We'll call this February 4th, 2025 meeting of the Algana Planning Commission to order. So we'll start with speaker instructions. If you wish to speak on a docket item and have not already signed up to do so, please fill out a speaker form online by following the sign up to speak hyperlink, present on the cover page of this evening's public hearing docket, or in person by filling out a hard copy speaker form which can be found on either materials table, located immediately outside chambers, or at the back chambers and providing it to Ms. Williams, who has her hand raised. Please note comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker with the exception of applicants in the representation. To make your public comment through the zoom application, please click on the raise hand button located on the zoom task bar. Once we call your name, to let staff know to unmute you. To make your public comment, if you're dialing into tonight's meeting via phone, please press star 9 to execute the raise hand function once you hear a name, followed by star 6 to title the unmute function. To make public comment in person, please come up to either lecture and locate it at the front of the chambers when you hear your name called. Before stating your public comment, please first identify yourself by first and last name. A city encourages and welcomes public comment from all residents on planning commission matters. In keeping with that principle and with the principle of inclusiveness, this is a reminder of the shared expectation that the content and tenor of public comments always be civil and respectful. Thank you for honoring those principles. And a reminder to all including commissioner staff and speakers in the chamber to please speak clearly into the microphone to ensure all are able to hear in a clear manner in the hall and joining us remotely this evening. And with that, there's one, do we have any changes to the agenda this evening? Yes, good evening, Chair Maysaic, members of the Planning Commission. We do have a request for withdrawal of item number eight by the applicant. Okay, so let's take a vote to acknowledge the withdrawal of that item. So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Laos. Second by Ms. Vapand to note the withdrawal of item number eight. It's the special use permit for seven King Street and one on one, one on five and one on seven North Union Street? All those in favor of acknowledging the withdrawal. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. All right, so that'll take us to our consent agenda. And items on the consent agenda will be heard unless there's a Commissioner or staff remember the public would like to pull an item for us to have a full hearing on it We do have one speaker form submitted for number five Which is the development site plan and subdivision and vacation for Clarence Estates at one in two North Clarence streets, so we'll be pulling that one from the consent agenda. Are there any other items anyone would like to pull from consent this evening? I want to pull number three. Number three, that's the special use permit for 1506 Mount Vernon Avenue. Okay, any other items? All right, so then I would entertain a motion to adopt the consent calendar for items two and four is recommended by staff. Okay. Motion by Ms. Lyle there and a second by Ms. McMahon. All those in favor of adopting the consent calendar for items two and four please say aye. I'm on the motion carries 7-0 and we will call item number 3. Thank you. Item number 3, special use permit 2024000795106 Mount Vernon Avenue, public hearing and consideration for special use permit for two temporary trailers, a restaurant and outdoor dining, zone, CL, slash commercial low. Applicant, Beckham, Afer. Okay, Ms. Lowell, you pulled this item from the consent calendar. Did you need a presentation or specific questions? I don't need either. I wanted to make a statement because I know even when I vote against this it will still pass. I'm the one who called and said this was operating without permits. I have a very strong feeling about the fact that we continue to add temporary trailers that end up being there for five to ten years. They are not truly attached to a business. We have a few trailers that are attached to businesses. That's something different. In our August retreat, we were supposed to do work on temporary trailer text amendments. That never happened because we got derailed. We still don't have those text amendments. And what we're doing with this is one, there are two other restaurants that serve breakfast within a stone's throw of these temporary trailers. They are in brick and mortar businesses, junction bakery and mountain tonies. They both have significant overhead. They both employ significant numbers of people. Yet we're proving something that is shoved into place and is operating with minimal staff and probably doesn't do well in the winter months. I don't know, but I do think that moving forward, the commission and staff really need to look at these temporary trailers and what they're doing. I come from a part of the country where trailers are the norm for everything and including schools. And when you have kids learning in temporary trailers for 15 or 20 years, that's not temporary. And I think we need to start being very conscious of what we're approving. So that's why I pulled it. Okay, thank you for those remarks. Are there other comments or response on this particular item? Mr. McMahon? I just want to express appreciation for Commissioner Lyle's perspective and pointing out and maybe we can raise it again in the long range and departmental work plan context about whether this can fit. In a zoning updates scope we an exploration of the way we treat temporary trailers because it does recur. I see it for a lot of different land use types, different trailer uses. I would say that from the community experience perspective, I support an application like this because it represents a combination of a business use that the community is interested in based on foot traffic and a land owner who is willing to host that use for a period of time. And ideally, it does result in fighting brick and mortar space. Whereas we don't have good ways of interim supporting restaurant businesses that are gonna start up on a shoe string like that on space that the city owns. Like I don't, we don't have a good. Our best programs for using the right of way are for the businesses that are adjacent to that right of way. They're not just for random businesses to use that. So in this instance, I'm supportive of this, and I'm supportive, and I'm supportive of a continued exploration of how we use trailer regulations and how the use type and even the neighborhood context might play into that. Other comments? I'll respond just to note, our role here in reviewing this is not one to evaluate the merits of this business versus other businesses and to, you know, balance the playing field for competitive enterprise here. It's really to evaluate whether the external impacts of this trailer will have negative impacts on the community and what are those impacts and have we mitigated those impacts to make sure that the impacts from having that trailer will not create an issue for the community. And I think in this case with the SUP controls that we have, we found a reasonable way to accommodate this business here and support the surrounding to approve it in a way that doesn't negatively impact the surrounding uses. So I'm comfortable with this, staff is proposed, and we'll be voting to support this evening. Any other comment or discussion? If not, we'll move to a vote on it. All those in favor, let's see. I think we need a motion. We do need a motion. Yes, we don't have a motion. Yes, so let's take a motion. And we can close the public hearing as part of that motion. I will make a motion to close the public hearing and recommend approval. Recommend, yes, recommend approval for special use permit 2024-0079. Second. Okay. Motion by Ms. McMahon, second by Mr. Cainig, to close public hearing and recommend approval of the SEP. All those in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries 6 to 1. And we will call number 5. Number five has a speaker request from the public. So we will proceed with the staff presentation on number five. Item number five, development site plan 2024-0016 subdivision 2024-0011 vacation 2024-0011 vacation 2-024-007. Clarence estate. 1 and 2 North Clarence Street, public hearing and consideration of requests for a development site plan with modifications to construct 6 detached tones. A subdivision to create 6 new lots, 2 out lots, and dedicate right away and to vacate a portion of the North Clarence Street Public Right Away. Zone or dash 20 residential applicant, Clarence's States LLC, represented by M. Katherine Pascar at Attorney. Okay, thanks and we have a step presentation. For the record, my name is Jared Alves, the department of planning and zoning. Project site, shown on the left in red, comprises two lots, totaling about 4.4 acres. The site is in a neighborhood of detached homes, about one-third of a mile north of Duke Street. The north is Trinity Drive, west is Fort Williams Parkway, east the city of New York. The city of New York is a city of the city of New York. The city of New York is a city of the city of New York. The city of New York is a city of the city of New York. The city of New York is a city of the city of New York. The city of New York is a city of the city of New York. The city of the city of New York. The city of thement of larger lots. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing buildings and regrade the slope to construct six detached homes, whose proposed footprints are shown in the right in red. Each home would be two stories plus a basement and include an attached to car garage. To pursue this redevelopment, the applicant is requesting development site plan approval with modifications for the six homes. Staff support the request of modifications as they result from locking the homes closer to the cul-de-sac and therefore further from the slope, neighbors and existing trees. In addition to the development site plan the applicant is requesting a subdivision to create the individual lots for each home plus outlots to encompass existing brick walls that will be deeded to the neighbor at 318 north quaker lane. The applicant also requests a vacation of a mostly unbuilt section of North Clarence Street, but as part of the project will be extending and dedicating new right of way for North Clarence Street. The architect, applicant is proposing six contemporary farm hostile homes with front and rear side porches. The slide shows two examples of the proposed front and rear elevations with the applicant varying the design of each home with the orientation of the roofs, location of front doors, types in alignment of windows and facade materials. While each home is two stories per the zoning ordinance, the slope of the site means that some homes like the one proposed for a lot 603, shown here on the right, would appear to be three stories from the rear. The applicant held three community meetings, including one site walk, and intended one meeting of the Seminary Hill Association, during those meetings, residents asked about the site layout, stormwater management, and invasive species removal. Several neighbors were excited to hear that the invasive bamboo would be removed. The project provides several benefits for the city and the immediate neighborhood. Notably, six new homes will meet the green building policy, sizable contribution towards the city's affordable housing trust fund, and the complete removal of invasive species sight-wide, including a large gro growth invasive bamboo. With the DSP, the applicant will greatly improve stormwater quality, removing over 4% more phosphorus than required. The project extends north Clarence Street with the standard right of way with and provides a sidewalk on the extension. Finally, staff anticipates two net new students with the homes within the boundaries of the Douglas MacArthur Elementary School and George Washington Middle School. And staff have coordinated the ACPS on these projections. Staff recommend approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff regarding the presentation? If not, we have two speakers signed up for this item. First, we will hear from Keith Dahakin, and then Kathy Pascar. Hello, my name is Keith Higgin. I live at 3-550 Trinity Drive in Alexandria. It's the end lot. I was here last, I don't get involved in this kind of thing, but you guys were gonna build a 15 story building in the middle of Cameron's station. So I came here to kill that dumb idea. I'm here to talk about, I bought that lot because it was on a driveway serving one house and our house is very close to the street clearance. It's not built for a lot of houses and our house is about 20 feet from that location. I just wanted to call and recommend a full hearing. I think that's the process. I'm not sure what the process is, but I recommend a full hearing. I have a lot of neighbors that keep calling me, asking me what they can do. A lot of the people on the south part of that have a lot of water issues. All the water is going to drain all the way down and flood them out. So before you guys make some bad decisions, I just thought I would call and ask for a public hearing. This is for your public hearing. Just to know. I thought you could ask for public hearing. This is the public hearing right now. Oh, OK. I think it's a horrible idea just entering into the record and you're probably going to ruin the value of my house and I'll probably have to sell and leave, which is unfortunate because we bought that house because of the George Washington history with the house next door to us. And zoning's going to push us out. So thanks so much. Thank you. and I'm going to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the talk about this case because despite the previous speakers comment, the neighbors have worked very well with us. And I think if they were so opposed to it, they would be here tonight. He's the only one that's here. He was negative from the first meeting to the site visit where he didn't even walk the site with us and just kind of said his complaints to staff. And so really didn't want us to solve any issues associated with his property. As that is, Clarenstreet is a street. It was a street before it's a street today. We have a property. We are subdividing that property in conformance with the zoning ordinance. We are asking for some modifications, but the purpose of those modifications is to site the house to address comments that we receive from our neighbors that are downhill from us. So we pulled the houses farther forward. We looked at stormwater management and how to capture more of the water that's running down towards them today. There is some water that will still naturally flow that direction, but we will be capturing the water from these homes and putting it towards Clarenstreet. We are improving Clarenstreet. We are not touching the neighbor's property, the one that just spoke, because we knew he would be in opposition to any improvements. So all that work is being done in that Clarence right of way that already exists today adjacent to his property. So it's not a driveway today. It's a street. Past his property, we will be realigning that street, vacating some property and consolidating it with our neighbor. The Langford property, they are also in support of the property. We walked this property with the leadership of Seminary Hills. We walked this property with the neighbors. We had two community meetings. We had two meetings with Seminary Hills. And I think the fact that it is on the consent agenda speaks for itself. Mr. Dameron and Win Mill Hill does a very good job here locally in the city of Alexandria. They are very careful in how they do what they do and they look forward to working with the neighbors as they construct the six single family homes on the new lots to be created by this application. Okay. Thank you very much. I have a question from the person. Yeah, a question for the applicant from his law. Can you talk about the historic significance? The historic, that was just mentioned. I'm not aware of the historic significance. This is the SQL property. I think the house was built in the 70s. There was an old horse barn there. There's a little cabin in the rear that I think we're probably going to deconstruct and take some of those materials from it. But there has been no conversation about any historic significance that would preclude us moving forward with this project. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Vapand, second by Ms. Laval, close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And that will take us to Commissioner Discussion. Or a motion. Chairman. Yes, Chairman. I'm very reassured by the absence of concern from the folks at Seminary Hill Civic Association who might know from experience, pay careful attention to developments in their area. I also bring a strong prejudice from other experiences with bamboo. I am no fan of bamboo and I'm especially welcoming the prospect that a large stand of it is going to be removed with this project and I'm happy to move approval. So it's motion by Mr. Brown. Second. Second by Mr. Canning. For the discussion, Mr. McAnne. Yeah, I wanna concur with Commissioner Brown's statement. We have had projects similar to this before us where there was a lot of community contention as to the suitability compatibility of a multi-house project in and otherwise. And on a large parcel, essentially large piece of land with one small, one building on it in the present day, and what that would look like when you build multiple buildings on that large piece of land. And we really appreciate the effort when an applicant goes out and can connect with the neighbors and connect with the civic associations and make the modifications that are necessary to the project design to meet their needs. So that process is highly appreciated by us. We also, for the record, received at least one support letter, which was commenting, I think maybe two, actually. I think there's one in paper here, but I think I saw two. Basically, also explaining that this is an instance where we're turning one, what is a property that supports one household into a property that supports several households. And we're always looking for the ways that we can achieve our housing goals and that we can continue to allow neighborhoods to adapt while supporting the provision of housing. And we think that those letters are in support of it for those reasons for the support of housing supply. Even in neighborhoods and even when the housing is large single family homes There's a place for many types of housing in the city. So I will be supporting this item Thank you other discussion I'll just add that I think the Pattern that we've seen in the city is that when you have You know infill development like this and and I even hesitate to call this infill because it's almost a previously undeveloped pocket here for the most part that under different circumstances might have been redeveloped or developed period a long time ago. But when we've seen situations like this where there's construction that's adjacent to other homes, I don't believe there's any documented evidence where that new development leads to a dilution of property values on the adjacent properties. So I would highly doubt that that's a case that I would have been highly doubt that that would be the case in this instance. And we know that from instances of approvals with other cases over the last couple of decades that has not been the case eater. So I think that this will have positive impacts on these text space not only for these properties being redeveloped but also for the adjacent properties adjacent to them. Miss Buscar is, was there a question? Oh, okay. All right. Do we have any further discussion on the item? Okay, we'll move to a vote. This is a vote to recommend approval of, actually this is a vote for approval of the DSP and the subdivision and to recommend approval of the vacation. All those in favor? A quick question. Yeah. Are we also able to approve the vacation? That requires city council approval. So it's there just as an FYI or we recommending approval of the vacation The vacation vote that you all are taking is for consistency with the master plan So I think that was can be an approval as well then essentially you can you can roll it into the So the friendly amendment would be we roll in Recommendation that we find it consistent in recommendation that we find consistent with the vacation consistent with the master plan. Okay, so Mr. Brown and Mr. Caining is the original motion maker and seconder agree to that clarification to their motion. All right. So again, it's motion to approve the DSP and subdivision and find the vacation consistent with the master plan. No further discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried seven. And Chairman Mason, I just wanted to thank you for your years of service on the planning commission and thank commissioner Lyle for her years of service on the planning commission. You all have served the city very, very well. It's a lot of hard work without a lot of thanks. Mindy, I'm sorry sorry I withdrew that trailer application so we couldn't have one last debate over temporary trailers. But you know I thought I'd give you a gift on your on your last night here but thank you both very much for all your hard work over the years you will be missed. I appreciate that although the public hearing is closed. All right, so we will call... Next item, number six. Item number six, public hearing and discussion of the draft fiscal year 2026 stash fiscal year 2027 long range planning entered department to work program, staff, city of Alexandria, Department of Planning and Zooming. Good evening Chair Mesa, and members of the Planning Commission for the record. I'm Carrie Beach with the Department of Planning and Zoning. And tonight we, let's see if I know. Is that appearing as I? Right. Oh, let's see. So tonight we'll be considering the draft two-year long-range planning interdepartmental work program. And for that, I'm joined by my colleagues in housing, tests, and parks who will be highlighting their elements of the long-range planning work program. This, as you know, is a process that we coordinate on to make sure we're coordinating staffing and funding and resources, community engagement capacity over the two years for long-range planning. We bring you a draft in February and then we bring a final work program in May or June after the final budget has been approved. This is an image of the first page of the work program. It organizes our planning efforts by department and by fiscal year for two years out. We also do show the times that we'll be doing internal work, community engagement and formal adoption. We also show for this draft, we show the first, the last couple of quarters of fiscal year 2025, where you'll see things that were just wrapping up, such as, for example, the short-term rental program that you'll be hearing tonight. And then also on the green building policy, for example, is another one that will be wrapping up this fiscal year. And we did get a question on the schedule for the green building policy. So I'll just mention that we staff anticipate they'll be releasing finalizing the guidelines in the near future, releasing for a 30-day public comment period later this spring. During which time the advisory group will be convened to review and comment on the plan or policy and then go for public hearing later in the spring. I believe it was June. Yeah, June. The second page of the work program covers implementation of these plans that we've been working on over the years, again, by department and over time. Another question that came up was, well, what has changed between the work program we're seeing now and what we saw two years ago? And happily, a lot of the changes, we've completed projects and or we're continuing with projects. But in some cases there are some projects that are no longer on the work program that we didn't complete. And we're gonna highlight those by department as we go. So for planning and zoning, we are working on a variety of efforts as per usual with on the zoning side. You'll be seeing some zoning ordinance updates that are following along with some of the approvals that you've been making over the past couple of years, particularly related to substandard lots or subdivisions. You'll also be seeing some proposals for small business zoning text amendments. On the development side, we have some CDD approvals coming to you, particularly in Alex West and Beauregard to be consistent with the recently approved Alex West plan. And then on the long range planning side we will be working on the Duke Street plan. And that likely will start in May or June time frame. We are doing some informal engagement right now to identify stakeholders and really ramp up the process so that we're ready to get going in June. One of the projects on the planning side that we did not work on and you don't see reflected on this work program is our Landry Azoning implementation. And that was something that was identified, but once we approved the our Landry plan, it was clear that there were just a small number of parcels that would need to be rezoned as part of the implementation of the plan. And that could be more efficiently done as part of DSUP projects that come forward. And so, and that is consistent with practice that we do in other parts of the city. So that is the way we're approaching that. And I think that covers all of planning. Yeah. I'm going to turn it over to Chris Zeeman for TNES. Good evening. Members of the Planning Commission, I'm Christopher Zeeman, the Transportation Planning Division Chief. We have a lot of exciting transportation projects and other projects coming out of TNES. So these are broken down by managing divisions here. So the first is the Duke Street Transitway phase one which was the concept of which was approved by City Council in 23 and 24. So we're going to be conducting engineering design in 25 and 26. And then we're also going to be working closely with the Duke Street small area plan for planning for phase two of the Duke Street transit way. We're also expanding our automated enforcement program, working with APD to use this tool to further reduce serious injuries and fatalities in our roadways. The mobility services division is they get to do kind of the fun stuff as I like to think of it. The working at Lower King Street closure, they'll be working with the Waterfront flood mitigation the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the for curbside management and term to curbside management for both vending and for parking, food trucks. The goal of this is to make it easier for food trucks to operate, but then also protect brick and mortar businesses as well. And they'll be working with the City Attorney's Office, APD, businesses, and operators on that. And the parking standards evaluation and update they'll be looking at residential and commercial parking standards throughout the city, especially looking at developments that have happened in the last ten years to guide the policy discussions as they go forth. And then in transportation engineering, there's several projects related to landmark mall, which understands not called landmark mall anymore, but we still call it landmark mall. They have the landmark mall access improvements, working on pedestrian and bicycle access and safety around the site, working with Folger Pratt to make it easier for, especially residents, to get to the transit center that's going to be there and then also to the businesses in the hospital. There's also the 395 ramp modification to make it easier for folks coming off with 395 to enter the landmark site in the hospital. And then there is the landmark mall transit center as well, which is we have an architect on board right now to design a much more iconic example or iconic transit center. So it's not just a couple of us shelters here and there. And then we have our Smart Mobility Program, which is looking at using data to help improve our state of good repair and plan our maintenance, and then also provide the public information, for example, on parking and curbside management. Could you maximize your window or I think we're missing the bottom of your slide? Right about that. It's really weird looking here. Lanny, let me sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm planning to let me know if you have an idea beyond what I've just. In the meantime, Jesse, are you with us? Yeah. Yes, I am. You're going to go ahead. Yes, please. Thanks, Jesse. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Chair, basic and planning commission. My name is Jesse mains. I'm the stormwater management division chief for tests. And we wanted to run through a couple of our projects here in the environmental quality branch. First is flood action, Alexandra. As you all know, this started back in 2021 in response to a number of large flooding events storms that we've had in 2019, 2020 and 21. We launched the initiative in early 2021. It includes capital projects such as our large capacity or spot projects, those types of things, and also operating programs, which includes accelerated operations and maintenance of our storm sewer system. Next is our flood resilience plan. That is an effort, this also under flood action Alexandria. It's a holistic approach. We're gonna be kicking off that soon. Looking at ways that we can make the city more resilient. Looking at the effects of climate change and more intense storms. The major focus of this will be poluvial or urban inland flooding. So those types of models will be run to see what infrastructure is at risk, what kind of projects and programs we may want to enhance or put together new. And where capital projects can be located. It would also incorporate the work that we're doing right now, so kind of memorialize the programs and projects that we're doing now as well. It will include a robust public engagement component. That includes our working-weather consultant to put together content, identify groups, have a number of meetings with the public, do open houses, use social media and online platforms as well. And we'll be working through our flood mitigation and stormwater utility advisory group and interfacing with them, running this through them as well. And also coming to you know bringing this to planning commission and city council. And lastly working with our departments internally because we might be looking at some changes to our ordinance that would be more protected to people in property as well. So really looking forward to kick off that flood resilience plan. Next up is the Phase Three Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load Action Plan for 100%. So this started off in 2013 with our municipal separate storm source system permit is how the requirements are enforced from the state. And we kicked off our first five year permit 2013 to 18. We had a required reduction of 5% pollutants that were reaching the Chesapeake Bay. We wanted to get ahead of that number and we were reaching, we were meeting about 40% of our goal in 2022. So now we're looking at our last permits, five year permit cycle is 2023 to 2028. We are already meeting our Fosters Reduction. We are about 8% below where we need to be for our nitrogen reduction, but we figure we're going to meet that as well We have a number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the number of the and getting their input. We incorporated all those comments, brought that plan to City Council, they approved submission and we submitted it to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in November of last year. Lastly, under stormwater management are amendments to the zoning ordinance. This is to incorporate Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act changes than amendments that have made it the state level to incorporate climate change and resource protection areas. So broadly what that means is if there's going to be any development in a resource protection area, then the development needs to provide mitigation measures with a focus on nature-based solutions to mitigate any kind of impacts that development we have in the research protection area associated with climate change. So we're going to be working with NAOPA development community and others and internally to come up with those amendments to our zoning ordinance, article 13 of the zoning ordinance, which is known as our environmental management ordinance. And we will be bringing that through the process this year for it to be finalized and effective by October 31st of 2025. Since we've tried to, when there's existing encroachments in the RPA, we try to pull those out of the RPA. We really don't look for any new encroachments that go into the RPA. So we don't think this is going to have a big effect, but we are going to put the things in place that need to be in place, according to the amendments that were made at the state level. Next up is sanitary infrastructure. We just wanted to note the River Renew Program that's ongoing and the collaboration with city staff on that. You all know about Well about the project. Lastly is the Ornoco Outfall remediation project. And as some of you may know, there was a consent decree that was entered into and approved in January of last year. And four quick components of that consent decree is Uplimary Mediation to expedite the ongoing efforts to remediate soil and groundwater further rehabilitation of the storm sewer pipe along Orinoco street, where that groundwater likes to get in. If it has any kind of contaminants, it will find its way there. So more rehabilitation of that pipe, so things can't get inside that pipe. Sediment testing and if necessary remediation in the vicinity of Robinson Terminal North near that, the pier and the storms who are outfall at the end of Orinago Street. And finally, the city is providing $300,000 to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources to fund a project to add fresh water muscles to the Potomac River. And as already started, the number that's been put out there right now, I can't tell you positive how many's out there right now. I think it's 10,000, but I have to get back to that. If you want that direct number of fresh water muscles that has been put out, deployed, as I like to say say into the Potomac River. You know, I think that's a question before you move on. The River Renew Program, what's the anticipated date that everything as part of that program is expected to be in operation? I believe that is. Sorry. I think that from the last conversation with Alex for new staff. OK. That would be, I think it would be helpful to know just a little bit more about what the current status of that one is just to clarify that because I believe it had a July 1st, 2025 deadline, didn't it? From the state? Yeah, that was the original deadline. And there was a year extension, I guess, off of that would have put it in in 2026. I think full commissioning may take a little bit longer as where I heard that 2027 number. Well, actually, excuse me, I'm a spoke chair, it's basic. The 2027 is the year after it's been operational. That's what we were talking about. And so the 2026 is the new date where they and receive your extension for the project to be completed. Okay. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Absolutely. Thank you and good evening. I'm Helen McElvan, the city's housing director. So we started the housing 2040 master plan update in September and began with a housing needs assessment and then with some community meetings focused on principles, goals and other things. We've moved on, we've used the AHAC typically joint AHAC and landlord tenant relations board meetings as a forum for some of our housing master plan meetings since then, but we will be returning to sort of community meeting format later this spring. Next later this week we'll have a session on the City RHA collaboration presented by RHA's new CEO. We've had discussions on financial tools, home ownership, and then we'll be heading strong into preservation this spring, as well as something we did not cover in the original housing master plan, which is an issue that impacts half of the city's residents, and that's Lynn Lord Tennant matters, and how we can better protect people who are renters in the city. As the slide shows, we're very focused on the city, our hoc collaboration, and particularly two projects which you have approved over the last few years but which have stalled currently because of the financial market. So we're hoping to help them get going again and that is is their plan as well. And we now have sort of put the housing master plan into two phases currently in phase one we hope to bring a bundle of actionable items by the end of this year to you and to city council at your public hearings as well as a draft plan and recommendations in the fall for you in the community but we are looking at having a phase two, which would include topics that we think frankly are either so complicated or expensive or require just more time for community consultation. So those would be expanding our senior housing plus care options and also strengthening our aging condo communities and then also continuing the preservation conversation. I think I'm very pleased to tell you that we currently have five projects that will be under construction by the end of this month. So those include San Seon-Seon-Naja in Arlandria, the Seminary Road Project. If you've gone by, you'll see the townhomes under construction and the condominium building will start later this year. Witter Place plans a groundbreaking this month. That's off of Duke Street, and then we also have been at work on capital improvements at the Arlandria at the Arlandria housing, Arlandria, Chirolagua housing cooperative and those are about 85% complete. And then of course we expect to start the Pendleton Rooming House renovation very soon. The other projects we're working on, CL, the Elbert project, got secured its funding project and it will be under construction. We hope by the end of this year and then we're in the preliminary planning phases for our public private partnership at at landmark mall. I'll go along with how Mr. Sinans has started that. And that will be, we're looking at replicating our fire station affordable housing project, but with all that we have learned in the subsequent years since that was completed in 2009. So I think these are all projects that we've been anticipating to do, and on approximately the same timeframe are housing master plan sunsets later this year. So that's why it's very important to us to have a first large bundle of things to bring to you by the end of the year so we can continue to meet that and move forward. And I'm also very pleased to say that we have, we're on track to meet our goals from the first housing master plan and have implemented nearly every tool and strategy on our matrix. So that's, I think a good start for, obviously for our update. Thank you Good evening chair, Macyk and members of the planning commission I bet Snyder sick and I'm a division chief with recreation parks and cultural Activities and tonight I'm happy to talk to you about the plan updates that we have on track for the next two fiscal years Our major initiative will be the Park and Recreation Master Plan. Our current master plan was approved in 2002 and at this point is our major framework document with providing us overall vision and guiding principles for recreation and parks needs across the city. And at this point, it has been updated over the years with various other policies, such as the Open Space Master Plan, our Resource Recovery Policy, and various framework plans. And so this particular update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will take all of those other documents into consideration and then provide additional vision and guidance for how we're going to address recreation needs for all Alexandria residents visitors and those who work here. Following on that, we will be moving into updates to some of our broad reaching plans such as the Urban Forestry master plan. The urban forestry master plan was done in 2009, and we will be taking a look at how this particular initiative ties into the Alexandria Environmental Action Plan, including the 2040 goals, as well as how we support all of our other initiatives tied to our urban forest. We will also be taking a look at our citywide parks improvement plan. This was the first of the framework plans on our park typologies that was completed in 2014. And at this point we are looking at updating it. These plans for the framework plans are on a typical 10-year cycle to take a look at them and track our progress. This is something that we spend an awful lot of time on the implementation side working with our capital improvement program and the 10-year cycle gives us an opportunity to check with the community to see how well we are projecting the needs of addressing all of the recreational and park needs in Alexandria. So that is planned to kick off on the tails of the Park and Recreation Master Plan work. And we will also be addressing within this timeframe of the next two fiscal years the Cameron Run Regional Park Feasibility Study. So in 2017, we conducted the original feasibility study identifying possible opportunities for what would happen on the site with the sunset of the lease with the current Cameron Run Regional Park, which is what we often call the way park. And so that is currently coming up to the next sunset of the lease. And so there is a study planned in order to evaluate the best purposes of that site and taken to consideration all of the opportunities before that lease would expire. Moving down into implementation, while we are working on a variety of implementation pieces, the city of the park. And I think that's a great way to go about the fact that we have a lot of communities before that least would expire. Moving down into implementation while we are working on a variety of implementation pieces, including as I mentioned, some of the framework plans for the city wide park plans, the neighborhood park plans and the pocket park plans. I did want to highlight the Eisenhower East Park that's under the Metro tracks. This was part of a small area plan recommendation to bring some vitality to that area. And so that is on our work plan to bring that to fruition. And then I'm also highlighting the public art plan, which has an an award plan crafted and created by a task force. And that helps to guide public art implementation across the city. There are a number of key interesting projects in the works and with current task forces underway. And so that work continues to move on track and deliver great public art for the city. Thank you all. I wanted to highlight one other project, which is really a very collaborative project, which is to make sure that all of the departments are coordinating, communicating well on the projects that are construction projects that are happening at the waterfront and at City Hall and Market Square and the garage. So this will be, um, departments working together to ensure that we're keeping, um, pedestrians, vehicles, deliveries, safety, you know, access of all kinds, um, up and running so that, um, uh, that we are mitigating the impacts the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the That concludes the overall work program. As I mentioned, we would be coming back with your feedback and with Council's feedback next week. Coming back with a revised final work program for your consideration in May or June. And we're happy to answer any questions. Okay, questions for staff. Mr. Manor. I would just like to congratulate Ms. McVain and her staff on the project in Chirilagua, because that is exactly where it needs to be. And to do it in tandem with a small area plan is brilliant. And also to allow ownership opportunities in the building, we will solve affordable housing for decades if not generations because creating that wealth and be able to pass it down is just a tremendous idea. Thank you very much. Well, I say thank you, but I think this is something we can all feel very proud as a city that we identified an opportunity and were able to take advantage of it and have invested and we'll see really an amazing thing. So I hope we'll all be very proud to be at the grand opening and celebrate its success for many years to come. I mean, as someone who came from the hospitality industry, many of our employees lived in that area. And the hospitality, the visitor spend, is going to become more and more important in the city with the coming decline in commercial real estate values. So, and we couldn't have the hospitality industry we have without that community. That's, so to protect it is really, really, and thank you very much. Well, thank you. Other questions for staff, Mr. Kenig? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, this is a just a spectacularly large and complex interconnected array of efforts. And I thank you, Ms. Peach and everyone, for the presentation, I think that was very, very thorough, but also you could have spent eight and a half hours running through all of this. And it was nice and concise and gives us the big picture and a good look at a lot of the pieces. I did have a couple of specific clarifications if I could. The first is thank you Ms. Beach for the update on the Green Building Policy. And if I understand correctly, the answer there is that we can expect to see a draft in the near future that there will indeed be a 30-day public comment period. And during that comment period, the advisory group will be reconvened. And Planning Commission and Council could expect to see that updated policy on their dockets in June plus from Minas. Yes, that is what I learned from staff. Yes. Thank you very much. The second is planning and zoning item, the Potomacard, where the CDD updates in general. You mentioned several areas. My question goes to Potomacard and this covers some of what we talked about in the briefing. So my understanding is that for the Potomacard Plan, the South Potomacard Plan, there is a current CDD proposal that consists of the development proposal for blocks, GNH, that's currently in concept development for the DSU parent. So that is a CDD that's coming forward. Is it also a reasonable expectation that a CDD at that scale that's modifying a couple of full blocks within the plan would be accompanied by a master plan of the proposal? I said, go ahead. I was gonna, a car on where it's playing, director. Thank you for that clarification. As you pointed out, that proposal is in for review. It did have a, for people watching, it had a community meeting as well as a meeting of that PIDAC where folks had an opportunity to come in on it. We have been reviewing it through the lens of the existing plan, recognizing that some aspects of that approved plan, such as the emphasis on office space, are not no longer supported by the marketplace, but there are other key elements of that plan that are important to look for as we evaluate any proposal. So I do think that if there's certainly the possibility and I would say a hundred percent chance that there will be some aspects of an approval in South Potomacure that would require a master plan amendment. But at the moment we are viewing proposals through the lens of the key principles that the current plan has. Excellent. Thank you. And in reference to North Potomacure, the overview of this in the memo addresses the fact that you expect to see CDD modification proposals over the next couple of years. And my understanding at this point is that that would be reasonable to expect for North Potomacare. But there is no active concept submittal of any sort at the moment for North Potomacare. That's right, we have no submittal. Right, thank you. I also had a question on one of the TNES projects if I could that I think was in a part of Mr. Maine's presentation and that is the Flood Resilience Plan. That I'm very interested in that. I'm very excited to hear that that's happening. As I read the overview, it makes several recommendations as Mr. Maine stood in his presentation to inland flooding and extreme rain events. And I think we all recognize that those have been fundamentally challenging dimensions that we've been working with in a variety of ways in that it's a very heavy duty, very intense and broad, broadly based challenge. But there is a reference in the overview to this flood resilience plan to climate change impacts beyond extreme weather events. So that, to me is an opening to ask a question about how sea level rise as an aspect of climate change is going to be explored and addressed in this flood resilience plan if it is indeed going to be explored and addressed. Jessie, are you still on? You know I'm talking to you so. Yeah, I do not feel equipped to answer that question for Commissioner Canick. So I think we may need to get back to you if Jesse's not with us. And I apologize for that. I do want you to know that we will get in and answer and share it with you and the rest of the planning commission. Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm perfectly happy to have been able to take the moment just to put it on the record. It'll strike me among the most fundamental questions that face us. And all the work that we do in terms of managing these sort of infrastructure, intense challenges, I think the question of how sea level rise actually plays in and how we explore ways to actually effectively address it is among the biggest questions that we face. I had one other opportunity, one other comment I'd like to make that's related to the Office of Housing section. And this, I can't even really mask great as having a question here. I just wanted to make a couple of observations. All of this is really very exciting. And I have not been super engaged in the housing master plan so far, but I've been trying to sort of track. And I know that it's well underway. And I think the strategic decision here to have it multiply phased is really wise. And just as you had described it, director Maccovay, that phase one is going to wrap up relatively directly and going to be focused on issues that we're fully engaged with, that you have actionable items on, but you've listed a variety of other things that are rather intractable and challenging and more complex. And I like the idea then that there's a sort of continuity with, we don't sort of end the master plan exercise and go back to just having those things in front of us that there's a plan, there's an intended part of that master plan effort to continue to address those. That strikes me as a very efficient way to go about it. Also, just like to celebrate in general, whenever I get the opportunity, the character and quality of the city are ha collaboration now and in recent times and over the last few years as evidenced by the fact that the projects you list here are Samuel, Madden and Lidiree, both of which are hugely exciting projects and both of which are on the cusp of reality. And the last point is just to also lend my support to the fact that you have enlarged the focus of the master plan this time to have a very intentional and substantial effort to address the whole array of quality life issues that are wound up in renters protections and legal rights. I think that's something that was clearly at the forefront all the way through the Alex West plan plan for instance We all know that it's the area that has sort of tremendous impact on our residents lives and we have the sort of weakest tools and smallest array of ways of getting at those issues so I'm very happy to hear that That all of those things are going on and appreciate your update. So thank you, Mr. Jim Thank you. Other comments? Mr. Mayor's. Just a small comment here. One for first, I'm very impressed with the, I would say a Cuyne Commission or Canyne's words as well, the complexity and the integration of these multiple plans through our city. It shows, I think, a certain level of a live address and adaptation to current market conditions or current shifts that we're seeing. And I think it allows our city to keep growing, which is very impressive. It's wonderful to see that there's not a static element to how we're addressing as different cases come up or different issues come up. And it's wonderful to see our city addressing our land use in this way. One thing I did note is that it looks like we're hitting what probably about almost 50% of these efforts in final presentation. Is that right for public hearing within over the course of the next calendar year or even within the Q1 of 2026? I am, maybe not so much a question, but I am also curious to see what other programs then come up in the past year, and I think it's been a long time since we've been in the past year, and I think it's been a long time since we've been in the past year, and I think it's been a long time since we've been in the past year, and I think it's been a long time since we've been in the past year, and I think it's been a long time since we've been in the past year, and I think it's been a long time the implementation results are and to kind of gain that knowledge of lessons learned. And echoing a little bit as well with the addressing the flood mitigation issues. And I know that there's been a lot of work already ongoing throughout the city. Definitely commend the city on that. One thing I was curious about is that on the TNES website, I think I saw like there is a, I know it's diving into the weeds, but like a combined sewer system that shows the overflow out into specific CSOs. So I'm just curious to understand, you know, I know that in the past we've had some issues with the quality of water out, out pour into the Potomac and making sure that that city is still keeping an eye on that and making sure that we're not sending bad stuff downstream. Great. Thank you very much for that. I do want to, as that is part of the flood mitigation and storm water management initiative that Mr. Mainz was addressing, we will have to provide you with an update on that. Those elements of your comments in a written form. And I can respond to your other comments. It does. So, a lot of the projects that you see coming for adoption sort of in FY 2026 are projects that are already underway and have already had the benefit of you know six months or a year of work. And so it you know things kind of continually cycle and you know this chart could probably go on for a couple more fiscal years. But we do try and make sure that we're cognizant of what's coming when so that we're not overloading any one element of the community, including the Planning Commission, City Council. In terms of implementation, that is something that is really near and dear in particular to my division's heart. And so we produced this annual report on the status of implementation of all of the master plan. So all of the smaller plans and each of the city wide chapters. And I think one of the commissioners suggested last time I was here that we instead of just providing that as a document in the fall, which we do annually to actually present the results of that to help highlight some of the work we're doing and also involve the planning commission in how it gets done. So we look forward to doing that in the fall. Ms. McPan. Late-hearted comment that, and I think I sent some staff, some pictures from my winter vacation, where I saw some really exciting recreations of the space under overpasses. So I have a soft spot for this Eisenhower East Park under the Metro tracks planning process, and I'm very excited to see how it unfolds, because I think there's so much potential, not least because it's protection from the weather, including the blistering hot sun or the snow, or whatever crazy weather climate change brings us. So yeah, very excited about that. And if you want to talk to me later about where I saw some cool stuff, I'm happy to tell you. Just give me a ring. It really ones up one-ups, Jones Point. But we can strive. And we have a lot of potential there. We have opportunity. But this is like in the middle of a community in the middle of a neighborhood So this is a different opportunity site the Jones Point improvements Three I think it's three questions First one is small for Chris digital roadway scam Opportunity I know that we talked about this briefly in transportation commission. So I just wanted to highlight, can you clarify, is this strictly a technology solution for a paving index? Is it more than that? Can you talk a little bit more about that? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. So this is what we were awarded for with the smart grant from the US DOT to look at street conditions. So it does include pavement conditions, but it also includes things like striping conditions if a crosswalk is worn out or signage to, like if a sign is blown off or taken out or spray painted over over something. So we're piloting this right now with this grant, but this would allow us for real time information on the streets complete infrastructure and state of good repair. Awesome, thank you for that refresher description. For me, I wanted other commissioners to hear it. I think it connects back to how we plan and how we implement because at some point, those planning and implementation intersect and you have the need for data to constantly understand if you're doing the right thing. And so I think this is a neat pilot in that respect and I wanna just highlight that some feedback staff got from Transportation Commission on that was that hopefully this pilot can also point to the future of using technology such as these for our trail system as well because as I understand it this pilot is focused on our streets it's designed for street based technology and assessment but we have a big and growing trail system where its maintenance is just as important for its use as a transportation network Next question is for the the missing staff in the room But I want to just put it out there so you guys can pay it to him later I was curious because in our chart the flood resilience Plan doesn't have it ends and sorry I'm not sure I can read anymore. It's just the line. I'm just going to make sure I find the right line. That's not your age. It doesn't, okay. It doesn't, it ends in FY27 on the chart, but it doesn't end with a public hearing, and I'm used to plans ending with a public hearing. So if you could just ask if that has a decision point. I think it does, based on this comment. That one, the flip-flip resilience one. I just want to make sure I was getting the right line. It's not one that goes off the end, and that's why I don't see it. So I just want to clarification on that. the parking lot. I'm not going to be able to see the parking lot. I'm not going to be able to see the parking lot. I'm not going to be able to see the parking lot. I'm not going to see the parking lot. I'm not going to see the parking lot. I'm not going to see the parking lot. I'm not going to see the parking lot. I'm not going to along the waterfront. I'm really curious how you visualize that happening because it's clear from this implementation plan, this is one of those areas where the cross-departmental coordination is really important. Thank you for that question. And the waterfront is separate from the citywide parks plan for the very reason that you stated is that it's so interdepartmental and interrelated with a lot of other initiatives that it sets by its own self. Okay. And so right now we're working through the flood mitigation work and focused on that aspect of improving the waterfront and we will have it in the cycle to have a 10-year plan for that as well as we sort of progress through different phases of getting the waterfront flood mitigation work complete. Okay, thank you for that clarification. That's it for my questions. Okay, Mr. Brown. Well, we have, excuse me, while we have you here, I'd just like to ask for a status report on something that was fairly prominent some time ago when we were doing some development review and approval in the area generally between Pickett Street and Edsel Road, East of Van Dorn. There's a number of, as these one or two major projects in that area that are, I think, dependent upon the public. I think that's a number of, as these one or two major projects in that area that are, I think, dependent upon the location of the public way that will connect that area to Eisenhower, Avenue, a bridge location that is somewhat dependent upon the railroad. Can you just give me a quick status report and whether that has any implications over the next two years? Sure, yeah, I'm happy to give that update. So we reassessed that as the Eisenhower West landmark Van Doren small area plan recommended we recessed at a certain amount of development and we determined that it was not necessary feasible right now but it could be in the future and so we're still planning for streets and everything to accommodate a potential connection there, if things change in the future. But right now, there's no capital improvement project, for example, to build a multimodal bridge. So it's just on the drawing boards awaiting future developments. Potentially, yes. Yeah, thank you. Other comments? I'll throw out a couple things here. First of all, I always appreciate this plan. And it's useful to see, you know, as it puts the long range planning and the planning that we do and encapsulates so much of what all the departments do here. So it's a useful exercise for us. You know, I feel a little bit like we're all traveling down the interstate together and we've stopped at the welcome center and looking at all these things to come and I'm taking the next exit and you all will get to continue here. So lots of interesting things going forward here. But a couple that I will just highlight, just observations on this for comment. One is that it's notable, I talked about this with staff as well. It's notable that we don't really have another smaller plan on the horizon here. Usually when we've adopted these, we've done trade-offs, we've talked about which small area plan should come next. And that's really one of the big decisions that we often make within the context of this work program. And that's something for us to think about in terms of what should we be in terms of bigger plans or you know focused area plans what should we be focused on next we took at some point there was there was discussion of Mount Vernon Avenue we did the housing plan for the our Landry apportioned amount of revenue, but we did not do the smaller plan for the Delray section of amount of revenue. So perhaps something, that's something that should be thought about in future cycles. We've also talked about whether there should be some sort of comprehensive look at planning and what that entails. And as staff noted in my briefing, there is on here the vision plan, which is slated for the basically the FY27 period, which could address some of those needs in the future. So that will be helpful planning in terms of clarifying what future directions we may need to drill in on, be it different types of long range planning or revisions to the overall master plan of the city or other significant changes. So I think that's useful to think about. But over the next couple of years, I think it'll be important to think about what are the next focus areas that Geographically within the city we should be focused on so that when this work program comes back in two more years There's some sense and some settled sense of what that should be focused on The other thing I want to comment on Well quick is you know on slide nine where we talk about the multi-departmental planning for construction mitigation of Lord King and the waterfront. So a couple observations here on this one of note. First of all, I'll say that the ongoing planning effort that the city has organized with respect to city hall and market square, I think has been excellent. I think there's been excellent engagement on that. A lot of concepts and scenarios for review and feedback, and the workshops that I've participated in. Virtually as it turns out, but was very engaging and I felt like it helped to create some cohesion around some of the initiatives that are moving forward here with respect to both Armpit Square and City Hall. One thing that I sent sort of a note to Director McBike from the City's General Services Agency to with some detailed comments on the plan. One of my suggestions to him was to the extent that we're thinking about facilities within City Hall to support meetings and that sort of thing, I think that there should be engagement of commissions that needed City Hall on what our needs are and what we would like to see. Because I haven't really seen that yet. I've seen a lot of engagement of a public in terms of what people want to see at Market Square. There have been some questions of the public about what would you like to see in terms of revised or renovated quarters for, you know, council chambers and concepts to move it downstairs, which I think that's all great. But I also think that those of us who are frequently here at City Hall having meetings may have some really good opinions about What we need to see in terms of facilities to adequately host our meetings here and want to encourage some engagement on that The other thing that I'll mention on this this whole coordination issue is With respect to the waterfront small area plant implementation and the flood mitigation aspects of that You know, I will say for my for my own commissioners benefits. I do have my concerns about the design as it's evolved with respect to waterfronts mitigation, I feel like we've found ourselves with a very heavily engineered solution That's creates very costly capital costs and will have very costly operating costs over the next, well, you know, into the future indefinitely because it costs millions of dollars to operate the equipment that is proposed for pump stations and other things. And my impression of what we adopted as a small area plan and then the Olin plan for waterfront parks and activation was really more of a passive approach to flood mitigation. And I think we've totally missed that with the engineered solutions that the Department of Project Implementation has brought forward. And I mean, I would, if I were voting on this as a city council member, which I won't be, but I would advise taking that back to the drawing board and really looking at totally different approaches for that and living with flooding in the waterfront area because they don't think we're going to lick it through an engineered solution and we're going to spend a lot on engineering and capital improvements in that area and I think we're going to miss the opportunity to make investments in parks and public spaces that can coexist with the floodplain. And I think we're missing an opportunity there because we've gone down such a narrow focused path and have not had the really, you know, in contrast to what we see in Margaret's Grenzied Hall, we've not seen the compare and contrast in alternatives there to think about different ways. There hasn't been a proposal. What if there's flooding in the parks and what would what would the solution look like then? What would we do differently if we learn to live with the flooding and manage the water differently than home stations and other things. The other thing that I think is a lost opportunity here and potentially a challenge, unless that project is waterfront flood mitigation project is put on hold, we're gonna run into a situation where we have conflicting construction at both market square and the waterfront. And I'm not quite sure with all the long range planning we do and all the charging we do on these Gantt charts, I'm not quite sure how we wound up with those two facilities being under construction at the same time or plans for that because I think that's a lost opportunity. Those are our two gathering main gathering places in Old Town. And what, you know, we've got Waterfront Park, we've got Market Square, we, things we can do, events wise and gathering spaces, you know, those are our two major places for that. And for both of them to be under construction at the same time, I think is going to be problematic for the community. What I do hope is that we find some creative solutions for alternate locations for that. I think we may need to think about relaxing some of our expectations regarding the passivity of Founders Park in the interim so that we can have active events in park spaces that you know we've said we're not going to but in lieu of having other public spaces available not having other public spaces available to have events we need to make use of the next best park spaces that we have and that could include some sort of opportunity to have events or other things in founders park that we would otherwise have in waterfront or market square. I also think there's a lot of opportunity here in the Waterfront Commission has raised this that the public artwork is basically planned to have one more year of it here in 2025 and then be on hiatus for the next several years while waterfront flood mitigation continues And I think that's a lost opportunity that We Feel that that project is so wedded to waterfront park that we couldn't do it elsewhere in old town or elsewhere in the city even Because it's been enormously successful. It's not a lot to drive visitor traffic to Old Town and I would challenge, it's probably not as much of a planning thing, but we'll just raise it here. Well, I have the floor that I think we should be budgeting to have that activation in other places while everything else is under construction. And managing the traffic and the activities in the areas where this construction's gonna happen, the stuff we see up here on the slide is very important. But I think too there's a whole range of like, what do we do with the events? What do we do to make sure that we're not missing events and activations that we would otherwise have if this construction weren't happening? Where else can that happen? Are there other places in Old Town? Are there other places in the city where that can happen? Could we do things at Fort Ward or Ben Bernman Park or, you know, there's other options here to handle some of these things. And that'll be a challenge for us to think about and come up with some great solutions and creative solutions during a period where the construction occurs. So a lot of thoughts on that one slide, but I wanted to share those thoughts. Well, I had the chance. Ms. Lael. I'm just going to add on to one thing you said that sort of triggered a memory. The Waterfront Master Plan, which Nate and I both worked on 15 years ago, we really never reviewed that. And I think that's where some of the waterfront has gone, of course. Once we approved the last projects on the south end, on those two development sites, we sort of put that on the shelf and it's never really been looked at in terms of is this still feasible? Is it not feasible? What should we do moving forward? And I think that's led to some of the issues right now is that we haven't looked at it. When we did Alex West, it has a three year review. Other plans don't necessarily have that locked in review with landmark and that redevelopment. We've had reviews because of the implementation group. And I think those reviews on a regular basis are really important for all small area plans because it's very easy to get off course. And yes, we have markets that have to guide some of it. But they don't guide everything. And looking at changes in act to work as of a couple of weeks ago, our whole office market needs may change in the next six months. Our traffic may change in the next six months. So I think we really need to be conscious of the fact that we don't just do these small area plans and put them on a shelf and that we keep looking at them going forward. I said something a couple of meetings ago about the Arlandria plan and I really think that needs to be reviewed because while we have things going forward don't really have a lot of private sector and that I think when we worked on the Alex West plan that's one fear that we had was that we wouldn't have a lot of public of private sector money coming into that section of the city yet. So that's just, but I think when you start talking about the waterfront, that's the one thing that I've been seeing with it, is we never took that plan off the shelf. And there's things that change too that aren't just the market, but the cost of construction, design standards, factors of what we need to build. It all kind of creates some different pressures on things that weren't some revisiting. All right. Further comments or changes? Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning, we can just ask a quick question because I think we had a lot of staff directed questions and now we have a lot of discussion that I find really interesting that I have a couple of observations like to make as well but I wanted to pause and ask this item is is docket as a public hearing do we have any public speakers? We did not have any public speakers sign up for the site. We do. We do for number six. I sent one in and they said there was already somebody listed ahead of me. Well why don't you come up and speak? I don't have a form for you but come on up and have your sorry about that. I'm Melissa Kennan I live in all town north I am president of notice and On pidec but today I'm here to talk mostly about the whole process of planning I greatly appreciate your comments here. I'm a sick. It's exactly the direction I was going in We have of all the items that are... We have of all the items we have that are high priority, their individual items that are acting in terms of follow-through on projects that were developed past once those malaria plans are created. Even the RPCA master plans won't even be up for public review or comment until 2027. The two low priority items that the city didn't list were the Braddock Road Metro site development that site's been cleared for three or four years. What's going to happen when it doesn't even come up for public discussion till 2027. But I'd like to talk about the vision plan. It was mentioned in the 2023-25 long-range plan but no description of it was in staff notes for this one. This plan, the vision plan is supposed to be documenting and updating policies established in the small area plans. But they appear to have been only utilized for Eisenhower West and the Beauregard small area plans that have been worked on in this time period. And ideally, small area plans are supposed to be revisited every five years. Unfortunately, there are so many neighborhoods in the city that are being overwhelmed with cities' approval of increased density in the past three years. The zoning for housing program, which encourages expansion of single-family and low-rise zone neighborhoods, and the introduction of DSUPs, which may have been forcing by the city but we're never introduced into any of the small area plan processes. So it's all new to every small area plan. The city's priorities seem to continue the pattern of approving very dense development projects for SAP's that never anticipated this level of growth. And just for the waterfront plan, as you've just been talking about, so much has happened since that plan was approved, it needs to be revisited. And another example is the Old Town North Small Area plan. There's never discussion during the SAP process about the CRMUX zoning and how it could override all the recommendation of the SEP, which is done for every single project that's been built since then, especially regarding building height and how it's in direct contrast to the recommendations for public accessible open space though it was approved in the small area plan. We have none, we have virtually none. The city updated the master plan in 2020. It was approved in 2017. It was approved in 2017. It was updated in 2020 to add another 25 feet to the maximum height of 55 feet. And that additional 25 feet was added to all the sites that had previously been identified as future development projects way back in 2016. There have been six projects approved, projects approved with DSUPs that are between 90 and 100 feet high and they violate almost all of the old town north urban design guidelines. Unfortunately, the urban, the UDAC has no teeth to recommend changes to any of the DSUP plans that are presented to them. I mean, there are some simple ones like town health entrances that they're supposed to be set back two to ten feet from the sidewalk buildings who's supposed to be set back after three stories and The sidewalk with this supposed to be a Variable of the building height Isn't it time to pause and identify how the cities being affected by his zoning for housing and all these DSUPs? Are what they affect they're having on neighborhoods. And then the same thing is if none of these, if the vision plan isn't going to be looked at and none of the small area plans are going to be revisited until 2027, how do communities have the opportunity to help shape their own neighborhoods that they expect it to see when they approve their small airplanes in the beginning. I think not revisiting SAPs at this critical time as the effect of voiding the work that the community's made in working with the city to shape their neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any other public speakers on this item? No. Okay, great. Thank you. And did you need a form from her for that? I have sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Did you need a form from her for that? I have. Ms. Williams will. Mr. Boiser will work with you on that to just make sure we've got your name and Enjou for the record. Thank you very much for your comments. We have a motion to close the public hearing. Second. We've got a motion by Mr. Kenny, second by Ms. McMahon, a close to public hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Com. If I could, could I pick up on some of the comments that you were making and Commissioner Lyle was making? Yep. with the question you asked here and you actually asked in our briefing the other day as well as we look at the Ductery corridor plan and its conclusion sort of at the halfway through calendar 26 and we don't currently have another major small area plan exercise slotted in there what really should it be. And then Commissioner Laos point about the waterfront plan. I just want to say that I think that the was not really well, I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I just want to say that I sort of reopened as a small area plan per se, but conditions have changed and certain aspects of the plan are or not being realized and all the sort of aspects of reality are sort of tweaking enough that we're not comfortable that things are just sort of rolling smoothly alone. And I think the idea of review as a process element is very intriguing to me because so previously when we've had these discussions it's just sort of well, you know, you have to you have to wheel out the gigantic continental army campaign of a small area plan update and it has to be 18 months and it has to be all this staff effort and it's always a kind of across the board deal and that's not all this staff effort. And it's always a kind of across the board deal. And that's not always what we need. And I would segue and take the from Commissioner Alliles observation about the waterfront plan and apply it directly to my perspective over the last year ever since we had the arena proposal to North Potomacyard, which is a plan that has evolved, has had pivot points and distinct points of evolution, a half a dozen times if not more over the last 25 years to react to just these kind of things. No metro station, low rise south yard, oh metro station, more density in the north yard, and I think we are at one of those inflection points, and I think that despite the director's observation at our retreat that the plan is still sort of fundamentally sound and robust and flexible, I don't really dispute that, it still feels to me fundamentally unready for whatever is coming next. And it's leaving us without an active vision to really map on to whatever may come next from the private sector. And I would expand that just for a moment to say that as you look at North Potomacard, it's basically 50 acres. We have a very clear proposed concept that went all the way through Final Site Plan for six blocks of development. It was supposed to be open and operational right now as Virginia Tech's academic building one opens and people are throwing, flowing through our metro station. And still we have 12 acres of dirt in the most critical spot in the entire yard. And we don't know what's coming next. I think that is the kind of issue that really needs to be examined in some fashion. The other thing that occurred to me in looking at the proposal for the arena was that it was comprehensive for all 50 acres. It was two phases that were going to happen in 10 years and it was going to build out all 50 acres and it was going to build upwards of a dozen or a dozen and a half new blocks, five office buildings, 5,000 residential units, all in a very short period of time. In a plan that doesn't look anything like any plan that we have on the records, other than being on the acreage that the retail center currently occupies. And the corollary to that, if you looked at the way that proposal came forward, the phase one that was gonna be built in conjunction with the arena was gonna be built on the footprint of target and all the rest of the actual retail buildings to the south of East Reed Avenue. So if you just positive a scenario where the arena gets built, phase one the JBG really wants to build and a couple of millions per feet all gets built. And then all of a sudden we have a retail center that doesn't have its operational heart. We have another 30 acres and conditions turned down a little bit and low and behold those 12 or 15 blocks are not actually going to get built over the next six or eight years. It raises the issue of how was that retail center going to decommission? How are we going to plan for that to transition into a development that actually works. And I think that question of we built in 2017, we committed to the metro station which was the catalyst. And then 2020, we committed to the innovation campus which became catalyst number two. And then in the last year and a half, we've discovered that we have to have catalyst number three and we have a void where that is. So I think the questions of what is catalyst number three and we have avoid where that is. So I think the questions of what is catalyst number three and how is that 30 acre retail center going to transform over how many years into what are significant enough issues that we don't really have a good grip on that deserves some attention. And some mechanism that might be style that's reviewed from a process point of view is exactly what it needs some way to go in there address the situation analyze the critical aspects brainstorm what the possible transformation is and have it be less than 18 months and An army of staff and more than waiting around for somebody to come forward with something that we then try to analyze without any real breakthrough. Here's what I would tell you with that. And I'm going back to landmark mall. We did the first, and Mr. Mord says shaking his head. We did the first major plan for landmark mall in 2009. We've re-done it four times. It seems like it at least. I guess. It's at least four times. But we re-did it at one point when the mall was closing. And that was about a six month effort. Every other time we pulled a group together, looked at that plan, and did a quick re-evaluation and reassessment. It was when there was someone who actually was there. And we redid it for three different developers. And then when ANOVA came in, we really had the chance to look at it, look at it hard. And that was only a six meeting planning effort. That was a very quick effort. But we really had the bones and so we knew where to go. We had good bones from the first plan. And then we looked at it and moved forward each time an opportunity came in. And we did it, one time we did it in this view as what four meetings, it was very fast. And I think with plans like landmark, the telek yard, you really have to look at them and wait for the opportunity before you start tweaking that plan. You can't tweak it thinking, oh, this might be attractive to X because you may be chasing that silver ring down the street five or six times before something actually happens. So while landmark was frustrating because we were jumping through hoops quickly. I think in hindsight, it was the better way to work on it. And it's just like Eisenhower West. Does Eisenhower West need to be looked at? Yes, but maybe not, because Eisenhower West is starting to move forward, which is sort of the way we thought it would. Once landmark got underway, we started seeing that this would start to come together. And that's what's really happening on the West End. I think that's what all happened a lot with Alex West, once things get moving, because there's good bones in that plan. It just may need to be tweaked in a couple of years when a development site comes open and someone's really interested in it and you might not have the exact plan that works. And sometimes master plan amendments aren't the best. But I think Potomac Yard is one that you might wanna look at what went on with landmark, because I think those in some ways are similar, they're not, but they are, because of the catalyst that are needed to move them forward. Mr. Chairman, if I may just add that I'm enjoying this conversation very much, I think, and I really appreciate what is being evidenced by this conversation with the Planning Commission. And first of all, it's that the importance that you place in our smaller plans and how invested you are as an institution in the plans that we approve, but also you're sort of watching them as they mature and to the extent that we have been true to those plans and to the extent that we have, those plans did not anticipate some challenges and we found ourselves going in another direction and your desire to always be intentional about what we're doing in these important parts of our city and our plans keeping up, are they being responsive and also sort of the discussion too about how 10, 15 years ago we were often accused of being overly prescriptive in our small area plans and sort of anticipating or specifying a future that ultimately was not possible because the market or the private landowners were not going to step up to the challenge that we placed for them. And so we moved into a different way of trying to put, well, what are the bones as you pointed out? What are the bones that are super important, no matter what somebody is proposing? But I think Mr. Canig, you are challenging us to say, okay, we also want to get ahead of those trends not necessarily just be reactive. And so I think, you know, it's not just that I was enjoying that conversation, but I think it is a fruitful topic for future discussions with you as we look toward what our next steps ought to be. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or lots of fodder there for you all to sort through. So we look forward to seeing the revised work plan in a few months. Thank you very much. We will call number seven. Item number seven, zoning tax amendment 2024, 0011. A, initiation of a tax amendment, and B, public hearing and consideration of a tax amendment to the zoning ordinance to amend Article seven, supplemental zone regulations, Section 7-4-1,400, to establish short-term residential rental regulations and permits. The lead Section 7-203-B7 related to the maximum number of days, an accessory dwelling unit, an accessory dwelling may operate as a short-term residential rental, and a men's section 7-302 to clarify the short-term residential rentals or not regulated as a home occupation. Applicant, city of Alexandria, Department of Planning and Zoning. Okay, we have several speakers on the side of them, and we have a staff presentation. Correct. Good evening. I'm Tony LeCola, I serve as the Land Use Services Division Chief with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'm here to present a plan for regulating short term residential rentals in Alexandria, which are born from robust community engagement, as well as an analysis of how other jurisdictions here in Virginia and throughout the United States are managing short-term rentals. With this set of regulations, we hope to achieve responsible short-term rental operations that benefit visitors and address the most common concerns expressed by residents. In this presentation, I'll present background information about short-term rentals and the market here in Alexandria. I'll then briefly describe each of the proposed regulations included in the text amendment and for informational purposes only. Mention some non-text changes that will dovetail with the proposed regulations, and then I will wrap up with our staff recommendation. So short-term rentals are residential properties typically rented for less than 30 consecutive days. Often listed on platforms like Airbnb or VRBO or VRBO. They're often situated in residential neighborhoods, offering lodging choices that provide a more home-like option for traditional, or other than traditional hotels. This is useful for families or groups who prefer staying together in one space rather than in multiple hotel rooms. In 2018, the city launched a short-term rental registry, which was managed by the Department of Finance. At that time, City Council didn't feel the need for additional regulation and decided to handle rental complaints through existing city codes. But as many of you know, there was a rapid growth in short-term rentals during the pandemic, which initiated significant community discussion. This led City Council to task planning and zoning with analyzing complaint trends, assessed the impacts of short-term rentals and develop simple, sensible, and enforceable regulations. It proposed regulations, which I will share with you, directly address that request. Working with third-party provider, which uses artificial intelligence, big data, and human verification, we have found an average annual of 644 listed short-term rentals operating in the city of Alexandria. These numbers do fluctuate depending on the season, peaking in the summer and during large special events with about 735 listings and dipping in winter months to as low as 575. The total percentage of housing units dedicated to short-term rentals is quite minimal. Just 0.8% of our 80,300 housing units. Research generally shows that such a low percentage of housing-dedicated to short-term rentals has a negligible impact on housing and rental prices. Since December 2022, the growth and short term rentals in our city has been nominal. Recent data shows a market slowdown in larger metro areas due to market saturation, rising operating and mortgage costs, and higher rental rates, which make annual leases much more competitive, all of which we are experiencing here in Alexandria. In addition to determining how many rentals are on the market in Alexandria, staff examined complaints received via Alex 311 between January 2018 and 2025. Staff from both planning and zoning and the Department of Emergency and Customer Communications. In separate analysis found approximately 16 or 62 total complaints, most related to noise, trash, parking, and party houses. These four concerns mirror complaint trends seen the details of the text amendment. First proposed definitions to ensure consistent and fair application of the post regulations were introducing three of them. The first is short term residential rental, which is a dwelling or unit typically rented for less than 30 consecutive days. The second definition is operator, which is an individual or entity with a legal interest in the short-term rental property. And then finally, the registered local agent. This is a party that's designated as the responsible person handling the day-to-day operations of the short-term rental, a property manager, or say. Now let's get into the proposed regulations themselves, which are designed to be simple and straightforward, addressing the most frequent complaints, as well as common concerns we heard during public outreach. Again, those are noise, trash, parking, and party houses. First staff proposed a maximum of two occupants per bedroom, plus two additional guests. As an example, a two bedroom home would have a maximum occupancy of six people. No short-term rental, despite having five or more bedrooms, would be permitted to have an occupancy exceeding 10. These limits aim to prevent overcrowding, reduce noise and trash generation, and reduce the number of guest vehicles. Dovetailing with the maximum occupancy limits, staff propose a prohibition on any party or event in residential zones exceeding the maximum occupancy. This directly tackles the party house, noise, and parking concerns. Based on feedback after the release of the staff report and amendment language, staff propose allowing events which exceed the maximum occupancy in commercial, office, and mixed-use zones. As long as they comply with certain conditions or standards, and they are accessory to the short-term rental use itself, proposed changes are outlined in a memo which was sent to you yesterday. Staff also propose a minimum parking requirement, 0.75 spaces per bedroom outside the enhanced transit area, and 0.25 spaces per bedroom within the enhanced transit area. Realizing that not every home in Alexandria has parking on site, operators may count up to two on-street parking spaces toward their parking requirements. Access parking should be accommodated off site and detailed as part of the parking plan, which will be required to be submitted as part of the application. This helps ensure sufficient parking and helps reduce neighborhood congestion. Staff plan to rely on the existing noise codes for enforcement, however, as part of the and the public. The public is a very important and very important and very important and very important and very important. The public is a very important and very important and very important and very important. The public is a very important and very important and very important and very important. The public is a very important and very important and very important and very important. The public is a very important and very important and very important and very important. The public is a very important and very important. and force issues related to trash. Operators will continue to be responsible for proper waste removal, as well as provide trash pickup information as part of the Good Neighbor Guide. In addition, staff is proposing to remove the 120-day limit on accessory dwelling units being leased as short-term rentals. Instead, regulations would prohibit simultaneous short-term rental operations in both the ADU and primary dwelling. Operators could provide one, but not both, dwelling units, as a short-term rental. This balances flexibility and neighborhood impacts. A key aspect of the regulations would be the provision of a good neighborhood guide. The guide would be provided to guests prior to arrival and posted prominently in the property. So guests are aware of local rules and expectations, including the maximum occupancy, the prohibition on events, exceeding maximum occupancy, quiet hours, and notice to keep noise levels at a minimum at all times, proper trash and pet waste disposal, proper parking locations, and expectations, and local transit information. Similar guides are required in other jurisdictions throughout the country, and they've proven to be effective tools in minimizing disruptions. Above all, operators or the local agents must be reachable by phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Rapid response with a one hour would be required for urgent issues including violations of occupancy, parties and events, and noise. All other code and ordinance violations, while potentially a nuisance, we understand, will be expected to be addressed within standard timeframes. Just a minute. Moving on from the regulations, staff propose a permit requirement for all short term rentals operating for more than 10 days per year. The application would include operator and local agent contact information, property details, occupancy information, parking maps and plans, proof of ownership, safety certifications, and confirmation that the Good Neighbor Guide has been posted. As part of the applications, operators would be required to provide notice to abutting properties via certified mail. This mirrors existing requirements for land use public hearings and administrative SUP applications. Notice would include 24-7 contact information so that neighbors can reach out directly to the operator or the local agent when an issue arises. Most importantly, notice will provide residents with ways they can submit complaints to the city when there is a city. The city's budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the budget for the city's budget for the budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the budget for the city's budget for the city's budget for the permit for a minimum of one year. This promotes compliance and holds operators accountable. Additionally, incomplete applications or misleading information will result in denial. Staff also proposed that repeated violations will lead to permit revocation. This makes it easier to eliminate the bad apples from the community. Well, not part of the proposed amendment being considered today, staff felt the need to briefly describe some other changes that will be implemented after the adoption and leading up to the launch of the short-term rental permit system in the fall of 2025. This is being provided as information only, not part of what you're voting on today. First, the Alex 311 system would be enhanced to better track and respond to short-term rental complaints. A dedicated multi-departmental, Alex 311 short-term rental response team will also be created to improve efficiency. A new online permit through APEX, the city's online permit existing, will be developed and launched. Furthermore, staff have posed a short-term rental permit fee as part of the fiscal year 2026 budget. To fund additional staffing, continue tracking short-term rental compliance and add a 24-7 hotline. Staff have proposed the creation of a short-term rental program manager who would begin in the fall of 2025 to help process permits, carry out compliance monitoring, coordinate and track complaint response by city departments and assist with outreach. Staff also intend to maintain a contract with our third party provider to continue monitoring short-term rentals, new short-term rentals, ensuring compliance with the permit requirement and provide valuable data on short-term rental and the short-term rental market here in Alexandria. And finally, we plan the addition of a 24-7 hotline that will help provide help to address complaints promptly. As evidenced in other jurisdictions, Fairfax, for instance, hotline staff can reach out to operators at any time of day or night and on weekends to assist addressing after hours concerns and improve response times. The proposed regulations that you have been presented and permit requirement, we believe are a balance between allowing what has become a popular use and providing protections for neighborhoods. As has been demonstrated in hundreds of communities throughout the US, establishing clear expectations for operators and short-term rental occupants will provide better outcomes. Having the ability to revoke a permit for short-term rental that has become a nuisance will safeguard neighbors. We ask you to initiate and recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. That concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you very much. I will turn to questions. I have one question, just a clarification. Can you go to the definition slide number four? When we talk about short-term residential rentals and the definition there, we don't give any sort of, how the room is booked doesn't factor into this in terms of the definition. And my understanding is that while the vast majority of these are being booked through Internet-based platforms, these rules would apply regardless of the booking mechanism that you used for and all these rules, all the registration, everything we see here would apply regardless of whether you use an internet-based platform or not. 100% correct. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. And then I think the memo that you've issued with respect to the events within non-residential zones is very helpful. I wanted to clarify, and I think this is something that I would advise for your city council docket, that you clarify the extent to which there, I mean, this covers events as an accessory use to short-term rentals. But we probably need to make clear that there is a whole other process for these event spaces to get SUP approvals if they should rise to a level where it's not accessory to a short-term rental. And probably need to highlight that. I know we talked a little bit about it during my staff briefing, but for the purposes of the community or people who may be operating these sorts of facilities to make clear that there's an alternate process here of people want that gets them out of these restrictions if they want to go the SUP route. And from what I understand, that would be somewhat similar to what you might be requesting if you were operating a restaurant. Yes, they would require a restaurant administrative SUP. Great. Thanks for clarifying that. Other questions? Ms. Lyle? This 24-7 hotline. Who answers it? This is a third-party provider. It is not city staff. So it would be a US-based Individual who will then contact the operator or the registered agent whoever the 24-hour contact is Follow up with them then follow up with the person who issued the complaint so they Do a pretty good job at coordinating with not only the short-term rental operator but following following up with the complaint and then providing the information to city staff So the next day when we come in we know what the complaint was and whether It was resolved or not So it's an answering service basic it is yes, okay, it's far cheaper than providing city staff working 24 seven Well a lot of city hotlines go to the police non-emergency number. That's why I was asking. Other questions? Mr. Brown? We have three public speakers. Okay. No other questions at this point? We'll go to the public speakers. So we will hear from Michael Peckman and then Lauren Sparratt and then Keith Calhoun in that order. Michael Peckman, I am a resident on the west end of Alexandria. I live on the 4,500 block of North Jordan Court. I'm actually here speaking in favor of these rules, regulations, and to share some of my frustrations over the last year since the short term rental has opened on my block. I actually have about a dozen photos. I don't know if I can just ask you to just sort of, as I'm speaking, look through them, because I think they'll tell you what I've been living with. The first photo actually was taken this Sunday. It is a photo of 13 cars parked on our cul-de-sac of four houses that has at best six parking spots. The cars are triple parked three-wide from the curb taking up the entire cul-de-sac. higher, cold as heck. Since the short-term rental has opened a year ago, we've had complaints every single month that they've been open. At first, the owner of the property was more than willing to take our complaints and asked us to reach out. At one point, my neighbor was told, please stop calling. There's nothing I can do. Clearly this person really is not a good neighbor. Has no interest in our community. Just wants to make money off his property next door. We live on a third acre of lots. The entire backyard was ripped out and it was put in, the backyard consists of sod, chairs, games like Cornhole. One room of the house has video games and other arcade games. Clearly this person is interested in having large parties. I noticed on page four of the staff report, it goes on to say two short-term rental property standout with six or more complaints since 2018. We're one of them. Again, the property's been open for one year. I would very much like to see rules and regulations that put the owner on notice that if they don't wanna if you have any questions for me. I think I made my point pretty clear. Mr. McMahon. Actually, I don't have a question for you, but it's a follow-up question for staff. Maybe that hour should we let them sit down? Or? I don't know if you have any questions for me. I think I made my point pretty clear. Mr. McMahon. Actually, I don't have a question for you, but it's a follow-up question for staff. Maybe that hour should we let them sit down? You see what I mean? So those are pretty egregious, and you've probably seen these already. It's understood that the regulation is about parking provision, which is intended to mitigate impacts. It doesn't control manually how many cars decide to come with a reservation. So let's say this house is a five bedroom house and it can go up to 10 people. 10 cars could come, I guess. What do we do? Like what regulation are we using to determine that this property is not being used appropriately in the context of the short-term rentals? So we're doing here. When it comes to parking, it's a bit more difficult. Because zoning, we're not parking enforcement officers. We're not necessarily responsible for what happens in the right away. If cars are parked illegally, we do have the police department and parking enforcement, which can deal with that. It is a bit more difficult to deal with how many cars are associated with the property. Because it could be a resident that lives there full time. And they have multiple family members that have multiple cars. How do we deal with that? It's kind of the same question. I will say that with properties such as this, yes, it is a large impact, but they come and they go. It's something that we're trying to get a handle on with maximum occupancy regulations and also a, you know, prohibition on these large parties and events. That house in particular on Jordan Court is known to host parties and events where they're bringing in caterers and tents for the backyard and they're bringing in 20, 25 people for, you know, a celebration. So that is a piece that this can help address, because if they apply for this permit and they're holding in their, this is a residential zone, they cannot hold such a large event. Exactly. So zoning can enforce that. You can enforce a complaint basis through the 24-7 hotline. And then potentially the 24-7 hotline also allows a mechanism to, and this is more of a question, and I guess it's like for implementation, but consider whether there's a connectivity that can happen to not police non-emergencies so that a report can be issued by the hotline people, maybe instead of the resident, like on their behalf,, this is the address, this is the time, this is the report of, that's illegal parking, I mean, fire lane. Yeah. We know that they want to be able to ticket them and potentially tow them if they were able to go out there. So I think that that's also an assist, even though zoning wouldn't be able to do that, but this hotline could assist with that. And that's what I was going to just add on to hers. Can they actually, will the hotline be able to call the fire department non-emergency? Because that's a fire code violation without even thinking about it. If something were to happen, fire trucks can't get in there. Yes, when we work with the third party provider, we will a lot of work to do with the work. So, I think we have a lot of work to do with the work. So, I think we have a lot of work to do with the work. So, I think we have a lot of work to do with the work. So, I think we have a lot of work to do with the work. So, I think we have a lot for the speaker we should move on with our public hearing? Just for staff. Would you be a prohibition on running a commercial enterprise in the residential zone? So you are permitted to run a commercial enterprise in a residential zone currently through our home occupation regulations. There are certain standards or use limitations that the operator has to abide by. This would be in addition to those home occupation regulations. This would be a separate section specific to short term rentals. But if someone else wants to have a home-based business, they can open up as long as they, you know, abide by those use limitations. Okay, thank you. Can I add one thing? I just wanted to add that if there was a way to amend the parking as needed, I think our neighbors and I would be very much appreciative. I know we've worked with Tony some, we've worked with Max Deversum to talk about what parking relations are available. We currently are in the zone 12 no parking Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 which really doesn't help with parties. We've lobbied a little bit to try to get the 12 A that says no parking midnight to whatever you know, whatever, 6 AM, which would help us. But I can imagine that we're not the only, we don't have the only situation where we have unique parking requirements that might only exist for a block. And I know that currently the city's parking regulations require, some 400 houses to function as a unit to lobby for something. Except for our coldest act of four houses, the next nearest parking spot is something like 150, 200 yards, 150, 200 feet away on a neighboring street, you know, two blocks over. I clearly don't qualify for it. I think you raised some interesting questions there, which are kind of beyond the scope of what the planning commission considers. Yes. But I'd get creative about if you've got any handicap people on your street, that's a type of parking restriction that you could put in place. Or there's legitimate reason for loading zones or no parking zones for hydrants or anything like that. That could all be something to work with traffic and parking board staff at TNES on, but that is not germane to our question on disowning text amendments. Thank you all. Yep. Lawrence Barrett and then Keith Kelvin. Yeah, I have very little to add to what my neighbor has said. I bought my house there on the coolest act of 1992. There's four houses there. It just sits off of North Jordan. And I've raised a family and I've seen three other homes. Families were raised in there. When the snow emergency erubed at North Jordan is, and if the plows somehow missed our coolest act, we would all get together and clear it up. There was always a sense of real family there in the coolest act. We all got together during holidays, and it's been a wonderful life there are 32 years. Now we have a hotel and up to this point it's been free of regulation or any sort of assistance from the city. I commend the staff on the proposals and I hope they're implemented. Thank you. Thank you. Last speaker is Keith Yellhoun. Good evening. I live on Penal District, corner of Penalton in West. I have four Airbnb's within 150 feet of my home and an adjoining wall with a one. I'm having problems with people parking in my driveway, noise, and also yard care and trash can move from one of the units. This chain said, I'm wondering what is adjacent? Is that just next door or can I report property stetter, like two doors away? I need to do that for the problems that I'm having. These are- We'd like staff to, I think my understanding was that you can report issues with anything you see, but the notification that you would get is only if you're touching or across from parcel. That's a pre notification of the permit. Okay, so that 24-7 for the adjacent probably directly adjacent next to me is the one I would be able to contact directly or you can contact once they're permitted and operating. You can contact them through their contact information and then report issues with them no matter how far away you are frankly Okay, so I Think I might have a particular problem with I have like I have four within 150 feet of my home Mm-hmm, and how and it was said that it was only like us less than 1% Airbnb's in the city Are there any regulations coming into play for densities in the small areas like the problem I'm having? That was not part of the proposal at the present time, but it's something we might consider in the future, but at present time no. Okay. Well, hopefully a lot of the things that I've heard said tonight. I hope they come into being because I think it would help me that I've heard said tonight, I hope they come into being, because I think it would help me. I've come home at times, and my block is kind of unique. I think I only have only driveway in a 600 block of West Street, and I come home as people parked in my driveway, and I have problems getting them out of my driveway. So if this would go through with that and the gentleman behind me he has greater problems than I do but I am right behind him with this trying to get this resolved. Okay thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I do have a question for staff, sort of his fellow of theirs. So in a situation like this where you have, there being these in the neighborhood that might have impacts on you, but you're not immediately adjacent to it. So those non-injeecent neighbors would not get the notification directly from the rental owner, like an adjacent neighbor would, but would there be any mechanism for them to know some of the details about how to get in touch with the owner or owner's rep? Yes. How would that work for a non-adjacent neighborhood of to understand what information they might need in order to address some neighborhood issue? As a property with a permit, it's all public record. We would share that information with any resident who has concerns. If they want to reach out to the property owner directly, they can or they can issue a complaint using Alex 3-1-1, or if it's an overnight complaint through the 24-7 hotline, or they can just reach out directly to planning and zoning, and we'll see what we can do to mitigate, you know, the impacts that property is having. I will say if someone is parking in your driveway, you do have the right to have them towed. It's called Henry's towing. Someone is parking in your driveway. You do have the right to have them towed. It's called Henry's Towing. Yeah. I mean- You'll be out in five minutes. Obviously the best thing would be if you have the contact information for the short-term rental operator, reach out to them first and say, hey, you have a guest in my driveway. Ask them to please move their car, but if that doesn't work, have them towed. I have a question. With the notification, right now we're saying when someone applies for a permit, the notification's only going to the adjacent neighbors. Would it be possible to have that notification go to people on that immediate block instead of just adjacent. Or a civic association? Well, some places don't have really active civic associations, but that's a, but I'm thinking just the block because you're not going to have that many homes. But then you start to look at a block size, how big is the block? And then do you notice the entire block? The entire street, the entire block, on the same side of the street as the short-term rental. And then you notice the block on the other side too. We've considered a wider area, but we think kind of, you know, corresponding with our current regulations for notice is sufficient. If a property owner has a concern and they would like the short-term rental operators information, we will provide it to them. I'm, when I'm thinking in terms of, for instance, our last speaker said, he lives on the corner of Pendleton and West. Okay, I'm correct in that. Okay, so if you, I don't know which side of Pendleton you're on, but maybe it's Pendleton to whatever the next street is. To the north side, right? Pendleton to with, maybe those streets. Actually, where I live, I have kind of a unique property. My address is on Pendleton Street. My driveway is on West Street. Your driveway is on West Street. I'm right on the corner. Okay, so you're on that corner. Yes. And so, uh, and this, so this is the property that I'm having problem with people's parking in my driveway is on West Street. Uh, the property I'm having problem with noise is on the Pendleton Street. Oh my gosh. Yes. So, uh, I need to have be able to contact both of them. Like I said, Henry's telling. But I'm just wondering if there's maybe within 100 feet because we have so many homes in Alexandria that are common walls, okay? In common walled homes, I mean, I have had in the past neighbors that lived behind me that you felt the vibrations from the music at, you know, two and three in the morning. But I'm just I'm just thinking when you have common walls, maybe you go a little further than immediately adjacent. If you would like to propose? Yeah, if you would like to propose. I'm just thinking we made a- I'm cool with that. Are- Yep. Because not to- I'm just thinking maybe we need to expand the notice a little bit. Not speaking against that idea, but also noting that in general it's important for us to continuously inform the general public that this service, once it's going into effect. So that any Alexandria Homeowner or a resident who has a problem has some way of knowing what to do about it and what resources are available to them. So we will also be pursuing sort of ways to make sure that periodically it becomes public. It's in the public sphere, again, or public discussion again. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Yeah. As a follow-up question, which I think is really dog tails with what Mr. Moritz was saying, is there an intent in implementation to create a map or other publicly accessible sort of list that people can reference. So we will be working with our GIS staff to have a map of short-term rental properties, which we'll dovetail in with the Alex Brewery One system, so we can better track where they are and complaints coming in. That is not something that we plan to share publicly because of safety concerns and in other communities where they have shared that type of information Sometimes those short-term rental properties become targets of crime Someone knows that someone might not be there becomes a victim of Vandalization or theft you have residents or sorry short-term rental guests staying there that might not know the city very well It also opens them up to being victims of crime. Airbnb always encourages and asks any of their operators not to put a photo of the front of the house with their listing. Because once you do that, it then alerts criminals that that is a home, that is a short-term rental, and can become a victim of crime. Thank you for that insightful explanation. Because these are just things, I think I'm just too naive to realize. Um, and... But I... But regulation, it's a recommendation. Yes, which most operators do abide by. So, so I appreciate that concern, but it also sounds like you're saying that as long as in our sort of communication with the community about how we're managing this, that if they have a neighbor, that like, because let's say you move into a house next to an existing permitted, then you're not going to have gotten the notice, you won't know that it's nearby, but then if there's an impact and you're wondering what the mechanisms are for you to tell, is this the reason it's the impact or their regulations that can help me, then having reported it through 3-1-1 should connect you to staff who know. And they can say this is a registered permitted short term rental, and here's contact information. If you want to try to work this out. That sort of thing. Correct. Yes. Yeah. Great. You know, and I think part of this is just the city's going to need to have clear communication with a web page that talks about what the program is and who to contact if you have questions about it and where to call if you have questions. So I think some of this is just going to have to be having a very clear place for people to head for information about this on the city's on web pages. I didn't have a question for you just a clarification. So if the city denies permission revokes a permit for a short term rental to operate in the city. Would that be honored by Airbnb or VRBO or the other operators platforms? How do they... Every platform is a bit different. Airbnb typically honors requests from cities to remove that short-term rental from their platform. VRBO also has been pretty good about removing, you know, operators from their platform. VRBO also has been pretty good about removing operators from their platform. But other platforms, not so much. Like booking.com is hard to get in touch with. Expedia, another one, very difficult to get in touch with. But I will say the majority of bookings in Alexander, but I think it's like 83%, 86%, somewhere in that range, are done through Airbnb. That is the big player in the market right now. And they do remove listings from their platform when the city requests. OK. We do need to close our public hearing. Do we have a motion to do so? Motion by miss Nick man second by miss Lyle to close the public hearing all those in favor please say aye He posed motion carries seven zero Further questions for staff staff or any discussion? I would like to propose. I've pulled it up here and I'm not sure where I'm changing it because I see drafts and I have page 11 with neighbor notice. I want to expand that to maybe within four houses either side, because I think that might be an impact zone so that you notify four houses either way of the VRBO or Airbnb or whatever short term rental property. Okay. So that would be an update to section 7104, be when it comes to notice. 7-1-404. Yes, 7-1-404-B. E. That's on page 24 of the packet. I, my personal view on this is that I think, a four seems like a lot and how do you measure that and which direction and I don't know I think it becomes hard to I think either direction because with small lots and abouting properties I think you're going to have impacts more than the house next door. And I understand that. But then what about across the street? What about the block behind you? What about Kitty Corner from you behind you or across the street? So what I would propose we might consider is directing staff to think about whether it could come up with a radius or other recommended notice requirement. 100 yards maybe. Something like that. I'm not quite sure what it should be. I don't have the answer tonight, but I feel like that's something we could direct staff to potentially refine between now and the council hearing. I think 100 yards would be a good number. Okay. We will look at, we will. That's 300 feet. It's 300 feet, yeah. That would be like, yeah. That would be like, our lots are. In different. People, lots of these six houses. In either side. They're 50 yards. Noted. If that is the planning commission's direction, we will take the sort of some total of this discussion and take a look at various sample blocks and sort of see what we think is consistent with what your direction is. But I think we understand what your intent is. You might think we understand what your intent is. She might want to look at the corner of Western Pendleton. Remind me of that. In fact, 7,500 blocks of Jordan? Or? I'll add a comment. Refrigional short-term rental regulations, which were released in phase one for public outreach and comment included 200foot radius. But we heard from not only the short-term rental operators, but a lot of residents that were just, I don't know, interested in the topic, that they felt 200 feet was too much. We'll land somewhere in between that range. Further discussion? that range. For the discussion. Mr. McMahon and Mr. Brown. I was ready to make a motion. Mr. Brown has comments. Did you have comments, Mr. Brown? I just wanted to say that the discussion we've been having about noticed in my view, nicely illustrates the inherent tension between the free market and the desire of a city to keep things on regular, to use city regulations to keep things calm and even handed. There is no perfect solution here. That tension will always exist. And the dynamic creative forces that There's no perfect solution here. That tension will always exist. And the dynamic creative forces that have made things like Airbnb is much more popular today than they were in the pre-internet era is not the sort of thing that's gonna go away. It's just going to change. And we have to adapt to the change. And we can't hope to solve all problems in a regulation except that the regulation goes on for pages and pages about who gets notice and what this and that. As I said to staff, when I read these regulations, I thought they did a nice job of striking a balance between those two forces. And it also is a balance that I think is particularly appropriate for Alexandria. Most of the city is not subject to intense use by visitors in Airbnb's. There are places in the country that are very much more focused on Airbnb's and revenues from Airbnb's and my feeling is we have a we have struck an initial balance that I think is quite workable and that we can always make adjustments as necessary. And in fact, considering the dynamics of the economy, I don't imagine we would ever think that this regulation is a done deal. So I'm very happy to support what the staff's done in this case. Thank you. And I would like to comment that as part of the staff report, I do mention that two years after the program has been up and running, we will look at the regulations and reevaluate them. And if necessary, propose amendments. Okay. Ms. Bagan. Thank you. Mr. LaColla, I want to acknowledge your memo of February 3 with the changes and incorporate that into my motion. But right before I do that, I also want to point out for your consideration if 7403B2A, which is the line about hours. I think there might be, and the word, the word, and in there, twice where it might need to be 2. OK. Just in the way, it's like whether you say, between something and something time versus saying sometime to sometime. And I think the phrasing got mixed up. So I don't mind which way you rephrase it, but just probably we have to just pick the right term. Awesome. So I would like to make a motion to initiate text amendment 2024-0011. Yeah, start, start there. With the. I'll incorporate that in the second part of the motion. This is just the issue. Second. Okay, we've got a motion to initiate the text amendment by Ms. McPandacek and Ms. Lyle. Any discussion of that motion? If not all of those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 7-0. And I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the amendment 2024-00011 with the changes recommended in staff's memorandum from February 3, 2025. Second. Okay, motion by Ms. McMahon, second member, Ms. Lyle to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. In acknowledging the conversation we just had about staff going to look at designation of the notice distance. Noted, noted. Before we vote, I will, I come as to Brown's comments here to say, I think it strikes a good balance. If I were an operator of one of these, I wouldn't find what we're proposing to honor us and would probably be this type of information I would wanna provide to someone who was in my property anyway. And if I were an adjacent neighbor to one of these, I would find this to be an appropriate level of regulation and protection. So I think it strikes a good balance here when you sort of think about it from a couple of perspectives. So I appreciate the effort here on this and happy to support it this evening. I have a motion on the floor. Any opposed? Motion carried. 7-0. Thank you all. 8-0 has been withdrawn. 9-0 is our minutes from the January 9th Planning Commission meeting. Do we have any changes, corrections or edits in minutes? Yeah, we'll get to that number 10. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from January 9th, 2025. Second. Okay, motion from Elizabeth Ann. Second from Miss Lauderdou approved the minutes from January 9th 2025. All those in favor please say aye I I always motion carries 7 0 That was next commission reports comments and questions so we have Miss McMahon and Mr. Canick worked together on the letter to Address planning commission concerns regarding civic engagement with respect to the Alexandria City Public Schools George Mason Elementary School Modernization Project as well as the pre-K8 school capacity planning project. So let me first turn this over to the co-authors here to see this up with any comments that you wanted to have to preface this and then we'll open the floor for discussion of this. The intent of our discussion, I'll just say from the outside, is really to get a sense of the commission on documenting feedback on this to the appropriate officials on this. We don't want to wordsmith the letter per se, but I think getting a general sense of direction on this would, and then ideally commission vote and then we'll send this out. Accordingly would be the preferred path forward if we're going to take action on this. I'll go ahead and kick off and then Commissioner Caining if you want to add anything. I believe it was two meetings ago because I wasn't here at the last meeting where we were tasked with preparing this letter. In part as an outflow of Commissioner Caining's extensive work on the advisory committee related to the George Mason Elementary School Modernization Project. And he's been doing a terrific job reporting back to us on where the project is in its planning process and his direct experiences with the nature of the engagement. And it became apparent by that meeting that there were weaknesses in of people in the community that were aware of the community. And I'm not sure if there was a lot of people in the community that were aware of the community. And I'm not sure if there was a lot of people in the community that were aware of the community. And I'm not sure if there was a lot of people in the community that were aware of the community. a note to that effect should be written. And I don't remember if at that time we said to whom it should be written. It is addressed here in this draft to Mayor Gaskin's and members of City Council and we can discuss that in more detail. I would like to highlight that in the intervening two months time there has been additional ability to absorb the pre-K through eight school capacity planning process. And as with any planning processes, whether they are being run by the school system, or they're run by planning and zoning and other city departments, these are all happening in an overlapping way. And sometimes it's hard to keep up. But what we saw were important parallels in the weaknesses of the pre-K through eight school capacity planning, engagement, tools, techniques, and efforts. And the ones that we were seeing in the George Mason, more directly in the George Mason Elementary School Modernization Project through Stevens, particular engagement. So we did take an opportunity in this draft to draw the connection between the two, with the theme really being that as the Planning Commission charged with implementing our long range plans and ensuring the consistency of various citywide activities with our long range plans We also are familiar with and really sort of Shepherds of how the city undertakes engagement around its plans and so so we cite resolution 2597 establishing the city's civic engagement policy here and we go throughout it pulling out the pieces of what we understand to be the city's established adopted priorities when it comes to how we do engagement with the community, both the methods and the intended outcomes and where we think there might be some weaknesses in these two ACPS efforts. And we provide guidance for what we think could make them look better and how we how we could see hopefully more satisfying outcomes that the community can get behind. So that's sort of the theesis and the development, I guess. And happy to answer questions or if Commissioner Caining would like to add any color commentary. I think that's an excellent and concise synopsis and I'm interested in what the commission thinks. There's a lot. and what the commission thinks. Ms. Laugh. Okay, I think the part about George Mason is spot on from what we heard from Commissioner Canig throughout that whole process. I really have a problem with going into this pre-K8 section, and here's the reason. That was voted on under a previous school board, who's now changed. You have almost no one. And pre-K8 programming is academic programming that really doesn't go into our purview of things while the actual school building does. The academic programming doesn't and I think that's overstepping our boundary and I believe what we'll do there is draw attention away from what we really want to push through which is we need more community engagement on these building types and to work with the community a little more there. I think this is just gonna get us in the weeds and not get the results that we want. I mean, what I would do in reading this is just take this one section out and go to your recommended actions because I think those are good as well. And send it pretty much as it is because everything having to do with the building is spot on with what we heard. I hear you saying there's a little mission creep in this letter. I tend to think that. Just a little bit, Mr. Brown. So I do want to put out their, what a counterargument. And that is that when reading about the challenges that the community was facing in understanding the rationale and then their concerns behind that K-8 vote. That, well, it sounds like it's a academic capacity thing and academic programming item. From the planning commission perspective, we see these projects as buildings, right? So we saw Jefferson Houston when it was approved as a K-3A elementary. We saw Patrick Henry when it was designed and approved as a K-3A elementary and all of the work that goes into designing those buildings for that. And eventually, you know, if they proceed down that path path we will see plans that are Re-workings of these buildings for totally different purposes and they were originally intended and now we do that through let's say the The Conversion of an office to residential use. We're now getting really good at that, right? So Alexandria's got a lot of experience converting one building that was designed, approved, and intended for one use into another. So I'm not saying we can't do it, but I am saying that the engagement process that we undertake to understand a kin to the fact that we don't have small area plans for school institutional uses lacks that sense of where are we going down the road and what's going to happen next. And so it's from that grounding and the fact that we will ultimately see these and sometimes it feels like it's too little too late. If they've already decided what's going to happen and the neighborhood is going to have to adapt to that decision with building choices and maybe some transportation changes and some other infrastructure changes because the plan for its intended use happened at a previous time and there wasn't as much engagement on that. So that was the rationale for the connection to our school. Yeah, I understand, but I think when you say academic programming, that's where it's going to get prickly. And that's where this connection between programming through CIP decisions. That's where I think people will stop reading. And you want them to finish the letter because recommended actions are good. Right. So that's. I mean, you offer one suggestion, possible structural suggestion is have this letter be primarily about George Mason, but have a footnote to say that this lack of community responsiveness may have, may have implications elsewhere, possibly in the, in the addressing the pre K-12 academic programming through CID decisions. That is discussed in a sentence, attachment to this letter. Something like that. The other thing we could do, similar to that, would note that other decisions before the schools may benefit from a similar focus on this and we could note the K8 decision and we could note the forthcoming redistricting effort as another potential Outlet to apply these principles and just sort of note it in passing these are places where they could do this without Sort of making the point about without being really invested in that. I like that. Yeah, I think that's because yes, redistricting is going to have a huge impact on the buildings. And on their building program, those two after the recommendations. I have one other suggestion as well. Yeah. I was very much with this letter until we got to the section called Recommended Action. The first paragraph of Recommended Action asks the Council to consider its own directive on engagement policy. Well, why are we telling the council to do what it's supposed to do in that sense? It seems to me we feel that if a more forceful recommended action would be that the city apply the engagement policy and conclude that the planning board has failed in this respect. Why aren't we more forced? Why are we so polite? Oh, I think there's a light. I like your, I like your cut of your gym. Well, I think to the thing that we were trying to thread here with this or that we need to be mindful of is that we are an advisory commission to the City Council. And to some degree, I did mean it as advice. Yeah. But it's still a recommendation. Yeah. Well, and to some extent, I'm not sure that like we're saying to the city and the city council, city government needs to do better about managing these processes to make sure they follow the principle, but at the same time, it's ACPS that's generally running these processes. So there's a little bit of indirect guidance to ACPS that we're talking to City Councilman. We're hoping that ACPS is listening. We'll be saying this. That's part of what makes this a little challenging because it's a little bit outside our lane to necessarily direct the message to them. But they need to be here too because it's a cooperative process. I'm going to go along with any letter we do. I'm just making that suggest. I'm kind of in agreement with Mr. Brown in that you can absolutely, I think. I feel as if we can illustrate the fact that these are, and I think that we do. We illustrate that these are the regulations within the process, acceptable swim lanes and guard rails that we've set up within the city for public engagement. And this is why we feel that there is a violation of this process for this particular product. And then the city council has to weigh their decision based on the advice as Advisory Council and you know our advisory position dictates The violations that we we feel that you know are inherent to this process One a couple of the things on it are that I think in framing the introduction of the letter, a change I'd like to see is to, I think it starts on kind of a down note and I think it needs to be a little bit more constructive in pointing to why we're raising this and what the solution is in the little paragraph. Yeah, yeah, which is the opening paragraph. We illustrate the reason why we are, why we are, why we're putting this letter together. Yeah, and all summary. And... All summer. In theory, the rail line does that job, but I think your suggestion is a better approach. It changes the tone just a little bit. I feel... I think the job you all gave us to start with was really good here, but I feel like going in by talking about deferrals to begin with is a little bit of a downbeat. As ultimately, we don't want to defer things and we do it so rarely that I think we just need to talk about the process we want to see to get a high quality project in front of us, regardless of whether it's going to be a pastor, deferter, denied, you know. So I think that's a little bit of words, nothing but I think we can work that in. And then the other question is, is this most appropriately worded to the city manager and the superintendent or is the city council and CC to the school board an appropriate receipt recipient for this? Mr. Chairman, and I'm sorry to insert myself a little bit, but I raised that question, and I just wanted to make a note that in the last 10 years of our relationship with the school staff, planning staff has worked with the school staff on a variety of long-range planning and short-range planning and approval project collaboration. And that is a strong collaboration, but it is also, and it is something that we could take advantage of here. And potentially a letter from the Planning Commission because your role is not only giving guidance to the City Council, but also in many ways you have a strong relationship with the Planning staff and asking the City Manager to direct his staff to work with school staff on civic engagement along the lines that you have identified, I think, would bear real fruit. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. Chair Misek, I would say that I'm comfortable with that approach. It feels more collaborative and gives staff an opportunity. Because essentially, we don't, you know, we don't have full insight into what the school board said or did not say to direct their lead teams to approach their process in this way. It's more of a ground up, so it gives staff a chance to improve their process without feeling like they're now getting a third-hand game of telephone directive from their leadership and the leadership above that. So I'm okay with that. I also think that back to the point that we ultimately see these buildings, right? We see this process unfold that we will continue to see these processes unfold. So in good faith, attempting to communicate that there may be improvements possible here, we will also see whether good faith effort has been made to address them. Well, and then we might cite to what we think has been, as far as exemplary process like the engagement on City Hall and Market Square. Okay, so there's some quick observations that I have. On this question of who it's addressed to, I think my understanding was maybe overly simplistic. It's like we work for City Council. So my initial impetus was that this issue with George Mason is something we would like to bring to their attention in whatever way we can and then leave it for them to make whatever appropriate moves there would be if they think any. That being said, I think several suggestions were really good. Director Morris's point about, it seems to me that addressing this to the mayor and members of council is correct. Putting in the recommendations that one of our recommendations is that the mayor and council direct the city manager to take advantage of this very strong collaborative effort to sort of build on the very productive civic engagement process we have to sort of tweak it to address these particular issues that we're raising a concern about. I'm actually very comfortable with that approach. I think that's an interesting idea. The question that of, and this came up in a conversation that Director Moritzon I had about copying the school board members and a superintendent K. Wyatt. I wanted just free information purposes to reiterate that. I think one of the concerns was that whether they're copied or not, this is a sort of blind sighted thing, right? It's like where did this come from? And I can report that two things. One is I did write a memo a day before the school board voted, directed to the superintendent and copied to all of the members of the advisory group, as the Planning Commissioner on the advisory group. And I raised this issue about being very concerned about a rush to judgment on the design. And I did not raise the virtual only aspect of the community meetings, but I did raise the point that and I advised Melissa that we keep it out of this letter, but at that point that same problem was sort of evident in the advisory committee that we got this really high quality briefing. We everybody got around to questions and about the time when we should have kicked into talking amongst ourselves about what we thought about what everybody else said. 60 minutes was up and the meeting was over. So in the end, I think that's a operational problem on the advisory group side and we shouldn't raise the advisory group in here and that's why I recommend it. But the fact that that's the characteristic of the community meetings is a fatal flaw from my perspective. And I think it's one of the strongest parts of our observation here that the handbook says very explicitly do not consider online exclusively for public engagement for just the reasons that we're pointing out. To the other, and to stop me, this is too much information, but when we started this, to me, those two fundamental characteristics of George Mason were key, and they were real, and they were happening right in front of us on an actual development project that we would vote on, that I think we got a little bit hot under the collar with that thing of like, okay, and 12 months from now we're going to 50 people here barking at us because they're right justly unhappy that their input wasn't considered. So I think that was full engagement for us because it's right in our wheelhouse as it were. And I think it had the clarity of being a real time project that no one can really dispute whether it's reasonable for us to be engaged with these issues and be an advising on them. So when I wrote the draft Melissa, I basically said, here's what I take on the pieces I understand. The part about the capacity issue vote, two things. One is it strikes me that it's the same sort of problem of opaque decision making being delivered as a fate of complete with no notice to the public. And in that sense, it's directly analogous. But I also said, I don't really understand it. I don't know the background of that one. I don't know the details of it. And so if you write it, that would be great. And then she did. So she came back and there it strikes me that it's incorporated here in a logical way. The thing is framed as both things. And so I'm willing to support it as it's written. At the same time, I still have a significant affinity with the point that I think Commissioner Lael made and Commissioner Brown's mission creep eludes to as well as that. Instead of a one-pager, the kind of, this being put in front of elected leaders who are digesting thousands of pages of stuff a day, it says, George Mason, hot button project, live, real live, everybody cares about it, has some difficulties that we want to suggest to you. We've got a four-pager that has that in there, and then raises an absolutely important corollary issue, but does it at a level of complexity that kind of. So that's back to the suggestion that if there was potentially a way to take, even potentially just to the, I guess it was Nate's suggestion here, that here's the problem that we see, here the fundamental flaws that we see, here's recommendation and Oh, by the way how about capacity planning and redistricting and the implications of these issues if they're not sort of addressed and rectified On those problems would be bad. Then we still have a potentially shorter Persuasive take action on this now because of these particular characteristics as well as a very direct opening into and These things are the one of them is already on you or already in public as a controversy the next one is rolling right down I'm gonna offer a suggestion when you Talked about the length Mr. Canary. I do think That most people after page two get lost. Yeah, you can't have a hello, but not the exact. Well, it will be almost two pages. If we read that section to just that but I don't know that we can work some magic. Use a point on why then the narrow the margins. Subervation from a process tactical point of view would be if the motion really is here that there's some consensus about the way we've discussed it, and we're perfectly happy for the chair to go ahead and tweak it to his pleasure and sign it. That, that to me. What are you going to do if you're ready, me? No, actually, we're trying to kind of get you to hang on as a consultant, so maybe we should completely. Yeah, well, I think that's sort of the process here we need to do. We started to get a general consensus of our commission on what we want to do. I think we've got good feedback here on some edits to the letter. And then, you know, consistent, we did letters all the time. We do do letters all the time and I helped author letters all the time at Waterfront Commission and the general approach is, you talked through something in concept and oftentimes we just write the letter and the chair will write the letter and the commission would see the letter after it went out and you'd have to hope that whatever went out was consistent with what the direction was from the commission on that. So in this case we have a draft of the letter we've provided comments on it that we can edit. But I think we've got some agreement in principle to proceed with sending the letter, focus on the George Mason issue. Talk about places where they could proactively use this collaborative approach going forward specifically with the K-8 programming and redistricting approach and you know positively direct and encourage and a positive recommendation that the city you know work with school staff on civic engagement and build on the collaborative process they've had in that regard to, you know, effectuate what the city's policy contains. My thought is that if it's all right with the authors of the letter to give you the final wording subject to their initial review, we don't need to come back and vote on this. Yeah, I don't need to come back and vote on this. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. My feeling is I'd like to get this done under the signature made made section of the planning commission. That's absolutely important. Yeah. Do you want to vote presently though that we all agree to let you do that? Or do you know votes necessary? I mean, either way. I think a voting concept to support the concepts of the letter that we all agree to let you do that. Or do you know votes necessary? I mean, either way, it's kind of- I think a vote in concept to support the concepts of the letter that we've outlined here is good direction to have. Well, I'll make a motion that we vote to allow the chair to proceed in memorializing this conversation in edits to the letter and getting it out to the right folks. Second. Okay, so we've got a motion to support the letter and for the Chair to finalize it. Further discussion? Okay, if none, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. The imposed motion carries 7-0. I did have one more report tonight. And interestingly, it relates to schools and facilities. So just as an FYI to the commission, I actually have been appointed as a member of the redistricting advisory committee representing NAMEO Brooks Elementary as the primary representative from NAMEO Brooks. So my time away from civic involvement will be short since that will be meeting monthly over the next few months to work through all of the school redistricting issues that are being contemplated. So I look forward to that and should be very interesting and I feel well informed of the issues on this regard because of the work that we've done over the years on school facilities, capital planning and demographic forecasts and other things that support us as a planning commission that will be integral to that. So I look forward to that involvement. All right, Mr. Chair, I have a couple comments to make. The first one though is we have a practice of introducing you to new staff and we do have two new staff with us today. Ted Alberon and Luke Cohen are our new members of the Boards and Commission's Unit. So those of you who are hanging on with us, you may find yourself working with either Luke or Ted or both. And we're very excited to have them. They are early in their careers, but have already accomplished quite a lot, both in terms of education and early employment. So thank you for joining us. Yes. Go ahead. I'll you for joining us. Yes. Go ahead. I'll leave. Okay. There you go. Yes. For a while, yes. It's a good, it's a good that you ask that question. And Carl, if I can just add that they'll be working under Kendra. Yes. You guys were reintroduced to her at the retreat. And she's back. She is heading the boards and commissions unit And I also want to thank Lianny who's been holding it all together partially under my purview but more recently under Kendra's and now Kendra has a full Complement of staff members. So we're really excited about it. All right. There's another thing that's happening this evening. And I have to confess that my heart is a bit full with the passage of two of our folks moving on to other projects. You too, Commissioner Lyle and Chair Mesa, you have been part of our work for more than a decade. And personally, it's meant a great deal to me, to have you alongside me as I've done my work, but I think that's true of all of the staff that have had the pleasure of working with you. And sort of thinking about tonight, of course, when there's a milestone like this, part of it is memories and going back through time. And I started looking through all dockets. And I found a particular docket of March 13th 2007 and it was remarkable for a couple of reasons. That night a new playing director was introduced to the city council. It was Farrell Hamer, somebody that you worked with early on on a number of important projects. But also that night Commissioner Masek at the time Nate Macyc had applied to be on the traffic and parking board and it was reported that while he did not successfully be named to that Councilman Smedberg mentioned for the record that he thought your experience was uniquely important and that we should hang on to your application. That same night, Commissioner Lyle, you were named to the Virginia Paving Community Liaison Committee, and that was a deal for both of you. A lodging point, certainly the city has remembered your applications and has counted on you and come back to you time after time through this period to ask for your expertise, your community knowledge, your technical knowledge and apply them to many different issues over the years. I wanted to say that both of you are really unequaled in your technical knowledge, but also your knowledge of Alexandria. What went right, what went wrong, how the city has grown, what the communities are concerned about. And all through that time, it's been your desire every single month to make sure that we are making a decision that's right for the city. I do have to commend you. 10, 11, however long years it's been for each of you. You have always come prepared. We have monthly meetings. They're big dockets. They used to be bigger. They used to have a lot more docket items, and I'll get you that in a second. But if only the thing that you contributed was that you came every month, having digested all of those cases, prepared to talk about them, ready to listen to the community, often many of them were often here to talk to you. That would be enough. That would be remarkable in and of itself. But you have actually done more than that, and I want to recognize two things. How I viewed that one is just how things have changed since the kinds of dockets that we would see. It's really through both of you being proactive, being bold, telling us staff, don't keep coming to us with a special use permit that for somebody to move their chair, their restaurant chair from indoors to outdoors. Like, why are you counting those chairs anyway? So you have been a guiding force for us, not just reacting to things that we told you, but saying to challenging us, to do better, do more, do things differently. And there are Commissioner Manor points out. He had to come here to get approval for some things that you restaurantors today do not have to come in. It's an important thing. Yes. Secondly, and I think even more importantly, is that what is possible in Alexandria is different than it was a decade ago. There were things we were afraid to bring forward, but there were things that we would have said there's no way. We can't get that approved. And the reason why that has changed so significantly since then is because month after month, case after case, you have laid the groundwork for us to think differently about how we do our processes. And so maybe that process and progress, excuse me, was incremental. But what we did together was say, we're going to try something. We documented why we thought it would work, you gave us permission to do it, and then people understood that well actually that sky did not fall, that you were right, and so they gave us a little more rope the next time. And over the time, that's what led us to being able to do something a little bit bigger like zoning for housing or even the fact that we did short-term rentals tonight and there were only three people in the audience to talk about it and they were people that were in favor. And so a lot of that has to be laid at the leadership that you showed and challenged us with. And so I just want to commend you very much for that. I also want to say that as a representative of the staff that worked with you all this time, it meant a great deal that you were so strongly supportive of staff. You know, it is challenging for us, challenging for staff. They come into this business because they wanted you good. They want to change the world. And if they were told months after months, no, no, we're not ready for that. It would make a big difference to them. And so thank you for that. We can't go over everything tonight. Nancy and I are working on setting up an event, a kind of party so we can celebrate a little bit more off campus. And so we will be connecting with you all to find a time for that to happen. And we're really looking forward to it. But we do have a little bit that we want to do today. And two things, I'm going to go off Mike until I find the other one. Oh, he's going gonna sing a song. Oh, he's gonna sing a song. Did you do a montage? Yeah, so maybe that's for the next thing. But no, we have a gift for you. And I want to just, the happen to be artwork by One of Our Own, Jeff Farner. And it is a drawing of the, I guess, clock tower at City Hall. And so this is something that we hope that as you look at it, you remember the great work that you did for us. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to any of your colleagues who wish to add something. You have a mic already. You can use that mic. I really want that wire. The reason I grab for the mic is because with the departure of these two agents, I'm the ancient. Then here longer than anybody else I think. So, Carl invited us to say a few remarks. And the way I work, I can't never do anything as careful and impromptu as you did. So I just wrote out a couple of things for the two of you. And I'm going to start with Mindy. This is my effort to be concise. Mindy, in my humble opinion you have been an invaluable part of this commission. You've always been a fierce protector of the city and especially the west end in your approach to matters we must side. You've never hesitated to speak your mind, whatever the matter, and regardless of how much support you get from the rest of us. Like tonight. It's usually a lot because your use and recommendations are always grounded in a great deal of what I would call the shoe leather side of the job. Getting out into the city to talk to the people affected by the latest project come along and making sure that their concerns and your informed insight on those concerns are reflected in our deliberations. That kind of hard work is also reflected in what I hear on the days of your interactions with city staff, not just planning and zoning staff, but also anyone else in other departments whose responsibilities might be impacted in the wake of any decision that we are about to make. So as I see it, I wanna add to invaluable a word that describes how much you will be missed. You're replaceable. And Nate, dear Nate, you've been our chair for almost the entire time I've been on the commission. But I did not take very long into your tenure as chair for me to appreciate how well you have led the commission from the very start. You have a way of conducting meetings that despite dissension among the speakers, sometimes lasting hours, is as smooth as a placid sea, just right for calming the waters. I especially appreciate how you generally hold your views on a matter, contested among the rest of us until everyone else. Speakers and commissioners have gotten their thoughts out of their system. And you thoughtfully and knowledgeably explain your point of view and why you do not agree with those holding a different take on the matter at issue. I sometimes did not agree with those hold with you but I cannot recall there ever being a situation where when there was disagreement I thought you're contrasting point of view to be unreasonable or not mindful of my own. And in every case, I am reminded by your expressed views of how thoughtfully and carefully you have considered every case, which also reflects the breadth and depth of your knowledge and experience in matters of city government as as Carl detailed. In other words, you're leaving big shoes to be filled. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Oh, Mr. Kennedy. I got the floor. So, so I'd like to do a lot of what I do, which is just concur with Commissioner Brown. That was really sort of, you know, yes, it's so thorough and so thoughtful and really perfect that I'd like to just second it. And I also can't do anything spontaneously, but I can only write one or two lines at a time. So Nate, I think I've always been impressed your sort of perception and the depth of your understanding of issues were like a really wide array of things in the city that was developed over so much time in so many roles and I'm thinking waterfront commission here basically. It's just hard to really quantify what a contribution that has made to the sort of quality of our deliberations and the substance of the way we've considered things. And I also wanted to make a point that as a guy who has very little situational awareness and has always run away from positions like chair, that I recognize that being chair really expands the role of commissioner has a ray of additional responsibilities to it and I really appreciate your willing as to have sort of been willing to serve so capably in that additional demanding role. And Mindy, I guess the first thing that came out of my pencil when I started to think about you is that I'm not sure I have ever worked with anyone who is more energetically dedicated to their community than you are. I literally don't think I've met anybody who is more dynamically engaged across a broader range in their community than you are. And the thing that I really like is that I always learn something from your approach and your perception. And I'm really glad to have had the opportunity for 10 years to collaborate with you on this commission. I'm not going to resay all the things that both Davin's Steven said. I'm going to say no one's pointed out how, you know, well, sort of, I actually wanna draw some similarities. So for me here, I feel like I've been, I've been held in supported by both of you in sometimes very similar ways, supported and encouraged from the beginning supported by both of you in sometimes very similar ways, supported and encouraged from the beginning of my time on the commission to in a sense of value of my role, a sense that I have something important to bring to the table, and a sense that we can work together collaboratively. And I think that that's something I've really appreciated, and I want to be Mike, but I want to also see, and this is super awkward, that we can work collaboratively as a commission without always agree, but understanding that we have a process where we can come to helpful advisory recommendations to our council. And so both of you have coached me on how to do that, how to work with each other, how to have just a phone call to understand where the other one's coming from because we can't necessarily get all that out on the day as but when we're in the middle of digesting our docket and maybe visiting a site, you've really provided that coaching and guidance on what you think is a constructive planning commission. And for that, I am incredibly thankful because I really feel like it's an inspiring vision for how the commission can work and how I hope it can continue to work even on after your departure. And I also, and I want to thank you for how that welcome has allowed me to go out in the community with you and you show me what you know and to have a coffee and you tell me with conviction that we hear up on the day is about the purpose of the process and how it serves the community because ultimately that's where we want to continue to instill trust in us and it's very apparent at every meeting and at every one of our deliberations that that's an underlying principle by which you guys are guided. So thank you both for your service and your time here and your inspiration. I'll give a little bit. My awareness of this organization goes back to 1997 as Carl alluded to. And there are times when I sit up here and think what the hell am I doing? organization goes back to 1997 as Carl alluded to. And there are times when I sit up here and think, what the hell am I doing up here with architects and land use attorneys? I'm a dumb restaurant guy, but I'm the only one of us who's ever been down in front and got a shot down. And that gives me a different perspective. And I can say that in all those years, a lot, the sea change in the way this organization works and what is, again, to Carl's point, what is allowed and what is even, doesn't need discussion anymore, is drastic. And I think it's really been a big benefit to the city. The progress or I think the numbers that visit Alexander is generating is a real testament to that. And I appreciate both of you, I mean, we go way back to Waterfront Commission. All I've learned from you. And I really appreciate that. And again, I think that your leadership, particularly you Nate, has been a big driver in these positive changes in the regulatory side of how the city functions. Thank you. Again, I'm going to echo as well. I'm not going to go repeating everything that everyone else has said. I'll just add on another layer to the cake here. But that on the zeve of your departure from the planning commission, I just wanted to express my sincere gratitude for both of your insight, your dedication to this city. I think that oftentimes people don't see necessarily the kind of thankless and countless hours that we put forth towards the betterment of our city and weighing and discussing and being able to see and share with the public a polite and collaborative discourse. You know, and many societies around the world, you can see that there is a breakdown of dialogue. And but here on the planning commission, I think that there is always this sense of mutual respect of each other's perspectives and an open-mindedness that allows us to then be able to take the city and progress it towards the future. It is not with closed minds that we can do that. We have to be able to see and accept each other's perspectives. And I would say that that was a perspective and that's something that you share from day one from very, very first conversations and meetings that I had with both of you. I got a sense of welcome, a collaborative perspective, a willingness to share. I think that as, you know, oftentimes can be quite rare, especially with folks who may be well entrenched within systems in their societies and feel that to a large degree with your time and dedication with the planning commission. You are well entrenched. So for that kind of progressive, forward looking, and collaborative perspective that you shared with me and with our planning commission. And of course with planning and zoning, I am eternally grateful. I wouldn't have been nice to have some of our national leadership with my case from our book. I don't know. So. Okay. Well, when you do have a cake that way, I would like to serve you a piece of it. And I'd like to go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, we do have a cake that we would like to serve you a piece Of and I'm sorry. I'm just responding. Sure. I'm just responding. Briefly. I don't know if you wanted to respond as well. I appreciate all your comments. It's been great to work with all of you. It's going to see the next meeting. My first meeting was March 4th, 2013. Your next meeting will be March 4th, 2025. That will be my first meeting without you. I happen to know that was our first meeting date. It happens to be my birthday. I guess that's my birthday present. I don't have to be here. So, but I can watch us online. Sure. You can come back. We'll give you three minutes. Well the cake is here tonight so I'll take it and go. But you know it's been great to work with all of you. And a lot of us go back to other endeavors. Mindy and Jody were on the Waterfront Commission together. And Mindy and I were on the Waterfront Plan work group together and worked through all of that. One of the things that, one of my regrets with the vagaries of our calendar and the docket is that we didn't get back to Robinson Terminal North before I left because that really would have been coming full circle, not only because of the waterfront involvement, prior to being on the planning commission, but also because our first meeting that I was on, we had the waterfront plan rezoning, re-adoption after the new council was seated and they wanted it to have the, you know, at least six votes and that all happened at that first meeting in mind in March of 2013. Very contentious public hearing, a lot of speakers here, a lot of people who, you know, had so many concerns about what we were going to do with the waterfront and how it would turn out and not wanting us to adopt that rezoning. And I think in hindsight, there's a lot of satisfaction with what has been accomplished here. And I'm reminded of one of my predecessors on the commission and as Chair John Kamarowski in the comment that you want to look back and I think it was Johnny said that you want to look back and you don't want a question you don't want somebody to say who's the dummy who approved that site or that that plan or whatever that would be the you know the the the mark of not having done a good job on things. And as I go around the city and I see things that we've approved over the years, it's kind of interesting to see it in real life. And I think that we worked through a lot of really contentious issues here. And I think for the most part, the worst case scenarios that we heard at hearing, you know, we were able to work on some of those issues and come up with better projects as a result. for the most part, the worst case scenarios that we heard at hearing, we were able to work on some of those issues and come up with better projects as a result. And I think things have generally turned out better than you might have left if you had just listened to the testimony some of those nights. So I think kind of gives us a lot of perspective on what we've done. And I'm really proud of the work that we've done as a commission and the work that city staff has done. I mean, they do the lion's share lifting on the things that we pick up, so I really appreciate that. And, you know, as I said, I'm continuing to be involved with the Registration Advisory Committee and aim to look for future opportunities to be involved in civic life in the city and look forward to crossing paths with all of you again in some form in the future. And you know, Nate and I started off to get, well, I started off years before trying to get landmark mall redeveloped. But Nate and I started working on the Waterfront Master Plan, and I think we both ended up here as a result of that, and the Waterfront Commission, and everything that ensued in the public discourse over that plan. And fortunately, we've never had another plan like that to come to public, to 12 hour public hearing. It was, as everyone looks at each other, but that was the case. And I'm really happy with the work we've done. I think our turning point with being able to get approvals to the administrative goal was Taco Bell Cantina. When we only had what four people show up to oppose it, I think that started to show us that we could do what four people show up to oppose it. I think that started to show us that we could do things a little faster and I think the administrative process that was set up works well. And I'm happy that staff has indulged me when I rewrite conditions, not only in advance, but on the fly. And anyway, I've enjoyed it, and I'm not sure what's next. Maybe I'll take a break to landmark is ready for a ribbon-turning. And there are 10 cases tonight that are on the administrative approvals that did not require a public hearing just as proof of the concept. Thank you all very much. I guess do we have any other business to transact? Actually, I can have it. Because this is my last meeting, I actually do have one other thing to share with all of you that's of note, which is that on Friday morning there was a group convened by Montgomery County planning board chair, Arty Harris, of other planning commission and board chairs from across the region. So I attended that meeting and you know noted that it would be my first and last time meeting with them but that I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet. So it was included Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Frederick County, Maryland, myself from Alexandria, and then the chair of the DC zoning board. So it's a group that's looking to meet on a quarterly basis, just to sort of, it's sort of as an educational resource between, if you're talking about the DC zoning commission, just to sort of, sort of as an educational resource between... If you're talking about the DC Zoning Commission, Gwen Wright has now been appointed by the mayor to that board. Oh, really? As a board member or as a staff? She's a member of the board. She's a member of the board. They make, they write the regulations for DC and they basically approve developments to those regulations. Well this was the chair of that board who was there so it was Jim said you was I was there for the hood I guess yeah yeah so anyway I I will provide information on the group to my successor and and have you know noted for Carl who's very familiar with Montgomery County as a former staffer there himself with some of their processes. But I think it's a good opportunity for us to just kind of trade information with other commissions and be aware of the issues and challenges that we're facing as leaders so good development that you should just all be aware of. All right. Any other comments, reports, questions? If not, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. OK, we get a motion by Ms. Laul, second by Ms. McMahon. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 7-0. So we are adjourned.