City Council? Christina Gaines, 103.02, Confederate Lane Fairfax. This is sort of a question, but the construction on Chevy Chase Bank that's near Party City on Route 5029 has for several days around lunchtime because that's when I'm trying to go through there, blocked traffic in one lane, which results in gridlock pretty much from my end of the city all the way to the other end. Today it took me half an hour to go from my house to Borders Books. And that's been pretty much the case every time they brought Elaine. And I have no idea. I've not seen a sign that says they can do that. I'm not aware, you know, if I did that, I'd probably get arrested. They probably do have some kind of ability to do it. But it seems to me that it's been going on for way too long and that there's no kind of control on it and it's causing a lot of trouble. Not just for me, for every other car that's sitting there through two or three light cycles, while we all get into one lane for quarter of a mile or so. And I don't know if anybody's monitoring, I don't know who to complain to about it, to find out if, I mean, if they're doing it legitimately, okay legitimately okay fine but it just seems like it's going on for a lot of time and that nobody's noticing that they're doing it and it doesn't seem to me like it should be allowed whenever they feel like it because it doesn't even look like they're doing anything that needs to be blocked. Thank you Mr. Sissan if you could get follow up with Mrs. Gaines. Anybody else like to address the City Council? If not, we'll close item number nine and move to, I'd like to entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes from the November 11th regular meeting and the November 17th special meeting. So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Stombery. Is all in favor of the motion, or any discussion, excuse me. All in favor of the motion signified by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And a passionate answer. Well, now recess our regular meeting and we're going to a work session. We're actually going to stay here in this room for our work session. And if there's not any objection, I'd like to move item number 12b, which is the discussion of the DAG petroleum suppliers up first since there are a number of people in the audience for that item. And so that'll be the notice to the folks from DAG to come forward if they would and consider in the front row and I'll turn this over to the city staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Okay, this is a work session for special use permit, SU 08060009. The name of the applicant is DAG Petroleum Suppliers LLC and Fairfax Petroleum LLC. The general location, the subject site is located on southeast corner of the intersection of East Street and Main Street with a street address of 10, 3, 4, 1 Main Street. The site is adjacent and to the west of the Providence Square condominiums across the street and south of the Main Street Marketplace and east of historic downtown Fairfax. The site is the least northern half of the lot, where the southern half of a lot is occupied by a dry cleaning business. Graphics and photos. Staff has several PowerPoint graphics and photos of the site not included in this presentation. During your discussion tonight I can pull up these images at your request. Please ask. The PowerPoint graphics include each of the three sheets of the SUP submittal within large details of the Screening, Stormwater Management, and BMP, Screenyard Fencing, and Landscape Entry islands. The PowerPoint photos include aerial photos, existing dumpster, the Main Street Island and Sidewalk, Offsite and Onsite Screen screening, residential offsite views, the back views of the site building, the monument sign base, and East Street views. The application request, the application is for a special use permit to permit reconstruction of a non-conforming use as Shell Gasoline Service Station in a C2 retail commercial district in the old town Fairfax transition district. Proposed draft development conditions in attachment to are from the applicant, not from staff. Staff anticipates other conditions if this SUP is ultimately recommended for approval. Background. Non-conforming use, the service station use was first established in 1965 prior to the current zoning ordinance. The use was abandoned. The current tenant wishes to reestablish the gasoline service station use after the previous tenant shut down operations in January 07 and remove the underground tanks in February 2007. Past land use actions were primarily signage, attachment for the staff report contains a listing of those. The site pollution issues. There's a 40-year history here and the contaminations basically discovered while replacing or removing the underground fuel storage tanks. There was an additional handout tonight from the applicant's files regarding a corrective action plan, circa 1997. That was attached to the staff report at the end of the staff report, which happens to come under Attachment 6, which is citizen comments. So that's done there kind of by mistake, just so you know where that is. Attachment 5 summarizes a recent history, courtesy of the Virginia Department of Environment Equality. And I've got Andrew Wilson of staff here tonight, present to answer any detail questions on this aspect of the application. The proposed site changes reconstruction. Now I've got graphics here which basically include an excerpt from the applicant's special use permit plan. The council, you have full-size plans of this. The staff report has planned reductions of this inside the report. There's no restoration or relocation of the existing monument sign at this time. This requires a special exception. The applicant has informed us they wish to pursue this at a later date. They also want to reinstall underground fuel storage tanks. They want to reinstall four fuel island dispensers and rebuild the two pump islands. They want to reestablish and reopen the site's existing brick building. That would include a cashier's area, three vehicle service base, and a small retail shop. And they want to generally restore the site and reutilize the screened trash dumpster that already exists on the site right now. Proposed site changes, the new changes, and again, this is an excerpt from the graphic there from the applicant's SUP plans. There are two landscaped entry islands facing Main Street that includes a full brick sidewalk, but no gas street lights are proposed. They have again the updated fuel storage tanks and associated fuel delivery piping. There's a transitional screen yard to the east which includes canopy trees and evergreen trees and shrubs. There's a note that the three existing black walnut trees and one common hackberry tree are to be removed. And in that area, there's going to have a bioretension area. And the applicant is also providing an eight-foot-high white wood privacy fence with brick pears. The site lighting, the applicant is showing 10 feet in height for the lighting fixtures with the exception that the lighting fixtures on the pump islands will be 12 feet in height. And again, parking And be 10 spaces. Overall st basically the city c has specific language t consolidation and redev station sites, one of w site and the other is a site to the west. The st of justification even acknowledges the redevelopment possibility and mentions that the reestablished gasoline service station use may be an interim one due to our current economic conditions. And the staff questions we have are one is an interim use appropriate at this Main Street location in the Old Town Fairfax Transition District and in the C2 Retail Commercial District. And second, is this non-conforming gasoline service station use an appropriate interim use on this site and at this location, give them a zoning and the need to secure a special use permit. And for analysis, basically it's just section 110-366, items A through M from the ordinance, and items A through M are basically summarized above. That's it from staff, no recommendations, because this is a work session. Thank you. Questions of staff? Mr. Stonebeach. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On attachment five, which is from DEQ, which I believe is page 29 of your report, correct? It's sort of the brief history. And the second to the last bullet, and I'll just make sure I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what the status is with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. It says to date, several assessment reports have been submitted for the new pollution complaint number. A proposal for additional assessment is anticipated before the end of July, which I assume is July of 2009, 2008, okay. An additional assessment will evaluate the risk to the nearby condominium complex based on the risk evaluation additional work may be required. So has that been completed or I would like to turn that over to Andrew. Okay. And I have him address that subject if I could. Thank you. You're welcome. Good evening. The DEQ history is somewhat complicated. I'll get through it in the most straightforward way that I can. In the early 90s, it was determined that they had a release from the tanks that were there at the time. Those tanks were removed. Some remediation was done. Corrective action plan was put in place and new tanks were put in the ground. When for business reasons, they decided to close the gas station last year, one of the five-inch-cut requirements is that you can't leave tanks in the ground for some possible future use. If they're not in use, then they have to come out within 90 days. They obtained the permits, they took those tanks out. At the time, as is routine, soil samples were taken, and there was some contamination noted in the soil. That contamination was actually less than it was at the time in 1997 when the initial complaint was closed. However, the change in circumstances that caused them to want to do further investigation wasn't the amount of contamination in the ground. It was actually the presence of the condominium building next door. It was not there in 97 when the initial assessment was done. As part of that, DEQ was interested in taking soil samples on the property of the condominium building. In order to do that, they had to enter into an agreement with the Condominium Association to come onto that property to do that. That turned out to be a fairly lengthy process and that agreement was only signed last week. So that additional work has not been done. So additional samples have been taken just for clarification, but additional samples have been taken and will be. Well, what the additional samples they're referring to are samples from wells that will be installed on the condominium property, but have not yet, because that agreement was only entered into recently. And how long does it would it take to get that type of a read out from the Department of Environmental Quality? Probably a couple of months. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Questions, staff, Mr. Mayor. A few minutes ago you made reference to the remediation plan that was put in place, I believe, in 1997? No, it was initiated in the early 90s, it was completed, determined that that work was completed in 1997. The case was closed. So all the items in the remediation plan were actually addressed and completed? Yes. And there was no remediation plan once these tanks were removed a second time. That's well, what DEQ is doing now is to doing the risk assessment to determine whether there is a corrective action plan needed. And what's changed in doing the risk assessment is the presence of condominium building next door. Could you be more specific about that? What do you mean by the presence of condominium building next door. Could you be more specific about that? What do you mean by the presence of it? I mean, it's a bit of a rhetorical question on my part, but could you elaborate a bit? In determining what the corrective action plan will be, in other words, and how the remediation will be conducted and to what the end point of the remediation will be. DEQ does a risk assessment. They consider the level of contamination, but they also consider the surrounding properties that are potentially affected by the contamination. So the circumstances that changed from 1997 to when these tanks were taken out in 2007 was a large condominium building was constructed that changes their risk evaluation strumming Mr. Wilson. Thank you too. Wilson. Thank you I just for clarification that's actually pop on councilmember sombray's question Can you explain who actually performs the tests and because if if I recall, I think it's a private company that actually performs a test in the DQ, performs the analysis. Is that correct or is it a... In this case, it will be an environmental contractor hired by Motiva because Motiva was the owner of the property at the time that the release occurred. The specific company that's done the work so far is called URS. They essentially take the samples, analyze the samples, and then provide all that information to DQ. And then DQ analyzes the results of the samples. It didn't just develop, I may, that the DQ will issue whatever analysis it goes in a's a remediation plan or it's for letters like they did before. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Meyer. Following up on Mr. Jumman's question, this is a contact or hired by Motiva. the um these tests I'm assuming that they would do warholes every so many feet correct or how could you elaborate a little bit on what I think the intent for this characterization on the um they were put in monitoring wells the the additional monitoring wells that they want to install will go on the condominium property and I believe there are two wells that they want to install. One in the paved area and then one in the immediately adjacent to the wall of the building closest to where the gas station was. Do you believe that two is adequate and that the locations they're proposing are going to be sufficient? That is quite frankly beyond my expertise. That is a determination that the EQ will make based on their modeling. But they'll be making that assessment after the results have been obtained? I'm not sure. I follow you comment. Now, they will. They have their methodology for their modeling based on hydrogeology and soil characteristics and what they've already seen on the site from the mapping that's already been done. So in theory, DQ could come back and require them to take additional samples? In talking to Mr. Chapman with the EQ about this specific site, he felt that they actually had enough, if they could not get the agreement with the condominium building to install the additional wells, they would proceed with their risk assessment with the information that they had. And they felt that was adequate, but they wanted to go this extra step. Thank you. Any other questions or staff? It's not, thank you very much. We'll invite the applicant to come forward and trust the council. You can use that. Somebody's gonna have to show me how to work my little PowerPoint presentation from there. I'm a little clueless about that. Could we get a staff person who can? I don't know. I'll have to direct you. Well, with that beginning, good evening. My name is Alice Haas. I'm an attorney with Holland and Knight and we represent the applicant, DAG Petroleum. We're very happy to be here with you tonight and I must say that we are very happy that there are residents who I believe must be from the Providence Square condominium next door. We have asked to meet with them and we hope that someday we will be able to do that. So tonight we would like to have this dialogue with you and by extension with the homeowners. There's no intent by anyone on this team to snowball stone wall or have anything but a very transparent application process. And I want to be very clear about that up front. That being said, I have a really, I think, crack consulting team with us, project team. At the computer, he did not come here tonight to be my IT assistant but is our traffic engineer Chad Beard with Grove Slade Associates. He should be a familiar face to you in the city. I understand that Grove Slade actually did the traffic modeling for Providence Square and has done quite a bit of work in the city. We also have Bowman Consulting with us, very, very fine engineering firm and John Bondi and Andrew Viniski are with us. And someone that I work with every day, Julie Klein, who's a planner at Holland and Knight. The applicant is represented by Mati Burhani, who is a project manager. And then someone at Holland and Knight, who I do not have the pleasure to work with every day, but who I am so pleased to work with tonight is Amy Edwards. Miss Edwards was an advisor to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in the production and writing of the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act, which has been adopted by 23 states. It's under consideration in Virginia. It was up at the assembly last year and it's headed back this year. So Virginia is deliberating. She's also the author of implementing institutional controls at Brownfield's and other contaminated sites. She is a nationally recognized expert. So I hope that you will make full use of her knowledge tonight and direct any questions to her that you see, see fit. You know, the opening of her book, I just want to read two sentences. The specter of environmental liability, whether real or perceived perceived has driven manufacturers, developers, and others to flee potentially contaminated urban areas in favor of undeveloped and pristine greenfields. The result has been increased unemployment, declining tax spaces, urban blight, and increased crime in the nation's urban areas. That is not what we anticipate happening. If you... This site, this little neighborhood service station has been operating in this city for about 40 years. In late February 2007, the underground storage tanks were removed and the fuel dispensers were removed and this SUP application is actually to reinstall the fuel dispensers and the underground storage tanks. It is by any question what we call illegal non-conforming use and the use of this property is controlled by the Virginia code. The code does not require special use permit, but that's not what we're here to talk about tonight. Tonight we were here in the spirit of cooperation to talk to you about this SUP, about the voluntary improvements that the applicant is willing to make improvements that this station did not have for the past 40 years. With that said, I think Mike did such a wonderful job of going over the application that what I would like to do is to address a little more in-depth the proposed conditions. And respond to what I believe must be the citizens' concerns as set forth in a letter written by Maureen Wright, Reesner, to you, Mr. Mayor. So first of all, our special use permit is, of course, governed by our plat, which shows the improvements that the staff just ran through. We have submitted a water quality impact assessment and we do plan to install a rain garden of vegetative filter to remove 10% of the phosphorus. In an effort to mitigate impact to the neighborhood, we have restricted the hours of the station. I'm aware that the hours were restricted when it was previously running, but the hours that this applicant has agreed to are 6am to 12pm midnight, Monday through Saturday. Service bays will be limited to operation Monday through Saturday, 7am to 8pm. Of course you heard about the parking lot lighting, the types, green, B buffer, which will include some very nice plantings ever greens, tree canopy, and ground cover that were not there before plus the eight-foot fence with the woodpears. Of course we're bound by many regulations and I've put them in here or reference some of the state of the art equipment that we will be placing into the property. I think an important condition that we have submitted and we hope that staff will accept and that you will approve is the delivery of gasoline. We realize that traffic conditions changed even while the station was operating, but it seemed a good idea to us to limit delivery to hours after rush hour. So we came up with 9 to 3 and then 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. But when I was in the city last week about 9.15, I thought, okay, I don't believe we're through with rush hour yet. So we are going to revise these hours for delivery to 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and then 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Well we have certain criteria that we look at or that the city looks at and I know city staff is well aware of it because they reminded me every meeting that we've had and sometimes by letter of the 13 criteria that we meet. We don't get to cherry pick. It's 13 criteria that we meet. Now of course the qualification of non-conforming uses has some of those two. And some of the conditions are, let's say, standard design oriented, where the improvements are on the site, where the sense will be on the site. I don't think any of us can argue about that. They're on the plan, it's easy to see. And of course, the improvements to the building are set. They've been there for many years. But a couple that I want to talk about, in particular, is the consistency with a comprehensive plan. If you have a non-conforming use, it's almost inherent that you're not going to be consistent with a comprehensive plan. I can't define that anymore. But I can tell you that the comprehensive plan doesn't just have one recommendation. It has very many recommendations and one of them is to generate a strong tax base for the city. This property has a potential to generate $100,000 each year in sales tax. It would also generate business professional occupational license in addition to the real property tax. Now a nice thing about commercial uses is that the commercial users have less impact on city facilities than a residential user. That's just a fact. Makes a commercial user, a productive commercial user, an attractive commodity for the cities. This will also generate four to six employment positions in the city, depending on the time of day, it will be how many employees that might be needed. Now I cannot stand here and say, oh, oh and yes we're consistent with a long range plan because we're not. The comprehensive plan is very specific. This property is slated for redevelopment for a mixed use. Well I would like to tell you that this developer is the contract purchaser. He has an option. He's the optionee. He has been paying rent to the owner of the property for almost two years and he has received no return on his rent. Initially, when he became the optionee, he did come and speak to staff about the potential redevelopment of the property. While the market was going down, certainly none of us realized that it would reach the depths where we are today. That's not to say that he will not. Some day want to redevelop the property, but we need to preserve his right to do so. This is the applicant's redevelopment of a property in Washington, D.C. The District of Columbia Council approved this redevelopment of a former Exxon station last January. It would permit 65 to 85 dwelling units, 5,000 square feet of retail. This is a project that the applicant sponsored, owns through a related entity, and this is something that someday he can potentially do on this site, even though it does have a lot of site constraints. It has RPA in it and there will be some difficulty. But it is not untoward that this developer or this option E could do the same thing at this corner. But now he can't. Economic times are not right. They weren't right a year ago. And they're definitely not right today. So in the meantime, we would like to peacefully co-exist with our neighbors as we did before. Here's an example of a servication and apartment building at Arlington County. This was approved a couple of years ago, or maybe three or four years ago, could have been a condominium. It happens to be an extended stay hotel. It's so high in that people pay four to five thousand dollars a month to stay there. Another project where they are really co-existing on the same record lot, by the way, is 14, 14, 22nd Street in the Washington, D.C. This project is one of Anthony Lenez, and if you're familiar with him, he has done quite a bit of work in Georgetown. It's my understanding that this is a 95 unit building, and there's not a unit in this building that has sold for under $830,000 with the bulk of them going to a million to two million. The convenience store for this Exxon station is on the main level of a condominium. The main entrance to the condominium building is on the other side of the building, but one record lot, two separate tax parcels. Monitoring wells are on that side, and they'll stay on that side. And I want to go back for just a moment to answer one question, although I'm going to turn this over to Ms. Edwards for discussion about contamination issues if there are any. There are monitoring wells on this site and they've been monitoring throughout 2007 and 2008. Samplings have been forwarded to DEQ by URS or to testing. So it hasn't been left. Now again, to minimize the impact on the neighborhood, as I said, we've voluntarily restricted the operating hours, the delivery hours putting the landscape buffer in will construct a brick sidewalk across the front. It's not 10 feet but I don't know of a 10 foot sidewalk right around that area. We'll have a rain garden, limitation on the light, lighting to 10 feet. It'll be non-glare lighting directed downward and we intend to use high efficiency lighting that is much more environmentally friendly. Now one of the comments that came in the letter to the mayor is that the city's manager community development said the site is too small for the modern day amenities that major service stations provide and I have to say I absolutely agree with him. But we're proposing just the reopening of this small town gas station. Now I have a slide here that shows you a modern day service station. It has six gasoline islands, four diesel fuel islands, 3,00 square foot convenience smart, over 50 parking spaces, which include truck parking spaces, a car wash, and then the requisite, 475 foot canopy for which you can pull rain or shine. In contrast, that little red square is the SUV site superimposed. This application does not propose a modern facility. It proposes the reopening of this small town neighborhood station. Now, again, I'm going to skip over the environmental management not that we're not going to address it, but I'm going to have my expert address it. I would like to go to the neighborhood's concern about the gasoline tank or delivery trucks. Chad has, sorry about that, kind of skipped over on you. He is Ron, the truck manoeuvres. He's met with city engineer and as far as I am aware, we have been given the nod of approval. Now, I'm not, I'm an attorney. I don't understand this IT stuff but what I understand is the hyperlink that we needed to make this run for you tonight didn't get into my power point. However, we do have a simulation and we'll be happy to show it to you. But bottom line we have two options for fuel truck delivery. And you correct me if I'm wrong. Or in fact, do you want to just describe them? Sure. Chad Beard with Groveslade. We, like Alice had mentioned, we had a simulation here, and I can leave the disc with the council tonight if you'd like to see the simulation. But it just basically shows a typical tanker truck coming down Main Street from the west to the east Turning left into the first entrance into the gas station unloading the gas from the tanks backing up and then pulling out onto east We have one here that shows it going leaving going north and then one going back west leaving going north and then one going back west on Main Street. Again, it shows this typical simulation. This is AASHTO standards. It's run a simulation-based auto turn. We met with the city, Curtin Peter, and they agree with the access for the truck. It's typical for a service station. If you'll, very good. no, you went forward. That was good. We want to keep this moving forward. Regarding the hazardous materials, there was a comment that the SUP did not address the use of oil, the transmission, hydraulic fluids, and synthetic use motor oil. I'm just going to include heating oil in this too. The station will not be using heating oil. The lifts in the service phase will be electorate. They will not be using hydraulic fluids. And the used oil will be kept in above ground tanks and they'll be emptied by weekly or more as needed. All these materials are regulated. They're local, they're state, they're federal regulations. These aren't optional. These are required and Dagnotrolyum will comply with the regulations. Now, Tad, if you'll go back to slide number four, or to number four, I don't think it's slide number four, I'm going to ask Amy Edwards to come up here and talk to you some about these contamination issues that in some cases are perceived. Thank you. I'm here to answer any questions that you all may have, but I think it's important to know that this site is being heavily regulated and scrutinized by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality that undergrstorage tanks have been heavily regulated by the federal and state government since 1986. We deal with sites like this all the time. It's not unusual, unfortunately, where there are sites with under-storage tanks to determine, frequently as part of a real-state transfer, that there have been some releases in the past. The good news is that the responsible party, Motiva, is taking its obligations seriously. It's going through the standard procedures. It's done site characterization. It's working closely with the State of Virginia. It will do additional site investigations to be sure that all of the concerns regarding the prior releases that were discovered when the tanks were removed in 2007 are properly addressed in accordance with all the optical standards to protect human health in the environment. The good news in the environment investigations that have occurred to date and there's been quarterly monitoring of the existing six wells on the site is that the wells that are closest to the adjoining condominium property have shown no detectable concentrations of benzene, which is the driver with gasoline releases from tanks when you're doing risk assessments. So there are two wells on the eastern, basically on eastern property border right now that have been sampled since this problem was identified as I mentioned Benzun as a known carcinogen. So it is the contaminant that one looks at most commonly and tends to be the driver of the investigation and remediation activities. And it has been non-detect the last two quarters of sampling. This doesn't mean that more sampling won't happen. As has been mentioned already, the responsible party has put together a work plan to do additional investigations largely on that property boundary, because everyone wants to be confident that the contamination has been adequately delineated and that if any remediation is necessary and I fully express based upon my review of the report that some type of remediation at the tank field, at the tank field, that's not off site. We'll need to be done at some point to adequately address the contamination that has been found in soil and groundwater. But that does not mean that there is an off-site issue. And based upon the sampling results today, we have no reason to believe that there are any off-site contamination issues, but they will be evaluated further as part of the work plan that has been submitted and approved by Virginia DEQ. So I deal with a lot of sites like this, many farm or contaminated than this. And obviously my client as well as the responsible party that is investigating and potentially remediating the contamination plans to do everything that it needs to do in full accordance with all applicable standards. So additional work will be done. But we have no reason to believe based upon the current investigation that there is any offsite risk to the kind of minion property or any other site, but all of that will be obviously further evaluated with time. I know there were some questions before in terms of, well, how do you know where the contamination is and whether they're enough forings? I think it's probably important to talk a little bit about the site assessment process. Things have changed a little bit over the years that I've been doing this kind of work where we want to encourage the redevelopment of urban sites which may have some kind of historical contamination. And so we try to link the degree of investigation and remediation to the intended use of the site and anyone else who may potentially be impacted by contamination on that site. So what do we look at? We look at receptors that may be groundwater, that may be a residential building nearby, but we look at who may potentially be impacted by the contamination. But as part of that evaluation, we actually have to look at exposure pathways. Is there a way by which the contamination on the site potentially reaches those receptors? Because if it doesn't reach those receptors, we may not need to do more about it. But that's what this whole process is about. We do care whether residents living off site are potentially impacted. As I mentioned, based on the investigations to date, we don't have reason to believe that this contamination is migrating across the property boundary. But as part of the work plan that has been proposed, additional work will be done. We will, there will be work done to evaluate whether there are vapor issues near the property boundary, whether there is additional contamination in soil or groundwater that hasn't been met by the borings that have been sunk or the wells that have been installed today. But again, this has been a very traditional logical investigation. And the good news is that based upon the wells closest to the property boundary, there is no reason to believe at the present time that the contamination is migrating off site. So more work will need to be done. There's no question about that. But based upon what we know today, there's no reason to be concerned that there is an off-site issue. And with that, I guess I stand up and tell you any questions that any of you may have. Any questions? Not, thank you. Okay. No questions? That's a far. Okay. Okay. One thing that I did gloss over quickly and I wanna go back to it, these are in the conditions, but DAG will be installing double fiberglass underground storage tanks. Previously, there were three. There will now be two. These tanks will have monitoring device so that if there is a leak and alarm will sound, and I understand the flow is shut off. and I understand the flow is shut off. There is also a vapor recovery in the tank to the double wall piping that goes to the fuel dispenser. I'm looking back at my applicant. He's telling me, yes, I do have this right. I've been told that a great potential for contamination exists in the piping that goes from the underground storage tank to the actual dispenser. This applicant will be installing double wall piping and there will be fiberglass double wall containment sumps under each fuel dispenser. That was not something that was in the previous operations. To the extent that we can we're always happy to answer any questions about the on-site assessment, but I want to make it very clear that DAG petroleum is not a party to the on-site ongoing assessment with DEQ. It shall motivate the former tenant. So in some cases, we've been able to give the quarterly reports, but we don't know the details. Certainly not like the Providence Square Homeowners Zoo, because they are an appartee to the easement agreement. I'm finished. Mr. Meyer. Two tanks versus three. What was the capacity of each of the three tanks that was there before? The three gasoline tanks held 12,000 gallons each, so it's 36,000. The two new tanks, one is 20,000 gallons and the other is 6,000 gallons, so there is a reduction in 10,000 gallons. So that would require it to be filled more frequently if you were to sell the same amount on a daily basis. I can't move it up and down, I'll pull it up. He says, no, it will not. Maybe there were 10,000 gallons that stayed in that tank a long time. I'll let my applicant explain because you know it's kind of evading me at the moment too. Good evening Council. My name is Monty Barani and I'm the applicant. The two answer questions, Mr. Myers. The station had three underground storage tanks prior because it had one mid-grade tank And we don't have we wouldn't have any mid-grade product would be blending regular and premium which is normally done nowadays So that's a standard practice in the industry correct and the the second tank which is the 6,000 gallon tank with all diesel fuel second tank which is the 6,000 gallon tank with all diesel fuel. So there is actually reduction. Now, the double wall tanks, double wall piping, is that standard practice in the industry for all new facilities? Yes, it's relatively new. The station will have double wall tanks. So no one creating a new facility pretty much anywhere would be using anything but double wall tanks? Yes, that's correct. We're in the past, stations had single wall tanks and single wall lines, but you can't do that anymore. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Hearing none, thank you very much. Are there any other comments from staff at this point based on the presentations? Hearing none, thank you very much. We'll see you on the 19th of January. Is that right? 13th? 13th, but the 19th really works better. Okay the 19th of January. Is that right? 13th? I think it was the 13th, but the 19th really works better. Okay, 13th of January. Okay, we'll now move to our next item, which is a discussion on a request by the residents in Bimeria for a special use permit for an extended stay hotel use facility. Staff report, please. If I could, Mr. Mayor. This week, once again, we have a staff member who is the first presentation before we would like to introduce Nancy Kranmer, who is our newest addition to our department, who will be given the staff report this evening. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. The application is for residents in Bimeriot, LLC located at the former V.Side at 3565 Chain Bridge Road. Landers requested for a special use permit to allow an extended stay hotel and for a special use permit for a use that will generate more than 700 vehicle trips per day in the highway, corridor, overlay district. There are also five special exceptions needed for relief. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on these. I would like to focus discussion this evening on the broader design issues. broader design issues. This is a site where loaded located at north of the intersection of Fairfax Boulevard and Chain Bridge Road, as Chain Bridge Road on the west of the site. Up at the top to the north is Eaton Place. The site is actually accessed by a service drive, two-way traffic movement that comes down and terminates on the site itself. Down here at the bottom left, south corner of the site, you're right adjacent to the FedRecher's restaurant. I believe you've seen this site before. I won't go into a lot more detail on that. This is the application, as I've actually submitted to staff and was the basis of the staff review. The plan's going to need some adjustments and staff will be able to give those two may area out once we get input from staff, from council this evening on the broader design issues. I think one thing we can safely say is given the prominence of the location and the size of this building no matter where the building is placed it's going to need to be of the highest caliber architecture. Also like to the formula that the applicant has turned in a traffic study just came in recently, but public works has not had a chance to review it yet, so I will not be addressing it this evening. This is just a brief comparison of those special exceptions. They're highlighted the those special exceptions. They're highlighted the actual special exceptions, what's proposed with what the zoning ordinance requirements are. Again, unless there's questions on that, I'll go on. The two design approaches that we would like some input from Council on basically come down to whether there's going to be a Street emphasis on moving vehicles. This is your typical suburban type of arrangement or something that's going to be Have more pedestrian oriented street development that might include such things as wider sidewalks, slowing down the traffic, and pulling the buildings up to where the sidewalk is, and keeping the parking behind the buildings. We understand we got the slide from Mariett. Though when they first started looking at the site, they approached it in the typical suburban manner, which relies on more of the park, vehicular traffic out on the road and just parking and on the site. Note that we can't, they couldn't actually pursue this application as is, that's a six-story building, which exceeds the maximum height limit in the C2 district. I think you've all seen this a lot before. It was the draft of the Fairfax boulevard master plan. I have on there in red the existing parcel lines and the star is located where the Marriott site is. Another look that Marriott took, when they first came in on the boulevard plan was providing a parking deck and then providing the building pulled up across the street. This never came in as an application. This is just their first go around. This is actually a refinement of the initial semidilize showed you earlier that staff received. The main difference between this colored version and the earlier version exists between chain bridge road and the front of the building. What we reviewed did not have much definitions to what will go on there. This is one possible of what could go on there. This section could also take the one-way slow parking lane and parallel parking and the wide sidewalks that are shown in the Fairfax for AF master plan. It also could take those same kind of improvements if we left the face of Chamberlion Road where it is right now. So this is the elevation standing over about the shell station across Chamberlion Road looking at the Chamberlion Road frontage for that plan that I just showed you. And then again looking at the site standing about the southern corner of the site and looking up Chained Bridge Road to the north. This next slide you do not have in your packet. This was received just a couple of days ago. It represents another conceptual layout on the property. The major difference between this one and the ones that you have in your packet is that the building has been pulled back further from Chained Bridge Road. And you have a two-way parking aisle extended down with 90-degree parking coming off of it. Again, this is the new alternative layout from looking at it from across the street from the sales shell station and then looking at it from the southern coordinate of the property up to the north of Chain Bridge Road. That's all I have for you at the present unless you have any questions. We'd love to get your input. Let me see if there's any questions or staff. It's not. Thank you very much. We'll invite the applicant to come forward and address the council. Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Dave Lazo. It's good to see you again. I'm the attorney working with Marriott Hotels. And the Marriott team is here, a Bob Mannon, a vice president of development in the theater Tom Galley. Also vice president, our architect, Bob Greenberg is here, civil engineer. My gall bride is here with Christopher Consultants, and our traffic consultant, Ed Popazian, with Kimley Horn is here as well. Appreciate very much the presentation. We've prepared one that's similar, but we'll go through it quickly and just as a precursor Just say that fundamentally we we we are at a stage that the design has progressed to where we have a choice to make we had one plan that I would say fairly closely tracked the draft master plan in that it is close to Old Chain Bridge Road. But that was not that well received by some. And so we've gone back and made some changes which we'd like to share with you tonight and entertain and discuss with you that design and then get guidance from you as we proceed with one of the two options. We can build either one, both work well as a hotel. Both I think would be a fine addition to the community and we'd like to do that. It's been a good project for us, but the timing is critical. We have a contract that did expire at the end of this year. We've gotten the owner to extend it. We must close on this site by the end of January. I'm sorry, yes, by the end of January. I'm sorry, yes, by the end of January, and that is the goal. So we really need to get to a public hearing on January 13th, if at all possible. This again is the site. It's the old V.O.T site. One thing I would add is that since the time that the contract was first entered, there was more contamination here than we originally knew about. It could be dealt with, but it is an additional cost of about a million and a half dollars to clean up this site. This is something we work through with the owner. It became an issue of who is going to bear the cost. But it is something that can be dealt with and Maryott intends to do that as part of its construction effort. Next slide, please. This is the concept. This is a conceptual. This is the hearth room. This is a high-end hotel. Extended stay. I think all of you travel. You know the product. Well, this would be the latest generation of residents in hotels. The horror room is where people congregate. It's next to a eating area where you have breakfast and then managers dinners sometimes in the evening. Next please. This is the studio area. This is the living area. This is the living area. Next, this is the kitchen area, full kitchen as required by the performance standards in your new extended stay hotel ordinance. Next, please. This is the sleeping area. And then next to that was the bathroom. Thank you, Nancy. This was the design we started with. It's, it is six floors and so really is not workable. It is completely surrounded by parking and we took our lead from that. Next please. This is the sort of an aerial view gives you an idea of sort of a concept and old chain or chain bridge road is the left side. Next please. You see what happens to the large area where there are no intervening streets, if those streets go in, it does indeed break up the block but it poses serious impediments to the development of the site in a particular R site. Next. This is what happens if all of those streets actually were built. And we were able to design a project, either design, which would accommodate a future university drive. Should you choose to extend it across and make an intersection with the orchard? So please, that's an important part. But there's really two connections to eat an avenue, probably too many, and it does cut up the site. Next. This is the concept you saw earlier. We've tried to have an element along the chain bridge, which is loosely termed a linear park in that the sidewalk is between two rows of trees. A theme that we anticipate will probably be carried around a significant portion of the North Fax area. But one of the problems here is we don't know how that will all unfold. Next please. This is that project that we've described with a bit of analysis of the avail of the heights of some buildings nearby and they range from the mid 50 feet tall, which is measured to the roof line, not including the parapet up to about 65 feet. Next, please. This is the current design. Next please. This is a cafe on Chain Bridge Road but the key point here is that you can see that the green area will then go to the sidewalk. Next please and you'll see this better. So it's really building facade green area sidewalk and then street and therein lies the problem. Next please. This is a design that in some ways Harkins back to the earlier more suburban look. The parking row is placed between a chain bridge and the building. So it actually provides, frankly, some better access to parking. You would be able to proceed along the existing service road, drive straight ahead, and then park in that area along the chain bridge road facade. It puts the building back around 70 feet from chain bridge as opposed to 30 feet. So now there's the length of the parking space as well as the aisle. The parking spaces are about 18 feet. The aisle is 20 to 24 feet. So it achieves the goal of getting the building back away from chain bridge. You see a row of trees on the southern edge and once again that will, that's the property line, but it allows for a future street to go in if you should choose to do that. And if, for example, the street required some easement area or dedicated area from the remaining property of Marriott in our proposal or in the conditions, then that land would be dedicated to you to facilitate the construction of that street. Next, please. You can see a minor difference how the building steps back from Chamberlain's is the same slide as before but we wanted you to see how it does move back. The parking is positioned between the existing low rise office buildings to the north and the rear of the Marriott hotel. If in the future that property to the north were to redevelop, then ideally those office buildings would be probably present more of a frontage along Eaton Avenue, and there could be a parking structure shared between the two properties. And so that is one reason why it really is a good idea to keep the building down toward a future university drive with a parking really behind it to facilitate that future possibility of parking between the two buildings and better hidden from public view. Next slide, please. This is a revised drawing. A couple of things, several things have occurred here. One, the trees appear more prominent, primarily because the building is now further back from chain bridge road. And because of that, you'll see more of the trees and less of the building if you were standing on the other side of the street. And you can see parking in this simulation that is in front by the canopies, that cafe area that you saw earlier would be moved to the corner of the building and there would be two patios put at the corner, which is the area nearest to currently fudruckers, which we like having the convenience of FUDRUCKERS, but it sure would be nice if it would redevelop. And that would be something we'd like to see. Next slide, please. This is a little bit better view of that corner. That's the row of parking FUDRUCKERS is to your right. Now you see here in the building, there's more articulation visible in this building. That was a comment we received from the staff, which is the building ought to be well articulated. In other words, the facades moving in and moving out, not fully flat. We think that's been accomplished here. Our request for more variety in the brick. The bricks have been darkened up and we've brought a sample panel with us tonight. We would commit to at least 50% brick on the building. That would include all of the facades, the front, the sides, the back, everything. Not just 50% of the front, but 50% of all the facades. The building has bricks. It also has precast, true masonry along the lower level in some of the caps. The lighter color material is called granitex. We have a sample of that here for you today. The goal is to have some variety of colors and textures. They have been darkened up a little bit here so that you can see I think a significant improvement, which I think as we receive more comments, we can react to that. And again, the architect is here to answer that question. This design works. It will work well. It has one minor issue. We think minor in that. We don't have quite as much room for parking. This design for the hotel will have 155 rooms. We were at 153. This has 155 rooms. We were at 153. This has 155. One thing that happened is the, because, frankly, some of the cost of the hotel have gone up. The indoor pool is now outdoor. It'll be shielded, but it's outside. We picked up two rooms because of that. It helps pay for some of the added cost of the development. But if we go to 155 rooms, we're going to have to go from one space per room to probably 0.9695 spaces per rooms that still within the study that we did when the extended state ordinance was adopted, and which showed that at the maximum you would need about .94 spaces per room at a maximum completely full occupancy. So that would be something we'd have to follow up with. We would provide the staff, if this is the design you would like to go with. We would within the next, well tomorrow or a part Monday probably we would have a new conceptual site plan for the staff to review which would have all of these features built in. Nancy Kranmer has advised us that because of the signage on the building, we need to have special permission to get that signage on the building. We would provide an application for that as well. I think we'd all like to see that it's lower profile sign, but it's very tasteful. And it's at the top part of the building that we would request that. So it's a fine hotel. Can't say it enough. Marriott wants to be a member of your community. They wanted to do that for far more than two years. But now that you have a change in your code that allows extended stay hotels, that allows this to happen, they were able to get this site. This is a good site. It's an excellent site from location purposes. It's an exceptional challenge because of its size and shape and other issues that are identified. But Marriott has internal funding. In other words, despite this economy, they are prepared to go forward with this project. They want to get started as quickly as they can. They will operate this hotel through a very long-term contract. Someone else will own it, but they will operate it. This will be a Marriott residence in hotel. So they want to get going going and they'd like your guidance so that we can turn around and give you the hotel that you want. We've had meetings with members of the assembly and with the Coddale Civic Association. There were a number of people who came, generally speaking, I think they're so glad to see the site redeveloped. And we think it'll be a good neighbor for them and we'd like to do our best job to make that a reality. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Blasso. Let me just say I know I can speak on behalf of my colleagues. We certainly appreciate your staying power and your interest in the city of Fairfax regardless of how the salt comes out and we certainly appreciate all the time and energy that you've put into it. I'm just going to make kind of an opening comment on a personal basis from what I've seen and I know you're looking for input and you know as I've gone around the community and having lived right across the street from the development you know the one common ingredient that I think we could probably safely say is consistent at least in the dialogue and the discussions that I have had is a everybody loved to see the VI locked cleaned up and be nobody is against the redevelopment. Certainly of this area and I have not found any resistance to a hotel use on the site. As you and I have discussed and I've discussed in previous work sessions where the support has always ended and where the concern has raised was the placement of the building on the site. You had shared the original diagram, at least the one that's kind of been moving through the system that we had a work session discussion on that was 30 feet from the road. I'm just personally going to say that I applaud your effort here to move it back. You know, the master plan is a great start. It's a great vision. I think we're all very energetic on redevelopment of that whole what we call the North Facts quarter and spend a lot of time and energy. I personally believe that this first project out of the ground is going to either make or break the community support as we move forward. You know, while in the downtown area, we very specifically went with the urban design versus the user phrase. The suburban design was because of the uniqueness of the downtown historic area. At least in my mind, I never envisioned that concept going city wide. And all the discussions I've had within community, there I think is very serious concern about the placement of the building, the overwhelmingness of buildings that get built 30 feet. My concern has always been, if you look at this entire quarter, there is not another example of a five-story building that would be 30 feet from the road. So from the personal standpoint, I applaud your effort. I think this makes it a far superior. I know we can debate parking in the front, parking in the back. I think this is a great balance that moves the building even farther back from the average setbacks from some of the other surrounding buildings. The only concern I have and I'll just ask this question is, you know, when this building got originally designed as part of the master plan vision, we had a very energetic design of internal road systems and that we're going to be paid for by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority funding and all the dialogue and discussion. The reality is most of the redevelopment projects that we've even discussed in this have now fallen by the wayside because of the economy, including the Hooters redevelopment and some of the other ones that we've been talking about. The road system for the near future, there is no funding for the internal road network system and certainly while I think there would be support for it, it's many years off at best. And my concern is not so much now that you've moved the building back on the Chamber of Roadside, but the building is still very close to where the proposed new road would have been. And I'm a little concerned about kind of it over towering the floodruckers and some of the other facilities. Can you share with me how far back the building now will be from the south side, from the floodruckers side, if I can use that to better describe it, how close it would then be on that side if a road got built. Good. Nancy, will you go back to that image? I think that the distance from that row of trees, which is really where the property line is, is you said, I thought it was, is it 30 or 20 feet from that property line to the face of the building. And when we, and I think Michael went through and tried to anticipate where the street would be, the street would not be right at the property line, it would probably be further south of that. Down toward the apex of the triangle, there you go. You can see how the apex of the triangle, if you just envisioned orchard coming across the street, there's a significant distance there. Now, whether that street goes up at that angle or stays a little bit to the south is, again, it's still not quite known. I was only going to say if you look at the parking field that's what dictates some of this too. There's only so far you can move the building back off of that property line because then you really come there you go you really compress the parking and that begins to really affect the design as well. Can you put up the actual photo, the aerial photo of this lot? I'm trying to, I'm assuming that the FUDRUCKERS building in comparison to where this building is, the actual structure that I'm looking at that's just south. That's it. And from the back of the existing floodruckers to the front of your building on that corner closest to it, do you know the distance and how far off the property line of that? And here's the other concern or question I would have if the road, in turn, road system doesn't get built, obviously all this property would hopefully one day get redeveloped. Without the road, assume the road actually goes to the existing footrucker's structure. So if that doesn't get redeveloped and the road doesn't become there, then the footrucker stays and then possibly the used car lotter, the new car lot or whatever is being stored back in there might get redeveloped hopefully at some point in time. And I'm just trying to get a feel for the placement of that building looking north, standing south in the FedRucker's parking lot to make sure that it feels like it fits because I have a feeling it's going to be the only redevelopment that takes place in this area for At least the foreseeable future I don't know if we have this in one of it it may be in your presentation, but it looks It looks as if if this this is the rounded edge of the building and that's the parking field here all the way at the apex that that's the very corner Fudruckers Mike says it looks to be about 45 to 50 feet From that from that corner of Fudruckers as you can see it's it's even greater than the width of the parking field Okay As you can see, it's even greater than the width of the parking field. Okay. And that, and I would come, I mean, I, one of the, the, the discussion points we've been having with the staff is really what to do with this area even now. In other words, if there's, each design offers, you know, has different offerings to it. If we go with this design, you see that's where I said the patio would move down to the front of this area here. So guests could be out here and then the sidewalk connecting and you'd walk around Fudruckers. And frankly, more attention would be paid here. I think we need to spend more time with exactly what we're going to do. There's a comfortable distance between footruckers in here. And that's what I'm trying to get of. I actually think the patio on the corner of the building and the way it looked in the design is an enhancement and is a nice feature to the building. I'm trying to get a feel for the placement of the building, assuming that everything else stays the same. The road doesn't get built at least in the near future, and how the building is going to feel its placement. Again, not on the chain bridge side, you address that. And really what I'm kind of leading toward, and I know this design won't allow it, is in the very first design that we saw, you actually had a row of parking that was on all both the north, or the west and the south side, which now it's been returned to the west side, but certainly not to the south side. And again, you can view it two different ways. The original conceptual design had that row of parking that would have been between FUD Rutgers in the hotel, which meant that if guests wanted to leave the hotel they'd have to walk through the parking lot to walk to FUD Rutgers. And one thing we've talked about internally is that in either design you're not going to be doing that, you'll be leaving the hotel because this is that corner is fully functional even though the drop off point is to the rear the front is fully functional as the front of the building and you'll walk without going into any parking or asphalt and you can walk to floodruckers and again floodruckers is kind of a neat place it It's casual dining. We expect a lot of people that will eat there. And do course will go even further. So it's comfortable. It would work. But again, ideally what, and maybe at several years in the future, that whole Northax area will get kicked off. Marriott, in the past, I've worked on at least two proposals where in revitalization areas where Marriott is the first to go. So they're very cognizant of what it takes to be the first, even when you have to wait a little while because projects, you know, it takes a year and a half to build a building. So they're ready to do that, they're willing. They think it works and they want to get going. But that's a very good question. What is the relationship between that hotel and FUD Rockers, the only real eating experience, if you will, within the North Facts unless you walk all the way around and go to the shopping center? OK, let me open it up and see if there's other questions or comments by my colleagues. Mr. Drummond? Sure. Thank you. Mr. Lasse, you answered some of the questions I had earlier with dealing with financing. Mayor had answered. I understand that Maryott had a meeting with some of the member of the community. Yes. Can you please describe to the council what your presentation was like and the reaction response you got? Some of the questions that the community had. Very good question. We reached out to Cobdale and were able to reach the vice president, I think, is her title. But we were able to meet at the Masonic Lodge. I think we had about 25, maybe 30 people to 10 that meeting in the evening. And there were a lot of questions. Our presentation was very similar to what I presented tonight. I used the boards. That was their preference to have boards. I didn't have this second option at the time. We were really talking about an option that had the building out closer to chain bridge. I think the biggest problematic area, and it really is true for both Cobdale and for the folks that came from the assembly, there we had about four or five people come. Is really the traffic movement of where Eaton crosses over to go to, I guess the original Chain Bridge Road and just the whole confluence of how those lights function. So they seem to like the design. They liked having the site redeveloped. They like having a hotel option. And once again, there were several people in both instances that traveled a lot, know the residents in, and were very grateful to it. We had one person from Cobbdale that's, I think, a landscape architect who hated it. And that's an understatement. I think a landscape architect who hated it. And that's an understatement. I just hated it. It was the wrong thing, wrong place, wrong time. We addressed as many of his questions as we can and we moved on. So it was generally well received. But again, how are you going to handle the parking? So it's a good thing that we've done a traffic impact study. We want the staff to take a look at the raw data we've accumulated. Our general conclusion now, actually that of Mr. Propagion is that this is a negligible impact on that whole intersection area there. Our peaks are not the same peaks as the other traffic. When you add some green light to the movements, we would need, it simply takes away green light time from other areas so you probably don't need to do that or shouldn't do that. So we're still looking at that. Add needs to work with the staff more and make sure we've addressed all those questions and any suggestions they have. So they were generally good meetings and we were glad to have them. I wish we could like to have more people come, but I think we had a good showing, but traffic, and it isn't just our hotel. I mean, I think it's a challenge for the whole development of the area. That's everybody's challenge. Things are already stretched pretty much. I think it's probably the level of service, and you don't want it to get any worse, but yet you have, you want your area to develop, and if you wait for it to get fully corrected, it'll never develop. It's just a fact. You had mentioned that Maryout would not be owning this property. Correct. I don't think you could probably tell us today who would be owning it, but could you possibly describe to the Council on the Community, sort, somewhere the guidelines when you're looking for an owner. Sure. Because I think that as you probably heard from the discussions, especially as it relates to extended state, nature of the facility, the quality of the property, we want to ensure that the owner is maintaining whatever standards that he has as well. Bob, do you want to address that? I'll just as Bob is walking up, but the standard model is to work with known partners of Marriott, if you will. Good evening, Bob Manon, Senior Vice President for Marriott Development. The ownership group that we would select for this property would be a very highly qualified hospitality lodging company. They would already own numerous properties throughout a lot of different metropolitan areas. So we actually have several groups that are interested, all of which sort of meet those kinds of qualifications. Also, they would enter into a 30-year management agreement with Mary-Aut as a condition of being able to own this property. So that would be essentially binding upon them. Even in the event of a sale, that management agreement would survive. Mary-Aut would be on the property every day managing the property. So the owner really has a rather passive role here. Marieth responsible for the look, the feel, everything about that property. Other questions, comments from council. Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You mentioned dedication of right away or potential dedication of right away of chain bridge road. Could you speak a little bit more to that as to what you're talking about? What I was talking about was was really possibly new university drive. We don't know exactly where that street will go. No, you said chain bridge road. Did you not meet Chainbridge Road? No. If I did, then I was mistaken. I don't think there's any need to do that. I think all of the right of way was there. If I said that, then I apologize. I meant new university drive. Okay. Got that. My mistake. Thank you. This is more a question for staff, and if it don't need to, you can just send it to me. And that is for just a comparison state, the distance between the road frontage and the willow with site buildings. If somebody could just send that to me. Okay. My apology. I think it's 758. Other, Mr. Talberes? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things that I'm particularly sensitive to is that this as you drive south on Chain Bridge Road, this is really a gateway to the community and the city of Fairfax and most of the designs and pictures that I've seen are oriented as you would drive north. And this one on your, I'll show you the one with the birds in the corner, is really the only kind of glimpse I can get of what it would look like as you proceed south. To me, it looks a little bit like the back of a building. And I think a lot of maybe it is, it seems like if there was something to be done to soften the view and we wanna be welcoming as you come into the city and perhaps something can be done to what I see a very rigid structure as I come in to me isn't as welcoming as, quite frankly, as I look at the rounded edge and I go north and I just think we ought to be very sensitive to as residents of Cobdale and residents of the assembly and just some people coming into the city. How they view this so is it possible to take a look at that or give me some sense of how that might be softened so that it is more welcoming. It not only is possible. Bob, do you want to come up? That's a point well taken because it's almost, that's the gateway, if you will, that's where you're entering into the city. And so we've had internal discussions about that as well about making it's really the side of the building in real but but it's a good point and it needs to look probably a little more like the front. Bob maybe you can make some suggestions. Hi I'm Bob Greenberg from Gordon Greenberg Architects. What we have done is to try and soften that, of course, on 123. The majority of the rooms have their windows on that side of the building facing 123. We have added some windows and some ins and outs, some relief into brick. It's a combination of brick and also there's a stairwell on that end of the building, which we're also proposing to put some windows in the end of that. So we are trying to add some interest, but it will also be some signage on that end. That will identify the building when you're coming south, And that'll be toward the top of the building. We can provide some additional information if that would help you. Thank you. Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to follow up on Mr. Stomber's comment, because I was actually going to make a very similar point. And I know that we could go on and on with this and run up the cache register. But if you could, from a design perspective, if you could include elements such as this on this end, not necessarily with the same function on the inside, if you want to retain your stairwell, but it would give some kind of finished style to that into the building. And if it would be possible to do that without running up cost significantly. Most of your, I would assume that a large percentage of the persons who would be coming here would be coming off of the interstate either from national airport or from Dallas and would be coming in from that direction. So I think there could be a business case on your end would be advantageous to give a little bit more definition and would also of course improve the aesthetics of everyone entering the city limits from the north. I do want to commend you for addressing the concern that we had earlier about a greater variation on the facade adding more brick which is a consistent theme of the buildings in the city. And I would be interested in hearing a little bit more about the possibility, I mean, if you, when you come back, if you could address the aesthetics of that corner, notwithstanding most of the commercial activity for this site is going to be on the interior on the north side, people registering coming and going on On this picture here, and there was another picture where you were discussing this entrance here, vis-a-vis flood rockers. My only other comment would be the overhead canopy for that entrance is architecturally it looks a little weak and not as proportional. And if you could possibly address that in a way to give just a slight bit more definition and emphasis to that portal to the building, it, it would actually enhance the, the viability of that building five years from now if there was a redevelopment of the property south. I think both of your suggestions should be considered and are well-founded and the entrance to the hotel, the primary entrance not only for guests but also is from the south. So we do care about the end of that building, the side as we call it and I think we're going to have to look at it and investigate it and see what we can do to. I just thought that it looked a little weak in terms of its definition. One thing I might mention, we do have a vehicular entrance, was as you said, it's from the inside of the V. And the other entrance is like a pedestrian entrance. So it's a little softer entrance. So we'll take a look at that canopy, but we just wanted you to understand how the, it will function. How about? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Stranglin? I guess great minds think alike because I was going to make one of the same comments that Mr. Stamber, Mr. Meyer, in terms of the rounded edge. And I think it's a great idea and I think it could be done and accomplished without a run up of, as you said, the cash register is fantastic. Having said that, the only concern that I guess I would have is in terms of the size of a sign because while we want to be a gateway to the city we also One sorry while we also want you to be able to attract traffic We also want to be a gateway to the city and in my travels throughout the Commonwealth around the country I always see a lot of you know hotel signs and they're relatively large so I'm assuming that the sign if we're talking about that If I'm here in mr. Meyer mr. Stonbrace correct is to be proportional to what we're seeing on this other side as opposed to something. It's going to look like with no off to respect something to see on a I-81 crackerbarrel by Virginia Tech. No rocking chairs either. I love crackackleboro. Yeah, and your point about the Hokis was. All good points and what we were talking about was that when we return, and it sounds like clearly you want to go with a design that has the road parking between the building and chain bridge is give you and the staff of view of that corner so you can seriousness, I mean, we're not interested. We're not interested in really coming back to us at some point asking for a box on a pole with some lights. No, no. And the staff pointed out to us that if we're going to have signage, I mean, typically we'd have a monument sign. And here you can see it on the corner of the building. It's actually relatively small. So we'll give you a sense more than a sense. Give you a design for what would go on the building. I was thinking of it from the road. You're asking me six. Right. I have one other question. Early in your presentation, you talked about doing a slight reduction in the number of parking spaces per room. Yes. I think 2.9. Yeah. Nine something. parking spaces per room. Yeah. I think 2.9. Yeah. 9-something. I said point about point 9-6. 9-6, right. What has been Maryott's experience? I mean, do most of these facilities have a 1.0 ratio? Or how often do you go below that and how many times have you had a problem on other facilities? Good question. We add you want to come up. This is Ed Papazian. He's the traffic. Did actually we can did a study of that very issue? Good evening. I'm at the Paising with Kimley-Horner Associates. This past spring we did a series of counts of parking at comparable, at residents' in, around the area. We were very, very careful. Let me just lay the groundwork to give you a level of comfort. We were very careful to do these counts in the spring when business is going well, when people are traveling on business. And in fact, and these counts were done in the first and second week in May. We counted the Fair Lakes facility, the Merrifield facility, and a facility in Montgomery County just north of the Beltway in the Fairland area near Silver Spring. So all of these three are suburban locations, not affected by being in close proximity to airports, for example. So we had a very good sample. Once again, we did these counts in May when there's a lot of business travel occurring. And in fact, these were all, and we did these counts at late at night and early in the morning to pick up the peak overnight when parking is as the heaviest of it residents in. In all instances the occupancy of the hotels were either 99% or 100% so we were dealing with full hotels so that we're not having any distortions and the findings. Basically our average peak parking ratios that we found were 0.86 spaces utilized per occupied room. These ranged from the Silver Spring location, 0.73 and 0.82. The Merrill Field locations are parking findings were 0.85 and 0.89. Fair Lakes had a ratios of 0.94 and 0.96. Just in all instances, the peak parking that we found were below the 1.00 based upon what the numbers of spaces we were talking about were comfortable with the number of spaces provided. These are the type of travel we're dealing with and the fact that there are people who take cabs or drop off by cabs or in some instances if there's more than one or two rooms occupied by people from the same company who may be carpooling. This results in parking ratios that are below the 1.00. Happy to answer any questions. Would it be safe to say that those guests who are on extended stay, let's say a week or two, would be more likely to have an automobile than those that might be there for a weekend or a two or three day meeting with other parties. the may experience probably includes a combination of folks that are staying for longer periods of time or those that may be staying for one or two nights. I know that in our firms experience, there are folks who may be staying for an extended period of time, maybe two, three, four people who are coming together. Obviously, in separate rooms, but with only one vehicle. So it can go both ways. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any other questions? Mr. President? Not a question, but just to go back to the architectural point that a couple of my colleagues have met, made. The lack of detail in the building really bothers me. The roof line looks like an industrial or a commercial building almost. It doesn't have the sense, and the whole side of the building is, as Mr. Stombery said, it's just so plain that I find it hard to believe that that's a welcoming exhibit for people coming into the city. I'd certainly like to see more done with that. Thank you. What we have done is this is an evolving design as it always is in this process. We have worked with the form of the building, the ins and the outs. We have worked with the change of materials to try and add interest. We have added some embellishments to the top of the building. We have also broken up the flatness of the roof. It is a flat roof building. So we have tried to do what we can to take advantage of the offsets in the building and try and improve the top of the building and also the added embellishments on the building. So we're going to still look at that and give that some thought. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Hopefully that's been helpful and we certainly appreciate your your energy and your continued interest in the city. Thank you. Okay. That now gets us to we're going to reconvene our regular meeting. We're now moving right along to comments by the City Council, Mr. Stombries. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to follow up on some previous comments that I made. In November, the recycling rate for the Commonwealth of Virginia for 2007 were released. The City of Fairfax has again exceeded the recycling rate for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia's overall recycling rate is 38.5% and the city's is 39.5. Compared to Fairfax County, which has a 37.7% rate. However, we fall significantly behind false church, which has one of the highest, if not the highest rates in the Commonwealth, 53%. Looking forward, as we discussed before, to consider an ordinance that will upgrade our commercial recycling requirements, as well as ensure that we are in compliance with other jurisdictions. I hope that we can do that in December. And I'll be seeking, again, the consensus of the council to set as a goal for the City of Fairfax to have the highest recycling rate of any jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia and to also try to get increased public awareness through greater emphasis by members of the council and to maybe designate some community volunteer coordinators and other ideas like that. So I'm very excited to see. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. There you go. We can just focus in on that. So the rates are there, but- That's for your bike. Yeah, the rates are out, but I think there is some good news, but we can do better. And I look forward to working with the staff and the other members of the Council to achieve. But I hope it will be a new goal for the Council. Thank you very much. Well, and thank you, Mr. Steinberg, for your leadership. I know you're passionate on this topic, as is the community. And we look forward to your guidance as we move forward. Thank you. Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you. Two things. One of the people that testified tonight under the rates and levies thing about Q bus rates talked about the smart card not working. I see Alex is left, but perhaps somebody could just raise that with him to see if that's really a problem. It seemed to be a mechanical or a technical issue. I don't know if he was talking about Q buses or metro buses or what, but we could just explore that. And secondly, I'd like to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you, Mr. Rasmussen. It's certainly the same to you. I think that gentleman was from the City of Fairfax, if I remember his comment. I'm not, excuse me, false church. And it may very well be, I thought Mr. Versos actually came back and said that we weren't having the same problem in the city, but maybe if you certainly fall. I'll excuse you to say that. We don't have that experience here, but I'll have them look into it. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Meyer. I want to commend Councilman Steinemere's for his initiative on recycling. And all kidding aside, I have long been a passionate believer in that as well. When I was in college, I had the opportunity to work in the summer on a trash truck in for the town of Vienna. And it's appalling what is thrown away in this country and it made a big impression on me at the age of 19 and consequently I support your initiative all the way. I would like to call attention and inform my colleagues as well as citizens of some good news from our Fairbanks High School. Two teachers, Margaret Orason and Julia Vernavich, this recently were certified by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. This certification means that Mrs. Orason and. Misfarin Average have completed extensive study, examinations, and a board review to be certified as having the highest standards in the teaching profession. Both Mrs. Orson and Mrs. Verin Average teach in the math department, which has become in recent years one of the best math departments in the Fairfax County School System, as well as in the entire commonwealth of Virginia. And I want to commend them for their commitment to teaching our young people and for obtaining these professional credentials. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Mr. Drummond? Just two quick things. The first is Mr. Hudson's out here. So I'll direct us to Mr. Sisson. We've obviously seen a lot of news about some of the domestic auto dealers in the news. And we've got a lot of auto dealerships. I was wondering if you might be able to see kind of a health check throughout the city just to see how they're doing. I mean, obviously, they make an investment here in the city. I just think of be helpful if we kind of knew where they were, you know, how they're doing. It's sort of like we did when we saw that Starbucks was playing on closing stores. We wanted to make sure that they weren't closing any stores here in the city. And secondly, just happy Thanksgiving to everybody. And I hope that we'll come back well-rested, and we're here to go in December. Thanks. Entertain a motion for Germany. So moved by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer. All in favor of the motion to signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed. And it passed you an animal's life. I'm not just a hero to my daughter. I'm not just a hero to my daughter. I'm not just a hero to my family. I'm a hero to everyone. Become a hero to your community. Become a hero to your community. Join the City of Fairfax Volunteer Fire Department. The City of Fairfax Volunteer Fire Department. To become a part of our family call 7033528945. I'm going to go to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. Thank you. I'm going to do it. Thank you.